Digital SLR cameras . . .

Author	Post
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Aug 23 2007 : 1:57AM What a difference a year makes . . . Last year, Canon had nearly 50% of the DSLR market to Nikon's 35%. This year, in Japan, those numbers are reversed and Nikon has nearly tied Canon's DSLR sales world-wide. Some few months ago, Canon introduced their new workhorse professional DSLR body, the 1D Mk III (1.3x crop, $5K). It recently began shipping and, in spite of a few new model snags, it's an exceptional camera. Three days ago, Canon announced their new prosumer model, the 40D (1.6x crop, <$2K), and their new flagship model, the 1Ds Mk III (35mm full-frame, $8K). Canon have outdone themselves. If these DSLR bodies measure up to their specifications, they are indeed worthy of Canon's fine reputation. Then, today, the world shifted again: Nikon announced two new DSLR camera bodies -- the D300 and the D3. In almost every single specification, the D300 (1.5x crop, <$2K) and the D3 (35mm full-frame, $5K) better Canon's 40D and 1D Mk III bodies, Plus, the D3 is both a full-frame !!! and a 1.5x crop camera -- it adjusts automatically depending on the lens mounted or it can be set to DX format manually. While Nikon's new D3 can't quite match Canon's flagship's resolution, it trounces it in nearly every other respect, including being $3000 less expensive and doubling as a DX format camera at the flip of a switch while matching the speed (and price) of Canon's workhorse model. And the D300 nearly matches the D3, feature for feature, with the exception of full frame and speed. It can only muster 8 frames per second to the D3's 11. Competition is a wonderful thing. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
Joey Starr Senior Member Still wanking after all these years. 8082 Posts 10/00	Posted - Aug 23 2007 : 5:12AM Thanks for the info GaySatyr, I have been thinking of replacing my Nikon D1X for a while and almost bought a D200 but then other priorities got in the way budgetwise, that D3 would be most tempting, especially as I have older Nikkor AIS non AF lenses (I presume the D3 is compatible?). Edited by - joey starr on 8/23/2007 5:12:31 AM [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Aug 23 2007 : 5:17AM Yes, the D3 (full-frame & DX mode, $5,000) works with almost every lens Nikon has ever made -- so does the D300 (DX mode only, $1,800). ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Aug 24 2007 : 5:23PM Listed in MSRP order . . . 35mm full-frame DSLR --- --- --- --- --- 11) Canon 1Ds Mk III, $8000 12) Nikon D3, $5000 (also includes "cropped" mode) 13) Canon 5D, $3300 35mm "cropped" DSLR --- --- --- --- --- 21) Canon 1D Mk III, $4000 22) Nikon D300, $1800 23) Canon 40D, $1300 23) Nikon D80, $1000 ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
Bandit One Deactivated User No Place That Far 612 Posts 9/02	Posted - Aug 26 2007 : 11:14PM My first- I'm in over my head. I've got quite a bit of learning to do. [Link]

RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 27 2007 : 12:49PM If you know how to use a manual film-based SLR, the jump to digital shouldn't be too bad, assuming the interface is relatively straightforward. [Link]
McX Maxstretch.com 135 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 6:01PM I shoot with a Nikon D200 and have been very happy with the results. However, I have been thinking of upgrading. I just don't know if I should go to a D3, D300 or try and pick up a D2Xs on the cheap. Peace out... McX [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 7:53PM McX wrote: ... I just don't know if I should go to a D3, D300 or try and pick up a D2Xs on the cheap. Click to expand You might base the choice on what you shoot and what lenses you currently own. Digital is unforgiving of lens quality because of the structure of the sensor. Wide-angle lenses, especially, are a problem; thus, there is a good reason that the two new zooms, the 14-24 and the 24-70, were introduced in conjunction with the D3. As best I can determine, based on chatting with several of the few people who have actually handled the new Nikon bodies, the D300's noise floor has been lowered by about 1-1/3rd stops (that in addition to the rise in the base ISO to 200). The same applies to the D3 except that it has an additional advantage of larger well size. This beats Canon's best noise performance by about 1/2 stop. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 9:45PM GaySatyr wrote: Digital is unforgiving of lens quality because of the structure of the sensor. Wide-angle lenses, especially, are a problem; thus, there is a good reason that the two new zooms, the 14-24 and the 24-70, were introduced in conjunction with the D3. Click to expand This is an interesting comment. Can you elaborate? I have indeed noticed that many digital photographs that were shot with wide lenses look just awful. I can't quite put my finger on it. Most of the pictures I've seen were porn and the people don't even look human. Some weird, really shitty distortion. Is it because they kept using lenses designed for 35mm when they switched to digital cameras or what? I've looked for info on this on Google but I always just get a bunch of unrelated stuff. Edited by - randomprecision on 9/15/2007 9:46:11 PM [Link]
McX Maxstretch.com 135 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 15 2007 : 10:51PM GS, Thanks for the input. Good stuff. Decided to be patient. I love my D200. I'll try renting the D300 and D3 before actually purchasing. Peace out... McX [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 16 2007 : 6:36AM A lesson in digital optics, specifically involving wide-angle lenses (although the same principles apply to all lenses). But, first, it is important to understand some differences between film and a digital sensor. Canon's 1.3x crop bodies are essentially APS-H sized sensors; Nikon's 1.5x crop and Canon's 1.6x crop bodies are essentially APS-C sized sensors. (1) Think of film as a flat-surface pancake and a digital sensor as a pitted-surface waffle. (2) Film is light-sensitive over its entire surface; a digital sensor is light-sensitive only at the bottom of each waffle pit (the sensor's wells). (3) Film is color-receptive equally over its entire surface; a digital sensor is monochrome only -- made color-sensitive in alternate red/green and blue/green spots in alternate rows (the Bayer pattern). (4) Film sensitivity is limited by its grain structure and chemistry; a digital sensor's sensitivity is limited by its well-area, well-density & electrical noise floor. (5) Film resolution is largely limited by its grain-structure and chemistry; digital sensor resolution is limited by the quantity and density of its waffle pits (pixel wells). (6) All things being equal (they never are), the image quality of a typical APS-C (1.5-1.6x crop), or larger, digital sensor at 6 mega-pixels is essentially the same as that of typical 35mm film for print sizes up to about 7 by 10.5 inches. More specifically, you can get a top-quality print image at 288 pixels per inch and a good image at 180 pixels per inch (giving you an 11 by 16.5 inch print). -- 6MP = 2000 x 3000 pixels = 2000/288 x 3000/288 = 7 x 10.5 inches, excellent quality -- 6MP = 2000 x 3000 pixels = 2000/180 x 3000/180 = 11 x 16.5 inches, good quality (288 and 180 are "magic" numbers because of digital printer designs having to do with printer resolution and ink bleed) -- 8MP = 2310 x 3465 pixels = 8 x 12, excellent quality -- 8MP = 2310 x 3465 pixels = 12.75 x 19.25, good quality -- 10MP = 2582 x 3873 pixels = 9 x 13.5, excellent quality -- 10MP = 2582 x 3873 pixels = 14.33 x 21.5, good quality -- 12MP = 2830 x 4245 pixels = 9.75 x 14.75, excellent quality -- 12MP = 2830 x 4245 pixels = 15.75 x 23.5, good quality (7) More pixels at the same sensor size allow for larger prints or additional cropping -- NOT higher image quality. All things being equal (remember, they never are), image quality actually