dSLR thread

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
Yes, the D300 is at the high end of the semi-pro class in price. But it is also at the high end in features and performance. The AF system, for example, is better than anything else in its class, and so is its continuous shooting speed (with battery grip). Is it worth that much more? Yes (but wish i didn't have to pay that much), and so do others who really value AF performance and continuous shooting speed. But I also admit that if you don't need that level of AF performance or continuous shooting speed, then, no, it wouldn't be worth it.

That's why Nikon came out with the D90... to bring the IQ and high ISO performance of the D300's 12 MP Sony CMOS sensor to the masses at a lower price point just like the 5D did for Canon's 35 mm FF sensor and the D700 is doing for Nikon's FX sensor, albeit a little late.

No, Nikon didn't have any bodies with the quality of sensor that the D300 has, so yes, you had to pay more than necessary to get it, assuming you didn't need the AF and high speed shooting.

I don't think it was an intentional strategic move by Nikon to not launch any midrange dSLRs with an improved sensor so as to force its patrons to move up to the D300 and extract more money from them... Rather, they probably decided to change their product strategy for the D90 in mid-stream to avoid launching another "me too" camera, delaying what would have originally been a Q4 2007 or Q1 2008 launch.

And to be perfectly honest, I think they had to do what they did and include a differentiating feature like video recording in order to compete in a tough market. They probably already knew that they wouldn't be able to compete with Canon in the megapixels and high ISO performance sweepstakes with the pending 50D, so they had no choice but to try changing the game by throwing video into the mix the same way Olympus tried to stay competitive by trying to popularize a new feature like Live View earlier in the E-330, and recently in the E-3.

Is Oly's AF really that bad? Well, yes and no. It depends what you are looking for from an AF system. In sufficient light with sufficient edge contrast, it is very accurate and (if it's the E-3), quite fast. The problem is that the minimum threshold for sufficient light and edge contrast is lower with Olympus bodies than it is with Nikon and Canon. All the Olympus bodies except for the E-3 only have 3 AF points. The E-3 was launched with great fanfare, saying its 11 point AF system is the fastest in the world and works down to -2 EV. Too bad it's not true. When the light levels drop and edge contrast is at a premium, the E-3 falters more noticeably than the competition. What is possibly the fastest AF system in bright light and strong edge contrast becomes slow and indecisive. And, if you want to use continuous (servo) AF to track subjects as they move across the frame and/or closer to you, good luck. It can lose focus lock on the subject fairly easily when competing targets enter the frame.

The D300's AF system is clearly superior to the E-3 (assuming your lens focuses fast enough). But is it vastly superior to other AF systems in its class? Not sure, as I don't own a Canon. But I can't imagine a huge difference between the two either, especially with a lack of fast AF motors in some of their lenses. But it is better for specific things like tracking subjects as they move across the frame. Is it as good as Canon's pro AF system in the 1DIII? Judging by that awesome picture that you just posted, probably not ;) -- again, partly hampered by the lack of fast focus motors in some of their lenses. It is, however, the closest thing in its price class, though.

At the end of the day, AF systems still have a ways to go. The D300's is far from revelatory. But it remains the best you can get in its class. And that alone can make it worth the price if you need it.
 

Tannin

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 15, 2002
Messages
4,448
Location
Huon Valley, Tasmania
Website
www.redhill.net.au
Hmmm ... interesting comments on the Olympus AF system. Not what I'd have expected from that company.

But, changing the subject now, you can take good shots of that general nature without spending mega dollars on a 1D III and a 500/4. Here is an older one, taken with a 20D and the 100-400.

Alas for all that money I have spent, I can't honestly claim that getting small birds in flight comes down to a top-class AF system, or even a top-class, very fast-focusing lens.

Even more alas, I can't honestly claim that it comes down to brilliant technique and natural-born talent.

It actually comes down to a few simple techniques that I could teach to anyone interested enough in photography to be reading this thread in about 10 minutes, and a great big pile of what that wonderful old MASH character Col. Potter called sticktoitiveness.