decreases as sensor well size decreases and pixel count increases. (8) In order to combat the loss of image quality associated with ever-decreasing well size (a result of the race for more and more mega-pixels for a given sensor size), one must increase the efficiency of the light path (micro-lenses, filtration, and well-cross-section to over-all sensor size ratio) and decrease the electrical noise floor. However, there are other considerations, too; so, now, let's look at lens/film and lens/sensor interactions. (9) With film, the diffraction limit is determined by lens design and aperture (varies with lens, typically about 1.5 to 2 stops open from minimum aperture); with a digital sensor the diffraction limit is determined by well cross-section & density and well-depth & micro-lens coverage (on an APS-C sized sensor, f/16 for 6MP, f/13 for 10MP and f/11 for 12MP). (10) With film, a lens is focused on the film's surface in order to make an image; with a digital sensor, the image must be re-focused by the micro-lenses on the bottom of the sensor wells after passing through both a Bayer filter (to extract color information) and an anti-aliasing filter (to combat the "jaggies" associated with diagonal lines reproduced using a rectangular grid). (11) For an acceptable image, the angle of acceptance for light striking film's surface is about 20 degrees whereas the angle of acceptance with a digital sensor is about 75 degrees (near perpendicular to the sensor surface). Much of the light striking a digital sensor surface at a shallower angle is lost and does not contribute to the image (but does contribute to flare - not a good thing). NOTE: (I need to stop for now, but I will continue this discussion in the next day or so. I'll be talking about an "ideal" lens, telephoto versus wide-angle lenses, symmetrical versus retro-focus (or telecentric) lens designs plus spherical & chromatic aberrations and focus plane shift [aka front and/or back focus].) ~ GaySatyr (ABB) Edited by - GaySatyr on 9/16/2007 7:02:44 AM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Sep 16 2007 : 5:25PM GS - Very interesting stuff. Probably take me the rest of my life to comprehend some of it but please do keep going when you have the time. [Link]
jayo All-Star Member 2117 Posts 7/04	Posted - Sep 16 2007 : 5:39PM Very interesting. I've got an investment in Canon FD mount equipment, but non in EOS or any autofocus mount. So now I'm looking at DSLRs and I can start fresh with a new system. The good part is I'm not already bound to anything; the bad news is that all my existing stuff can't be used, which is irritating as hell. I'll probably get a 40D, but I keep going back and forth. [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 16 2007 : 7:24PM A quick aside . . . I've shot both Canon and Nikon for nearly 40 years now. I've watched both companies evolve manual to metered to auto-exposure to auto-focus to digital. If I were choosing today to buy into a new system with no legacy inventory, and I were interested in either company's pro equipment (Canon's 1D and 1Ds bodies and Nikon's D2 and D3 bodies), I'd be hard pressed to choose which is really better. Both offer great equipment, bodies and lenses (although Nikon's strobe system has everyone else beat by a mile). But among their consumer and semi-pro equipment, my personal opinion is that Nikon has Canon beat: the D200 and D300 easily outperform the 30D and 40D models at prices that are close enough for it to not be a significant difference. And if you depend on strobe, it's no contest. JMHO . . . . I'll pick up on my tech/geek treatise later tonight. If you have questions about anything I've posted or need clarification of some points, please ask. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 17 2007 : 9:25AM Continuation of my camera geek/tech treatise . . . This is a study in focal length and its effect on the angle of the light at the edge of the film or sensor in the camera. For it, we need 4 examples . . . . I'm hoping you've heard of something called a pin-hole camera. Briefly, it is a box with photographic material on one surface of its inside and a piece of aluminum foil in which a tiny, round hole has been pricked with a sewing needle mounted at the center of the opposite side. To make an image, you load the camera with a piece of photographic material while in a dark room and cover the pin-hole; got to where you want to make the image; uncover the pin-hole; wait about two minutes; recover it; and then go develop your image. It's an interesting experiment and can produce some quite interesting images. Example #1: We're goint to put an imaginary pin-hole lens on our two cameras -- the film SLR and the digital SLR -- and do some ray-tracing. If I want to make a picture of a 2-meter (~6 feet) tall object that is 10 meters (~33 feet) the camera and I want the image to be 2.5 centimeters (~1 inch) tall on the film or digital sensor, then my pin-hole lens needs to be 125 millimeters (~5 inches)from the film or sensor. This 125mm is the effective focal length of my pin-hole lens. Now, draw an imaginary line from the middle of the object to the middle of the image right through that pin-hole and draw a second imaginary line from the top of the object to the bottom of the image, again, right through that pin-hole (images are always upside-down in the camera). What we are interested in is the angle that the line from the top of object to the bottom of the image makes with the surface of the film or digital sensor. In the case of our example, it is a tiny bit over 82 degrees Example #2: Instead of the object being 10 meters (~33 feet) way, it is only 4 meters (~12 feet) away. Making the ray diagram again, we find two things: (1) the the pin-hole has to be 50mm from the sensor (my new focal length), and, (2) that the angle subtended by the line from the top of the object through our pin-hole to the bottom of the image with the film or sensor surface is now about 76 degrees. Example #3: We change the focused distance to 2 meters (~6 feet), make the ray diagram, and we find that the focal length is now 25mm (~1 inch) and the angle of the ray at the edge of the film or sensor is about 63.5 degrees. Example #4: We change the focused distance to 1 meter (~3 feet), make the ray diagram, and we find that the focal length is now 12.5mm (~0.5 inches) and the angle of the ray at the edge of the film or sensor is about 45 degrees. But we've got two problems. Our lens is now well INSIDE the camera body -- not very practical -- and, worse, it is a pin-hole which requires very long exposures and we must focus using a tape measure and calculator -- even less practical. So, we cut the bottoms out of a couple of coke bottles and construct a simple lens that allows us to replace the pin-hole. This works pretty well for the telephoto lens (Example #1). The normal lens (Example #2) is pretty easy, too -- a few lens elements in a nice symetrical design gives excellent optical results. But the wide-angle lenses, Examples 3 and 4, are much more difficult. We need a light-gathering section of the lens well forward of the focal point and we need a light-distribution section that can reside very nearly inside the camera without getting in the way of the mirror that allows us to view and focus. Symmetry is out the window. Suddenly, the optical formulae are convoluted and complex. Also, remember those angles at the edge of the film or sensor? With film, it wasn't much of a problem; but with a digital sensor, as that angle gets shallower and shallower, not much of the light can find its way to the bottom of those tiny little wells -- it keeps hitting their sides instead. The solution to this final problem turns out to be another telephoto lens -- essentially a third lens section that takes the output of the light-distribution segment of our wide-angle lens design and relays it to the sensor head-on instead of at such a shallow angle at the edges. Needless to say, all this manipulation results in lenses that are extrodinarily complex and correspondingly expensive. Nikon had the foresight to begin this re-design process for wide-angle lenses back in the late '80's and early '90's, resulting in their 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S lens being the very first "tele-centric retro-focus" wide-angle zoom ever marketed. Zeiss had already laid the groundwork with its Distagon series wide-angle lenses designed for medium format cameras like the Hasselblad and Rollei 6x6cm cameras. Zeiss continued these designs for the 35mm Contax cameras. And Zeiss and Nikon had a working relationship from back in Nikon's beginnings. Canon's wide-angle lenses were a more traditional two-section design, lacking the telephoto relay section at their rear. And that is why so many well-heeled Canon digital shooters buy converter shims to use old Contax/Zeiss and Nikkor wide-angle lenses and zooms on their Canon 5D, 1D and 1Ds bodies. However, Canon is rapidly catching up. All of its new wide-angle primes and zooms designed since the mid-'90's are retro-focus designs. NOTE: (Again, I need to stop for a while. I'll cover lens aberrations and focus shift in the next segment. Plus, I'll try to answer any questions anyone chooses to post.) ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]

wolfie74 Member 6 Posts 1/07	Posted - Sep 21 2007 : 12:59AM GaySatyr, Thanks for all the detailed information! Your posts are a great aid in understanding the details of digital photography. I've used both Canon and Nikon film cameras in the past but have only Canon (film + digital) these days. Still, if money wasn't an option I'd love to pick up a Nikon digital to play around with. [Link]
jayo All-Star Member 2117 Posts 7/04	Posted - Sep 22 2007 : 1:54PM Here's a followup question. In the age of Digital, I know jack anymore. Most of what I know is obsolete. One of the old maxims used to be "buy a decent camera, but buy the best optics you can afford to put on it, because the lens will a larger impact that anything the camera can do." That made sense when the camera was mainly a light-tight box and all it really had to do was keep the film unfogged and run the shutter. With digitals, there's so much processing in how the image is captured and stored, that it could be far more important than the lens. I'm asking this because I'm debating in my mind whether I'm better off buying a low-end DSLR body (I'll use Canon because I know the models) like a Canon Rebel XT or a 20D, and the best lenses I can afford, or whether I'd be better off buying a 40D, which has much better camera capability, and an "okay" lens. Or would the difference in the camera-body capability be negligible? [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 23 2007 : 9:43AM The answer is not quite as simple as it once was, jayo; but it is getting easier. Break down the functions of a digital camera into two major categories and you will find the answer to your question. (BTW: The Canon D60/10D, 20D/30D and 40D are three generations of what is essentially the same camera body, each with improvements in the sensor and processing engine. (The 10D and 30D were more a re-tooling of their D60 and 20D predecessors than a generational improvement.) There are other differences, as well, but those are "feature" changes -- not changes in the underlying "digital film") It used to be that a camera was a box which held film and allowed the attachment of optics (lenses). Now, with DSLRs, it is BOTH film (the digital sensor & processing engine) and a box for the attachment of optics. As a "box" it is no more important than it ever was -- the feature set changes with the model and increases as the price goes up -- faster speeds and more extensive (and exotic) controls. In terms of digital film, Nikon caught Canon with its pants down with the original D1. Canon spent beaucoup bucks playing catch up; and, has managed to stay about half a step ahead of Nikon ever since -- until now. 35 full-frame versus APS-H and APS-C formats: -- full-frame = 24 x 36 mm -- APS-H (Canon 1.3x) = 18.7 x 28.7 mm -- APS-C (Nikon 'DX' 1.5x) = 15.8 x 23.6 mm -- APS-C (Canon 1.6x) = 14.8 x 22.2 mm Canon went full-frame early for those who needed it -- a perceived advantage over Nikon (however, if you look at Canon's FF sales figures, Nikon may have been smart to wait that battle out). In terms of resolution, digital beat out film somewhere between 8 and 10 mega-pixels (if you are only interested in prints 8x12 inches or smaller, then 6 mega-pixels will do). More mega-pixels are just gravy, allowing somewhat larger prints (see printing resolutions in my post, above) or, more importantly, greater cropping options. Where the cameras differ most is in their sensors and processing engines. Here, the differences DO affect image quality greatly. Each generation from each of the manufacturers has shown significant improvement. Here are the factors: (1) Dynamic range -- a measure of the difference between the brightest (pure white) and darkest (pure black) areas of a scene accurately recorded by the sensor. With the exception of Fuji's unusual dual-mode sensor, all current DSLRs are about the same at about 7-1/2 stops. Fuji manages about 9 stops with their unusual pseudo-12-mega-pixels sensor (it's really a dual-mode 6MP sensor in terms of effective image resolution). However, the best printers only manage about 6 stops; so, for all practical purposes, all DSLRs are better than any print capabilities. (2A) Base ISO sensitivity -- the ISO value at which the sensor give maximum image signal quality (typically in the ISO 50 to ISO 200 range). This figure determines how much light is needed to get the very best image -- the higher the number, the less light needed; however, the lower the number, the greater the flexibility one has over light control (aperture versus shutter speed). (2B) Maximum ISO sensitivity -- the highest ISO value at which the sensor can meet ISO standards for image signal quality. Here, the higher the number, the less light needed for an acceptable image. Unfortunately, noise rears its ugly head and is a trade-off -- less light, more noise; more light, less noise. (2C) Extended sensitivity -- these are sensor sensitivity settings at which the sensor is capable of producing an acceptable image but were some aspect of the sensor signal does not meet ISO standards for that ISO setting. Typically, these allow you to use lower ISO settings (below the base ISO sensitivity) for better light control (aperture versus shutter speed) and very high ISO settings (above maximum ISO sensitivity) allowing you to make images in very low available light conditions (at the expense of increased noise levels). Nikon on all their DSLR bodies and Canon on their pro & semi-pro DSLR bodies follow the ISO guidelines rigidly. Canon is a bit lax as to ISO standards with their amateur DSLR bodies. And I seriously doubt that any of the P&S digital cameras meet ISO standards for light sensitivity. (3) Image noise -- unlike Gaul, all noise is divided into four parts: base electrical noise, luminance noise, chroma noise and amplifier noise. In some ways, they are like film grain; however, the analogy only partially holds water. (3A) Base electrical noise is the random garbage generated by the sensor (and associated circuitry) which is, hopefully, well below the image signal level. It's kind of like residual tape hiss (anyone remember that?). The lower the light (the slower the recording speed) the higher the electrical noise is as a proportion to the total signal; the smaller the sensor well (the narrower the tape format, e.g., cassette as opposed to open reel), the higher the electrical noise is as a proportion to the total signal level. There are ways to suppress residual electrical noise; however, the best way is to build a better sensor in the first place. Up until the current generation, Canon has been ahead of Nikon by about 1/2-stop