Both of these are "lucky shots". In fact, most, maybe all of my worthwhile wildlife pictures are "lucky shots". The trick is simple: you stick at it, over and over and over, until you do get it right. Sticktoitiveness is the one and only must-have quality you need for nature photography. You can get by with an ordinary lens; you can bumble along with a lack-lustre camera, you can get away with a remarkably sketchy understanding of the basic physics involved in recording images; you can get away with minimal post-processing skills; you can even achieve a fair bit without any particular understanding of the creatures in question and their habits (though of course all these things help) - but in nature photography, if you don't have sticktoitiveness, you will never amount to anything.

Probably not just nature photography, actually. Seems to me that much the same rule goes for just about everything in life that is worth doing.

But back to auto-focus systems. Both of those examples are ones where the AF system really has little to do with the quality of the shot: with birds this small and this quick, no AF system ever built can grab an in-flight focus, and no photographer ever born could follow the action fast enough to give the AF system a fair chance. The trick, of course, lies in pre-focusing and timing - it's not just random, you need to have a pretty clear idea of where you think the bird is going to go and when, but after that it's just sticktoitiveness.

Here, on the other hand, is one that is attributable to the AF system. This much bigger bird, although travelling a lot faster, is providing a just-barely-achievable target for a top-class AF system. It was this sort of shot I was thinking about when I said (above) that the 1D III is sometimes noticably better than (e.g.) a 40D. The change of range rate is qute high - much, much higher than with a side-on shot - and not very predictable. The 1D III and 500/4 made this one possible. I couldn't have done it with a 40D (probably not even by fluke), and I suspect not with a 100-400.
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
Yes, I am disappointed with Olympus too. They are capable of some brilliant engineering -- especially with respect to optics --, but they are simply behind the curve when it comes to AF. Always have been, and it's possible that they always will be unless they continue to put significant effort into R&D. It's understandable, really, as they were one of the last companies to embrace AF. When you start that late and don't really try to produce a world class AF system until 2007, then what do you expect? Their first attempt (well, first that ever hit the market, anyways) in the E-3 clearly shows that they are relatively new to this game. Can they catch up? Sure, but it will take time, money, and effort. And one could argue that they have less of all of those compared to much bigger and more dominant competition.

Right from the start, Canon grabbed the early lead in AF and never looked back. Nikon only caught up recently with the AF system in the D300 / D3 / D700. One could say that Canon still has the edge mainly due to the AF speed of its lenses across the board. In general, their USM lenses have been fast and quiet WAY before the competition ever figured it out. Olympus' SSWD ring drive AF lenses are blazingly fast. I would say they leapfrogged Nikon's SWM in speed right out of the box, and at least in the example of their 12-60/2.8-4, it's even faster than Canon's USM system. But lens AF speed is useless unless the body can guide it quickly, accurately, and decisively. And that's where Olympus needs a lot of work.

------------

As to your comments on sticktoitiveness, anticipation, timing, and luck, I totally know what you're saying and totally agree. Actually, I said that earlier somewhere in one of these massive threads (dSLR or P&S... can't remember) and illustrated my point with a few examples from my Canon A710 point & shoot and lowly Nikon D40. As with your cracking 20D shot, none of those examples were due to the AF system. As you said, it had everything to do with internalizing the rhythm of the game, anticipation, and timing. Yes, there was luck involved, but I was able to repeat my split second timing exploits many times on demand -- there was a stretch where i was in "the zone" and nailed almost every serve where I got the ball going onto or coming off the strings (admittedly, it was only women's tennis, where the serves are "only" 105 mph compared to 130 mph).

But recently, as I started shooting more sports, I realized that the AF system and continuous shooting speed was holding me back (just as you know that you just can't get certain shots with the 40D and the 100-400 unless a supreme deity himself took the shot, but that's not fair because he can just pre-focus to where he knows the bird is going to be in a couple seconds).

In basketball and tennis, a lot of plays are going to be in one spot -- either close to the basket or on the baseline. But for hockey, where players are flying up and down the ice at 30 km/h sometimes at close range (and the puck is going at 160 km/h), and for basketball if you want to get shots of the players away from the basket or in transition, you need to have a certain level of AF tracking performance.