in terms of residual electrical noise levels and its suppression. With the D3/D300, Nikon has bettered Canon by about 2/3rds stop. (3B) Luminance noise is an irregularity in the brightness signal of an image and makes it look grainy; however, it is probably the least objectionable of the noise types in that it somewhat mimics the grain in high-speed black & white film. Still, it obstructs brightness and contrast. Its removal softens an image, and, if not done very carefully, adds a plastic or waxy veil to the image: the so-called digital look. Canon's sensors have in the past produced about 1/3rd stop less luminance noise than those from Nikon; however, Canon's luminance noise suppression is greater than Nikon's, giving Canon a 2/3rds stop advantage. Nikon's new sensor technology has reduced luminance noise by about 1 stop, leapfrogging Canon in this respect. (3C) Chroma noise is random irregularity in color, particularly red and blue as compared to green. While it contributes to false color, so does its removal. For example, in a uniformly colored area -- the sky, a wall, a wedding dress -- it might be obvious; however, in an image segment portraying an Oriental rug, determining which pixels are off and by how much is problematic. Canon's and Nikon's sensors have been about equal in this respect with a marginal nod to Canon. Nikon's new sensor design incorporated in the D3 and D300 appears to be nearly 1/2 stop better than Canon's newest sensors in their 1D III, 1Ds III and 40D. (3D) Amplifier noise is an irregularity in boosting signal level from the sensor when the signal is less than ideal, e.g., in low light conditions. It tends to show up in shadow detail. Removing it obscures shadow detail. Canon has had a marginal lead over Nikon in terms of amp noise suppression. Nikon's newest sensor design appears to have turned the tables, giving Nikon a 1/2-stop advantage. All these noise contributions and suppression techniques are cumulative but don't add together on a 1-to-1 basis. Effectively, in generation 2 of Nikon's (D2 series, D200 & D40/D50/D70/D80) and Canon's (1D II, 1Ds II, 5D, 20D/30D & Rebel XT) DSLR competition, Canon was ahead by about 1-2/3rds stops at higher ISO settings (only about 1/2 stop at base ISO settings). With the current generations of bodies, Canon's 1D III, 1Ds III & 40D and Nikon's D3 & D300, the lead has been nearly exactly reversed. Nikon's new sensor design is a breakthrough, not a minor improvement. Of course, this is a good thing for Canon, too; as Canon had been pretty much sitting on its hands in terms of noise sensor reduction techniques. Nikon's new designs will force Canon back to the drawing board and all photographers will benefit from the healthy competition. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) Edited by - GaySatyr on 9/23/2007 9:48:35 AM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Sep 23 2007 : 11:44AM GS - Your knowledge is very impressive! Do you design cameras or something? [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 23 2007 : 11:56AM No, I'm both a photographer and a computer geek since the mid-'60's. My first camera was a Yashica Lynx 14 (my first SLR was a Nikkormat FTn in 1968) and my first computer, an IBM 1130 (belonged to the local bank). ~ GaySatyr (ABB) Edited by - GaySatyr on 9/23/2007 12:03:10 PM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Sep 23 2007 : 12:11PM Wouldn't mind seeing some of your photography if you have some in a gallery or something. [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 23 2007 : 2:03PM I'm sorry, but I have nothing online. Almost all my photography has been under contract; so the images (& negatives) actually belong to my clients (in most cases, embassies in the DC area). I bought a D200 May, a year ago, and have been shooting digital, for the most part, since then. I suppose I should put together an online gallery of some sort; but I just haven't gotten around to it. Up until very recently, I've been fighting other battles and just haven't had the time -- even to go about the business of making a living. Things still aren't back to normal. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Sep 23 2007 : 2:46PM That's cool. It can be a pain in the ass to get and keep space to have images hosted. If you ever do, though, feel free to post a link. Pictures are always cool. Especially those from someone who really knows their craft. [Link]
jayo All-Star Member 2117 Posts 7/04	Posted - Sep 23 2007 : 6:11PM Thank you for the post. Intersting stuff. Some of it I already knew, but a lot of that was new to me. I'm still in a quandry though (and I know it's not something I can be "told"), which is whether I should start with an entry level body and great glass, or a better body and "okay" glass. Since my budget for this (the highest I can mentally tolerate) is around $1,500, that kind of trade-off is very important. I can afford a low-end (Canon 20D, XT or even XTi, or Nikon equivalent, or even a Pentax or Olympus or a Sony) and a very good lens, or I can get a better body (like the 40D) and a "so-so" lens. I should probably find a place that rents them, try one for the weekend, and see whether I like it. That would (ultimately) be the smart thing to do. [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 23 2007 : 6:42PM jayo wrote: . . . Since my budget for this (the highest I can mentally tolerate) is around $1,500, that kind of trade-off is very important. I can afford a low-end (Canon 20D, XT or even XTi, or Nikon equivalent, or even a Pentax or Olympus or a Sony) and a very good lens, or I can get a better body (like the 40D) and a "so-so" lens. Click to expand Just so you know, the 20D has been discontinued for some time now; it was replaced by the 30D. And, although no announcement has been made, it is quite likely that the 30D is no longer in production. Its official discontinuance is probably dependent on the quantity of product currently in Canon's distribution channels. The 40D is the 30D replacement. I should probably find a place that rents them, try one for the weekend, and see whether I like it. That would (ultimately) be the smart thing to do. Click to expand Yes, very much so. Given your budget, were it me, I'd be tempted to choose between Canon's Rebel XTi and Nikon's D4 hex and spend the extra money on quality optics. Given the extent of Nikon's improvement in sensor technology utilized in the D3/D300 bodies, I really can't see spending money on intermediate bodies until that technology is duplicated (or exceeded) by Canon and filters down in both companies' lower-priced models. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) P.S., I bought the Nikon D4 hex and their exceptional, all-in-one 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S VR Nikkor DX lens (See: here, here and here). Edited by - GaySatyr on 9/23/2007 6:59:39 PM [Link]

GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 24 2007 : 12:53AM Another aspect of choosing a DSLR body has to do with how you plan to get the image out of the camera. All DSLR cameras shoot in what's known as RAW format, i.e., the raw analog data produced by the sensor is fed through an op/amp to an AD converter and then either stored on a media card of some variety (most often, CF cards or SD cards) or fed to a proprietary ASIC which converts the raw data to a JPEG file which is then stored on the digital media card. A very few camera settings affect the raw data; however, many settings affect the internal JPEG conversion. Moreover, JPEG conversion differs from model to model as manufacturers improve their conversion engines. If you want to do any post-processing, you are better off shooting and storing your images in their native raw format. If you want to go from camera to print as quickly and easily as possible with little manipulation, then you are going to want to shoot sRGB mode and store the files already converted into JPEG format. Either way, the better you match the camera to the shooting conditions, the better your resulting image will be. You need to get white balance and exposure nailed. White balance has to do with the color quality of light -- its warmth of coolness. It is measured in degrees Kelvin -- a scale derived from the color of the glow emitted by a tungsten filament when heated to the corresponding temperature. -- a typical 100 watt incandescent light bulb is about 2700 Kelvin. -- average, bright, midday sunlight is about 5500 Kelvin. -- a typical, unfiltered, electronic strobe is about 6000 Kelvin. -- the light in open shade, away from direct sunlight, provided by an open expanse of blue sky on a sunny day is about 11,000 Kelvin. All DSLR bodies have an AUTO white balance setting that works pretty well -- good enough for all practical purposes -- EXCEPT for two situations: (1) Sunsets, incandescent lights and candle light -- you are better of setting the white balance manually for these situations; and, (2) Florescent lighting, which often fools the hell out of white balance sensors -- here you are better off experimenting and setting a custom white balance as needed for the location. Having the white balance set properly in camera is important BECAUSE it affects how the image is metered and, if you are using the internal JPEG converter, how the final image is balanced. Getting the exposure nailed is important because digital, unlike color negative film with which most casual and hobbyist shooters are familiar, is unforgiving. Digital is more like shooting color slide film where proper exposure is much more critical. The slightest over exposure means that image highlights are blown forever. And anything that aids in getting the exposure correct (meaning white balance) means that you protect those highlights. If you do want to play in the digital darkroom, you will usually be shooting in raw format so that you can work with unprocessed data on your computer. You'll need special software to work with the raw files. Nikon and Canon both have the software you need; and, in fact, their proprietary raw converters are probably the best on the market -- no one is likely to understand their own file structures as the camera manufacturers, themselves. Unfortunately, software is neither Nikon's nor Canon's forte. While their resulting image quality is extremely high, their interfaces are kludged and their operation quirky and somewhat slow compared to the competiton. The industry standards are the Adobe programs: PhotoShop and LightRoom (along with ACR). However, there are other options, too, incluing Capture One and the excellent (and very inexpensive) Bibble. (While Adobe Elements is an option, too, you are far better off buying Bibble for the same amount of money. It really is excellent competition for the full-blown Adobe applications.) The two best noise reduction software applications are Noise Ninja and Neat Image. BTW: Most DSLR cameras allow you to shoot in a combined raw + JPEG mode giving the the best of both worlds in terms of output -- you can manipulate to your heart's desire or you can go straight to print -- at the expense of needing larger media cards (and filling them all that much faster) and in slowing the camera down a bit, both while it processes the JPEG images and while it writes the extra data to the media cards. This is how I normally shoot; as speed is seldom that important to me. More techno-babble later . . . . ~ GaySatyr (ABB) Edited by - GaySatyr on 9/24/2007 4:10:11 AM [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Sep 24 2007 : 1:02AM I didn't know the white balance was so important for the highlights. I have noticed digital's tendency to blow out the highlights, though. And it's maddening with a cheap camera because there's not much of a way to prevent it and now way to fix it after the fact. My Olympus has several white balance presets but no manual white balance. How stupid is that? [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 24 2007 : 4:04AM Remember that there are essentially three independent channels with a DSLR: one each red, green and blue. If white balance is off, their balance is off and it's very easy for the metering system to to mis-read the overall level. And, in order to get the best dynamic range and shadow detail with the least noise, you need as much exposure as possible WITHOUT blowing the highlights. All DSLRs have a histogram feature. Some of them offer histograms for the individual color channels, as well. Learn how to "read" a histogram and use it to improve your exposures and technique. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 25 2007 : 12:42AM Back to lenses . . . Remember from an earlier post in this thread, that the angle of the light striking the surface of the sensor pack (sensor pack = IR/UV hot mirror filter, Bayer pattern filter, anti-aliasing filter, micro lenses & the sensor, itself) needs to be reasonably perpendicular to the sensor's surface. Also note that the sensor pack, which includes a compound lens, is significantly thicker than the emulsion layers of color slide film. An aside: I don't think I've mentioned IR/UV hot mirror filters before. Digital sensors tend to be overly sensitive to IR/UV light; so, special filters that pass normally visible light are usually incorporated in the sensor pack design to combat the problem. Leica screwed this up in their very expensive M8 digital rangefinder body causing lots of problems for their loyal customers. There are two common lens aberrations that, if you are shooting film, you haven't heard much of in quite a few years. That's because they were virtually eliminated in the context of film-based, high-quality optical systems. They are (1) lateral chromatic aberration; and, (2) spherical aberration. Some background: When I first spoke of lenses in an earlier post in this thread, I used a pinhole as an example. However, in the real world, lenses have a much greater diameter (to allow in more light) and thickness. Plus lenses are usually made of a number of glass (& plastic) elements arranged singly and/or in groups of several elements cemented together. Their surfaces can be concave or convex. And those surface curves can be spherical (a simple curve based on a single radius) or aspherical (a compound, complex or compound/complex curve based on an elliptically or hyperbolically curved surface). To make things even more complicated, even a single lens element behaves differently at its center and at its edges (and infinitely in between). You also know that lenses have aperture settings where smaller numbers (e.g., f/1.4, f/2, f.2,8) mean that the lens is wide open (or nearly so) and lets in large amounts of light and larger numbers (e.g., f/11, f/16, f/22) mean that the lens is stopped down and lets in much less light. This is a sort of fire hose / garden hose effect: given equal pressure, you can put out a fire much more easily with a fire house (large diameter, more water per unit time) than a garden hose (small diameter, less water per unit time). This hose analogy is useful for lenses, too. So, for the purposes of this discussion, I want to think of a lens as a number of optical elements mounted singly and in groups within a series of concentric tubes, each tube representing one of the marked aperture settings (e.g., f/1.4, f/2, f/2.8, f/4, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22) for the lens. NOTE: I've been interrupted and need to go. I will come back to this post, editing out this note, and finishing this segment of my discussion later. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Sep 25 2007 : 1:22AM GaySatyr wrote: Remember that there are essentially three independent channels with a DSLR: one each red, green and blue. If white balance is off, their balance is off and it's very easy for the metering system to to mis-read the overall level. And, in order to get the best dynamic range and shadow detail with the least noise, you need as much exposure as possible WITHOUT blowing the highlights. Click to expand That explains a lot about why I've never been able to get the results I'd like with my Olympus C 3000. Unfortunately (if you know this camera), I'm pretty sure there's not much I can do about it. I've gotten good results at times but it's hit or miss because it's essentially a P&S camera with some extra flexibility. All DSLRs have a histogram feature. Some of them offer histograms for the individual color channels, as well. Learn how to "read" a histogram and use it to improve your exposures and technique. Click to expand Unfortunately, due to financial constraints, I'm stuck with my P&S for now. Good info to know for the future though. [Link]