It is at this edge of AF performance that one notices when it just doesn't perform. An inadequate AF system fumbles around, gets in your way, and almost actively precludes you from getting the shot.

It's infuriating as hell despite any level of sticktuitiveness probably because I don't get the opportunity to shoot that many events nor do I get to see certain players too frequently. I'm not a professional sports photographer and I don't get to attend a lot of games (actually, only several times a year). That makes every chance I get to shoot sporting events very important -- the notion of "I don't know when I'll get the chance to get this shot again in the future" is partly what drives my thoughts on AF systems these days.

The extreme example of that last point was when I recently went to the Olympics in Beijing. For me, that was very likely a once in a lifetime thing, so every shot had the burden of "I may never get a chance to get this shot ever again". It's a little nerve-wracking, to tell you the truth, and any sane person would wonder why i would do that to myself.

In any event, I took the E-3 as my only body because I didn't have time to get the D300 before I left. It performed adequately in the diving finals, but that's partly because there was almost no AF involved. I took it out of the equation by pre-focusing and switching to MF while using a slightly smaller aperture to expand the DoF a bit (well, it's not like I had much choice, as my only telephoto was the 70-300/4-5.6 due to weight and size constraints).

But in the basketball finals, the continuous AF tracking left a lot to be desired. I was cursing it whenever I lost the subject, and it happened more than I care to mention. A lot of times, it wasn't due to the lens not being able to keep up, but rather, the camera would suddenly focus on some guy in the stands or the ref, or other players in the frame. And sometimes, it just couldn't even get AF lock on a player due to insufficient edge contrast. Yes, it's harder with some subjects that have dark skin, but the E-3 probably has the lowest (or is it the highest) threshold when it comes to the amount of edge contrast that it requires for AF lock.

After a while, I just gave up and switched into single shot focus mode and re-routed AF from the shutter button to the AFL/AEL button. That way, I could control when the AF system would activate and minimize the chance it would lock onto something else instead. That approach can work well for some shots, but it doesn't work when you need it to track and do predictive AF for others... Sigh... such is life, I guess.
 

paugie

Storage is cool
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
702
Location
Bulacan, Philippines
Don't have a camera (yet), but I hear that "sigh". Very good letout for your frustration.
I wonder where the E3 and "friends" are going to end up?

I have a used Pentax K100D and a Sigma 24-60/2.8 arriving end of October. I have read a few posts elsewhere about owners complaining about mediocre low-light AF with Pentax bodies. A friend come over with his K100D the other night and the camera was focusing faster than I could ever have done manually. I admit the last time I held a DSLR was in 1995, a Nikon FE2.

Considering that I use an Oly 750UZ now, which never could focus in low light, I was delighted at the AF performance of this Pentax camera with "flawed" low light AF. Let me try following a flying bird sometime then maybe I'll be frustrated "Pentax" user, too.

Nah, I'll most probably be sticking to people, they don't move that much or too quickly. Tannin already makes the greatest wildlife pix.
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
Beware of the QC problems of Sigma lenses, paugie. The 24-60/2.8 is known for having some sample variation issues. I returned a 24-60 last year because it had focus issues and was excessively blurry in the corners at wide angle. It's likely just that I had a bad copy, but I didn't want to play the "exchange it until i find a good one" game.
 

paugie

Storage is cool
Joined
Dec 13, 2003
Messages
702
Location
Bulacan, Philippines
Thanks, e_dawg. I was aware of that. But the excitement of acquisition got the better of me and I went ahead inspite of the negative possibilities.

Now looking for a way to instruct my sister in Edmonton on how to find out if the camera/lens has issues. Hopefully before it leaves Canada in late October, whatever problems may be resolved. The used body has a 90-day warranty with Henry's and the Sigma has a (amazing) 10-year Canadian warranty. She isn't DSLR savvy, although she uses a Canon P&S.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
Boring news:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1221199319.html

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091202panasonic_DMC_G1.asp

Panasonic's Micro 4/3rds announcment...boring because standard sized dSLR's *should* be able to be reduced to that size, easy for the body, more difficult for lenses, but still achievable. And no HD movie mode...going backwards???