McX Maxstretch.com 135 Posts 1/05	Posted - Sep 27 2007 : 7:04AM GaySatyr wrote: I bought a D200 May, a year ago, and have been shooting digital, for the most part, since then. (ABB) Click to expand GS, Do you plan to upgrade to the D300 or D3?? Peace out... McX [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Sep 27 2007 : 1:05PM McX wrote: Do you plan to upgrade to the D300 or D3?? Click to expand Yes, I will be buying a D300 body, but probably not until next spring. I'm saving my pennies. I'd buy the D3 in a heartbeat if I could afford it. Unfortunately, $5000 is a bit out of my price range. The D3 has a 3-1/3rd stop improvement in its noise floor over my current D200. The D300, because of its smaller photo-sites (same number of pixels on a smaller sensor) has only a 2-1/3rd stop improvement. That means that I could shoot at ISO 4000 with the D3 and ISO 2000 with the D300 and get the same image quality I now get with my D200 at ISO 400. That is an amazing accomplishment. However, I don't plan to sell my D200. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
morbidthoughts All-Star Member Big cats scare me but... 3627 Posts 1/03	Posted - Oct 25 2007 : 7:00PM With some help from Steph and Drew, I decided to get the latest iteration of the RC Cola of DSLRs: a [ invalid url ]. It has a variation of the sensor found in the D300. The main advantages of the Sony to my current camera, a Minolta 7D, is a faster autofocus, more consistent/accurate exposure system, higher flash sync, and less noise at higher ISOs. Whether that translates to better pictures is debatable. Marketing hype: Manufacturer Description A unique combination of superb picture quality, quick response, creative shooting and sensational viewing make the Sony Alpha 700 DSLR a superior value for serious photo enthusiasts. Its newly designed Exmor CMOS image sensor captures 12.24-megapixel resolution with on-chip noise-canceling before and after A/D conversion. Advanced performance features include continuous shooting at 5 frames per second, an 11-point center dual cross AF system with f2.8 sensor for enhanced precision, and the Super SteadyShot in-camera image stabilization system that works to minimize blur with every lens you use. For sensational viewing, there’s a photo-quality 3.0-inch LCD screen and direct HDMI output to Sony Bravia HDTV and other compatible HDTV screens -- and Sony puts all this together in a rugged magnesium-alloy body. Alpha A700 Highlights 12.24-megapixel Exmor imaging sensor A newly designed APS-C size CMOS imager with on-chip noise-canceling before and after A/D conversion provides over 12 million pixels, drawing out the full image description power of the Alpha 700’s high-performance lenses and providing spectacular detail for making big prints. Advanced on-sensor A/D conversion yields rich tonal reproduction with high signal-to-noise ratio. Professional lenses and accessories The Alpha 700 accepts a superb array of precision optics, including new Sony wide-aperture zoom lenses that perform brilliantly over a broad range of focal lengths, Sony "G" Series lenses with advanced motorized autofocusing, amazingly bright Carl Zeiss T* coated lenses, and over 16 million Minolta a-mount lenses sold worldwide -- plus professional-quality flash units and system accessories to expand your creative horizons. Super SteadyShot Image Stabilization Built-in technology moves the image sensor in response to camera shake, enabling every lens to benefit from automatic blur reduction -- and provides an advantage of up to 4.0 shutter speed steps to sharpen images in lower light, for hand-held shots that would normally require a tripod. Bionz Image Processor At the heart of the Alpha 700 DSLR camera is the advanced Sony Bionz Image Processor, using hardware-based Large Scale Integrated (LSI) circuitry that improves camera response time, screens out noise before RAW data conversion, handles Dynamic Range Optimization processing and prolongs battery life. Dynamic Range Optimizer To recover details in dark or bright areas of the picture, the Alpha 700 provides multiple levels of Dynamic Range Optimization: Standard mode, to improve shadow detail using standard gamma curves; Advanced Auto mode, allowing you to select any of 5 DRO correction levels, or DRO Advanced Bracketing, that automatically takes three shots at different DRO levels with a single shutter press. Continuous 5 frames-per-second advance at 12.24 megapixels The high-speed processing power of its Bionz engine, a quick-response coreless motor to drive the shutter, and dual mirror stoppers to prevent mirror bounce -- they all enable the Alpha 700 to capture action more effectively at either 5 or 3 frames per second, even shooting at full 12.24-megapixel resolution. You can also shoot continuously to the limit of available memory in JPEG Fine and Standard modes. Advanced pentaprism viewfinder With a bright focusing matte, an optical glass prism and glass lenses that prevent ghosts inside the finder, the Alpha 700’s viewfinder image makes it easier to see your subject, compose your shot and adjust focus manually. Eye-Start autofocus system The Alpha 700 begins its precision autofocus adjustments the moment you bring your eye to the viewfinder -- so you’ll be ready to catch the perfect moment. 11-point center dual cross AF sensor A newly-developed Sony AutoFocus system with a large f2.8 sensor improves your ability to frame the subject and capture moving subjects with greater focusing precision -- and a focus drive clutch lets you switch seamlessly between auto and manual focusing by pressing a simple button. Super-accurate exposure control A 40-segment honeycomb sensing system provides multi-pattern measuring for superior exposure control accuracy in a wide range of lighting conditions. Simple camera control menus Even with all its high-tech features, the Alpha 700 is amazingly simple to operate -- and a quick press of the Function (Fn) button switches the LCD display from standard menu information to a new Quick Navigation screen for camera setup via joystick and forward-back controls. The menus are easy and intuitive -- and memory function lets you save and recall personalized camera settings. Creative Custom Settings The Alpha 700 is designed to bring out your creativity with a wide range of auto preference settings, including four basic image styles (Standard, Vivid, Neutral and Adobe RGB) and three style-box memory settings for quick setup in special events like weddings and competitive sports. Easy-to-use Exposure Mode dial The Alpha 700’s top-mounted dial gives you quick access to Program Auto, Aperture priority, Shutter-speed priority, Manual and full Auto exposure setting modes -- as well as six scene selection modes that optimize camera focus, exposure, brightness, contrast and other settings for Portrait, Landscape, Macro, Sports Action, Sunset and Night View/Portrait scenes. Quick Setting Recall The "C" button allows you to make changes more quickly by calling up Creative Style settings, Exposure compensation, Flash compensation and many more operating modes and camera functions. Stamina Power To give you confidence for long shooting sessions in the field, the Alpha 700 can take up to 650 shots on a fully-charged NP-FM500H InfoLithium battery -- with indication in percentage of about how much battery power remains. Built-in flash The Alpha 700's flip-up flash covers a wide focal range, synchronizes at 1/250 seconds, supports red-eye reduction and slow flash features as well as manual flash mode to set flash intensity. A wireless flash signal is available for external flash synchronization. Anti-Dust Technology Changing lenses in a DSLR can allow dust to enter the camera -- so to help keep the CCD imager cleaner for better pictures, the Alpha 700 utilizes both static-free anti-dust coating on the CCD filter and anti-dust vibration that automatically shakes the CCD to dislodge dust each time the camera is shut off. Rugged magnesium-alloy body The Alpha 700 is built to very high standards of durability and performance -- so you can shoot on location in difficult conditions with confidence that your equipment can handle the challenge. XtraFine 3.0-inch LCD screen with 921k Pixels With almost 1-megapixel performance, it’s like having a high-resolution photo viewer built into your camera -- and the Alpha 700’s amazing photo-quality screen displays sharp, bright images even outdoors with a wide viewing angle so you can share photos more easily. PhotoTV HD viewing with HDMI output The Alpha 700 provides direct HDMI output to your Bravia HDTV and other compatible HDTV screens, so you can view and share photos in breathtaking clarity and detail. You can choose between standard 3:2 and widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio -- and with new Bravia HDTV models, photos are automatically optimized in sharpness, gradation and color reproduction for HD display. Wireless remote control For shooting as well as viewing convenience, Sony supplies a multi-function wireless remote control with the Alpha 700 -- allowing you to control HDTV photo viewing and trip the shutter by remote to put yourself in the picture. Versatile recording formats Images can be captured in RAW, cRAW (optimized for fast action), RAW+JPEG and three JPEG modes (Extra Fine, Fine and Standard), for greater versatility in every digital photo application. Powerful supplied software The Alpha 700 comes with a powerful RAW conversion and image management system and newly developed RAW software that gives you the power to handle large volumes of RAW data while taking full advantage of the sophisticated imaging capabilities of the Alpha 700. Dual media options For image capture with optional media you may already own, the Alpha 700 has built-in slots for both CompactFlash Type I/II media and Memory Stick Duo media or high-capacity Memory Stick Pro Duo media. Click to expand [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Nov 2 2007 : 5:34PM If you already have an investment in glass, stick with the brand you've got. Over the long haul, the differences between brands are minor with each of them absorbing the technology they all develop. If you haven't invested in lenses, it looks like Nikon has reclaimed the top of the mountain -- at least for the current generation of DSLRs (a DSLR generation is about 2-to-3 years). And, as fast a sensors are improving, I suspect that by the next generation (2010 model year), the DSLR body will be more a feature choice than an image quality choice. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
jrv Senior Member 1266 Posts 2/03	Posted - Nov 3 2007 : 5:04AM Traditionally Canon has had quite an advantage in sensitivity, which is why Canon is favored by sports and wildlife photographers (when the subject won't hold still and pose). Nikon has equally had a big advantage in metering, which is why so many wedding photographers prefer Nikon setups. One thing to look at is the size of the photosites (aka "pixels" on the sensor). Larger photosites have a larger "full-well depth" - they can hold more electrons before overflowing. Larger full-well depth directly translates to dynamic range. This is one reason photos on small cameras can look washed out next to pro models: the tiny sensor with its zillions of pixels of resolution has no dynamic range and can't record the colors as well as the pro camera. (another way to look at it is that say that the megapixel wars trade away chroma resolution in order to get spatial resolution - probably a bad trade above 4 megapixels or so) A full-frame camera had one other advantage - a much better viewfinder! Anyone going from 35mm to 1.5x cropped or worse will be in for a shock at how bad the viewfinder image is. [Link]

GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Nov 3 2007 : 3:26PM jrv is right about photo-site well size problem; but there's more to it than just size. Fuji solved the dynamic range problem with a matrix of two types of photo-sites, one of them specialized to resolve highlight detail generally lost by traditional designs. Nikon' current innovation is a result of a redesigned of the underlying sensor, the Bayer filter and the micro-lenses, allowing less wasted space between photo-sites and delivering light to them more efficiently, resulting in a significant decrease in noise levels. As to the brand war between Canon and Nikon: Canon, back in its film days, had a significant lead with auto-focus and then with image-stabilized lenses, more factors in the switch from Nikon to Canon by sports and wildlife photographers. That lead is now essentially equalized with Nikon's most current offerings. Canon's focus system was also faster; however, Nikon's AF-S has closed the gap on speed and is arguably slightly more accurate with its predictive AF mode for moving subjects. (Canon's attempt to replicate this feature in their new 1DIII has resulted in a recall. Their focus system works perfectly in normal modes; however, it's predictive AF is wonky.) One place where Nikon has lead all camera manufacturers and continues to lead by a significant margin is flash exposure. Nikon's flash system is leagues ahead of anything else in the industry. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) Edited by - GaySatyr on 11/3/2007 3:26:47 PM [Link]
jayo All-Star Member 2117 Posts 7/04	Posted - Nov 17 2007 : 6:54PM I'm going to bump the thread because it's interesting. Also, I'd just about settled on getting a Nikon DSLR and starting fresh, but I ended up acquiring a couple Canon EOS bodies (film) in the meantime. So now I figure I'll probably get a Canon body and share lenses. The discussion, where we left off, was about lens optics and digital sensor requirements, and this is suddenly important to me. If I buy Canon EF lenses, I can use them on both the film and digital bodies. If I buy an EF-S, I can only use it on the digital. How much different would buying the digital-specific version be? Is the difference is only in critical work (which I don't do)? Or would I likely to see quality differences in a variety of situations? [Link]
conquistador Deactivated User Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03	Posted - Nov 17 2007 : 9:28PM Hey GS: Is it worth buying a/the close-up lens kit for a Canon A95? I like to take mostly close-up macro photography of my hamsters... [Link]
conquistador Deactivated User Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03	Posted - Nov 17 2007 : 9:29PM I love the A95. I just want to take more candid photos of my hams... [Link]
jayo All-Star Member 2117 Posts 7/04	Posted - Nov 17 2007 : 9:33PM I know you asked GaySatyr and it's for a Canon A95, but I'll answer anyway. I know someone who's got the Canon S3 and she got the close-up attachment for it (by Canon). Pricey but works very well. [Link]
AlexPanzer Deactivated User 1593 Posts 6/03	Posted - Nov 17 2007 : 11:24PM I got Canon A640 as a digital point and shoot and I have Canon EOS 10D with 24-70mm f2.8L and 50mm f.14 lens. In a couple of month I am looking to upgrade both cameras to Canon G9 and to Canon EOS 5D. [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Nov 18 2007 : 5:52PM As to the close-up kit for the Canon P&S, I can't really answer specifically because I have no experience with that particular unit; however, in general, Canon makes exceptionally good close-up attachment lenses. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