Rumors of Sony's low price competitor, FF dSLR, the 25MP A900 for $2k, were greatly exaggerated. $3k is too expensive, for what you get.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/AA350/AA350A.HTM
^^^Also missing is the innovative Live View function of the consumer level Sony dSLR's :(




Rumors are a wash with a Canon 5D replacement announcement on or about Sept. 17th, all kinds of features speculated on, variable ISO in light to dark portions of the sensor, stereo 1080 HD movie mode, take your pick. Also, speculated price of $3-4k :(.

To rock the dSLR world, Canon should release a FF Rebel for $1,300, ISO dumbed down to *only* 6400 (so as to not compete with that great new Canon 50D ;) )...with 1080 HD movie mode :D
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
Make sure you
Sigma has had, for sometime, a 300-800mm f/5.6 and an 800mm f/5.6, that are both cheaper than the Canon. They may be worth considering. When you get up to those price ranges, every percentage point makes a big difference (i.e. food for a week...).

I'd be surprised if there was a noticeable difference in quality. Sigma's telephotos are very sharp.


Lack of IS is a huge issue for me with lenses at 600mm +. IS makes a difference even on a 5-series tripod, especially if there is any wind. 600/4IS w/2X is optically OK, but not the greatest. For me the point of the 800/5.6 would be to use it with and without the 1.4x.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
Sept 17th, NDA's over, 5D MkII announced

$2,699 WTF, what a disappointment, now where's that killer app, where's the 'think different' FF $1.3k Rebel, there were rumors of 1 or more other FF bodies to come out this year :( ???

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp

Key Specifications:
  • New 21.1 Megapixel CMOS sensor with improved EOS Integrated Cleaning System (E.I.C.S.)
  • New Full HD 1080 resolution movie recording
  • 3.9 frames per second continuous shooting
  • High performance DIGIC 4 providing superb image quality
  • Maximum 310 large JPEG images in a single burst with a UDMA card
  • 3.0” VGA (920k dots) Clear View LCD
  • ISO 100-6400 (expansion from 50 up to 25,600)
  • 9 AF points + 6 Assist AF points

LOL, the XSi is almost as fast in continuous shooting as this new 5D. D700 has in camera CA, and kicks the 5D in continuous. Guess it all depends on what you need, speed or highest resolution. Canon's going to have to update all of their L glass to match these 20+MP sensors.

I don't see anything about variable ISO in the sensor, for highlight/shadow enhancement. No fancy eye movement AF either.

In other news, for the price of a budget econo car, you can have the relatively lightweight/compact (compared to Canon's old monster F1.0), Leica 50mm F0.95, to mount to your equally expensive updated M8.2 :D
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
$2,699 WTF, what a disappointment, now where's that killer app, [...] LOL, the XSi is almost as fast in continuous shooting as this new 5D. D700 has in camera CA, and kicks the 5D in continuous. Guess it all depends on what you need, speed or highest resolution.

The HD video is the killer app! Is 5 fps that much better when you can have 24 fps through video frame capture? Besides, the 5DII was never meant to be a sports or high speed camera. Its raison d'etre was to bring FF IQ to the masses through a smaller body and a lower price bracket.

Canon's going to have to update all of their L glass to match these 20+MP sensors.

It's not quite that bad... Most lenses should still outresolve the sensor well into the 20's for MP count except for the outer portion of the image circle. Remember that the pixel pitch of these 21 MP FF sensors is actually bigger than that of most APS-C sensors. Isn't the 21 MP FF sensor equivalent in pixel pitch to something like an 8-10 MP APS-C? If the lenses are good enough for 10 MP APS-C, they're good enough for 21 MP FF.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
AYBABTU
Sorry, I"m not going to C&P volumes of text, you'll just have to exert enough attention span to do your own reading, you do know how to read, don't you? Whether or not you ever use video, all dSLR's will have it (except maybe Leica will be a hold out :p ) within a few years....because lots of people *will* use it.

READ:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27587&st=0

There will be no end to still cameras, its that there is an incredible demand for video. Many of my clients want video for POP displays and other in-store collateral. They want images they can use on LCD's in a store, on their web site, and for presentations. They also want stills, but its taking a back seat to video. I'm not happy about it, but I sure am staying busy.