conquistador Deactivated User Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03	Posted - Nov 18 2007 : 5:58PM Thank you, GS. I don't know much about cameras and your tech posts have been very interesting. [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Nov 18 2007 : 6:11PM jayo, the difference between EF lenses and EF-S lenses is not one of quality; nor is it application to film versus digital sensor. rather, it is a matter of coverage: the EF-S lenses simply do not form an image at the film/sensor plane large enough to cover the entire film area; whereas the EF lenses form an image which does cover the entire film area, of which the digital sensor area is a subset (the crop factor). Most Canon lenses are suitable for both digital and film, the exception being that most Canon wide-angle primes (single-focal length lenses) and wide-angle zooms designed prior to 2001 perform relatively poorly on digital sensor bodies. (Nikon began redesigning wide-angle optics to account for the acceptance angle of digital sensors in the mid-'90's.) Also, Canon, being an exceptionally good marketing company, carefully targets its lens designs to their perceived markets. You very much get what you pay for. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
jayo All-Star Member 2117 Posts 7/04	Posted - Nov 18 2007 : 6:21PM GaySatyr wrote: jayo, the difference between EF lenses and EF-S lenses is not one of quality; nor is it application to film versus digital sensor. Click to expand Okay, thanks. I'll look at lenses that can work on both digital and film, then. For me that would be best. [Link]
GaySatyr Senior Member Half dirty ol' man; half horny ol' goat! 1684 Posts 10/00	Posted - Nov 19 2007 : 6:09AM jayo wrote: Okay, thanks. I'll look at lenses that can work on both digital and film, then. For me that would be best. Click to expand That works fairly well to a point; however, because most digital DSLR bodies have smaller sensors, lenses have different coverage: the crop factor. A "normal" lens for a film-based 35mm SLR is usually considered to have a 50mm focal length. To get essentially the same coverage on a 1.6x crop DSLR, you need a 30mm lens (actually, 50mm divided by 1.6 crop factor equals 31.25mm) and, if you are shooting at f/2.8 on film you need to shoot at f/2 on the DSLR to get the same effective depth of field (which also means that you have to shoot one stop faster because of opening up the lens one stop to get the same amount of light). An ideal "portrait" lens for a 35mm SLR film body is something in the 85mm, 105mm and 135mm range, preferably, fairly fast. With a cropped DSLR, you need shorter and even faster lenses. Now you're talking 50mm, 65mm and 85mm to get the same effect. So, your old "normal" lens becomes a new short "portrait" lens. For the mid-range of focal lengths, this isn't a problem. Where it does become a problem is where you want to shoot really wide. If a 30mm lens is the new digital "normal" and isn't wide anymore, you've got to get really short focal length lenses to regain the wide-angle coverage. For example, you need a 17mm lens on that 1.6x crop DSLR to approximate a 28mm lens on the film SLR. Worse, you need a 12.5mm lens on that 1.6x crop DSLR to cover what a 20mm lens covers on film. See the problem? At the other end of the spectrum, you get a bonus (with the same isolation caveat). Telephoto lenses are very expensive -- especially long telephoto lenses. Because of the crop factor, you get an effective boost in that a 200mm f/2.8 lens on film when used on a DSLR gives about the same coverage as a 320mm f/4 lens on film. Here the crop factor works to your advantage because 300mm lenses are usually a lot more expensive than 200mm lenses. The caveat is still isolation. That 1-stop change in depth of field never goes away, regardless of focal length. In an ideal world, you'd have two DSLR bodies with essentially identical characteristics except that one would have a cropped sensor (with the telephoto advantage plus greater depth of field), be light weight and blazingly fast, and the other would have a full-frame sensor (with the wide-angle advantage and better isolation (less depth of field)), be somewhat heavier (an unfortunate consequence of the larger format) and be blazingly fast. This is where both Canon and Nikon are going (Nikon's new D3/D300 pair are nearly identical except for sensor size and weight). Where once you chose the film to meet your shooting needs, now you choose the body. And, where one lens kit served your needs in film days, now you need to re-think the mix slightly. With lenses in the midrange, normal through mid-telephoto, it's easy to use lenses on either format. With long lenses it doesn't matter a whole lot, either: you gain about 50% in reach on a cropped DSLR with a consequent loss in isolation. However, at the wide end of the spectrum, you are probably better off buying a lens dedicated to the smaller sensor DSLR body. ~ GaySatyr (ABB) [Link]
AlexPanzer Deactivated User 1593 Posts 6/03	Posted - Nov 21 2007 : 4:35PM You should get all the lenses from 8mm to 1200mm [Link]
jrv Senior Member 1266 Posts 2/03	Posted - Nov 24 2007 : 4:53PM AlexPanzer wrote: In a couple of month I am looking to upgrade both cameras to Canon G9 and to Canon EOS 5D. Click to expand The EOS 5D is due to be replaced Real Soon Now, probably in January. Also, Canon may want to upgrade it to compete against Nikon's Full-Frame offering. There's a case to be made for waiting (for example, see CNET's A new hint at a Canon 5D sequel article. AlexPanzer wrote: You should get all the lenses from 8mm to 1200mm Click to expand Better start with a large fortune. Canon's 1200mm lens had an estimated retail price of about $100,000 (estimate as none were actually sold; they are in the rental fleets for well-qualified professionals). Better have a stout tripod too since the 1200mm weighs about 30 lbs. [Link]
conquistador Deactivated User Hellhamster. 2947 Posts 10/03	Posted - Nov 24 2007 : 7:05PM @GaySatyr: Ever think of compiling a personal photography FAQ? I love learning from your camera writing here and I am sure other people ask you questions... (just a thought.) [Link]
AlexPanzer Deactivated User 1593 Posts 6/03	Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 1:23PM jrv wrote: AlexPanzer wrote: In a couple of month I am looking to upgrade both cameras to Canon G9 and to Canon EOS 5D. Click to expand The EOS 5D is due to be replaced Real Soon Now, probably in January. Also, Canon may want to upgrade it to compete against Nikon's Full-Frame offering. There's a case to be made for waiting (for example, see CNET's A new hint at a Canon 5D sequel article. AlexPanzer wrote: You should get all the lenses from 8mm to 1200mm Click to expand Better start with a large fortune. Canon's 1200mm lens had an estimated retail price of about $100,000 (estimate as none were actually sold; they are in the rental fleets for well-qualified professionals). Better have a stout tripod too since the 1200mm weighs about 30 lbs. Click to expand I am looking for a 5D's replacement so I can get myself a good used 5D for around $1,500.00 [Link]
jayo All-Star Member 2117 Posts 7/04	Posted - Nov 25 2007 : 4:10PM I'm always very leery of buying used electronic-heavy cameras, and a digital would be tops on the list. There are so many things to go wrong, and so many little things where the problems can hide. You'd really have to trust the seller. I'd hate to have the thing for a month and then find out some semi-obscure function that I suddenly need doesn't work, and by that time anything that's wrong is now My Fault. I normally buy a lot of things (including cameras) used. But I don't trust buying a DSLR used (certainly not a high-end one). [Link]