No a Red still camera might be the answer to many problems I have. First off, the 35mm dslrs mostly don't do it for me. I like the look of the larger sensor, and I like the MF lenses. That being said, if Red made a dslr that had the specs of teh camera rumoured in the "Lecia MFDB" thread, I'm sold. Let it mount PL lenses, M lenses, F mount, Konica, Mamiya, Blad, what ever. It would be amazing. Make it cheap enough that its suitable for editorial, and game over. Red wins the dslr/lower end digital camera war.

READ:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/convergence.shtml

Who's it For

Who needs this? How about photojournalists?! How about sports photographers?! How about wildlife photographers [Tannin :D ]?! Would any of the above not give their mother's eye teeth to have such capabilities? These are the very photographers who buy the current high speed cameras from Nikon and Canon. They are therefore the natural constituency for products like this.

READ:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/video-primer.shtml


READ:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29147165

>
> Incidentally, the source also speculated - from his contact with the
> camera makers - that within 2 years all new-gen DLSRs will have video
> recording. The source says that there's some speculation the industry that this
> Beijing Olympics will be the last covered by single-frame
> photography. By the time of London 2012, the 'photographers' will be
> shooting HD sequences, from which picture editors will take the best
> 'grabs'.
>

Those that notice my writing on these dpreview forums, know that we've changed to HD Video coverage of news and sporting events in early 2008, "grabbing 2MP stills from the HD Video stream...
Lets face it, in spite of the quest for more pixels, for the print media, the newsprint media, a full page shot at the fold, printed at 150dpi 8x10 shot is represented by a 1.8MB image...


So all those 10MB shooters popping them off at 10 fps, may be out-done by the HD Video shooter, as they are capturing images with 2.1MB progressive scan images at 24 fps. AND, the photographer has a video clip to support the Web side of the news media....
For the Sports Illustrated guy (where a 2.1MP still grab is not enough) really needs a 10Mp image for magazine production, 2.1Mp just does not cut it. In a few years, 2.1MP video at 24fps will be eclipsed with 4, 8, 12MB video equipment... their pixel race is under way too.


Therefore we agree in several years, the GETTY, REUTERS, and most major Network news agencies will not be dispatching both STILL imaging and VIDEO crews covering an event... many of the largest news venues are already switching to HD Video, and training their Still imaging SLR folks to Video..
All your base are belong to us
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,916
Location
USA
I'd still rather hold a dedicated video camera than a make-shift SLR for my video needs. I don't want to have to try and video something important (wildlife?) while trying to holding that camera body steady and using a tiny screen off the back. It's also limited to less than 30 minutes of footage...and if you want any decent audio, plugging in a microphone while trying to hold a 5D MKII steady in your hands will be an interesting sight.

If you want to do video right, get the right tool. Much like I wouldn't want to use my video camera to take photos. Maybe I'm just jaded by how annoying and useless the live view feature is on my 1D.
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
uda, I thought you were disappointed that the 5DII had no "killer app"... as in nothing compelling to offer? But they why go on about how useful and prevalent HD video will be? So does that mean you are in favour of HD video in dSLRs but still don't think the 5DII is otherwise a very good camera?
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
My storage needs are going to go way up, shooting with a 21MP body.

16GB UDMA CF cards, anyone?

That's an expensive price for a 16 GB Extreme III CF card. I just bought 2 generic CF cards in HK for $45 each. Of course, SanDisk Extreme III are going to be more expensive than that, but there is a big rebate on SanDisk and Lexar CF cards now in the US. If you buy more than one, you can get even more $ back per card. Check out B&H. They have the 16 GB Extreme III for $75 after rebate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...CFX3_016GR_16GB_Extreme_III_CompactFlash.html
 

Handruin

Administrator
Joined
Jan 13, 2002
Messages
13,916
Location
USA
Part of it is how well it's done. I noticed that they're really showing off the DOF advantages offered by this system.

Oh, I completely agree. The people who put this together obviously know how to make films, but knowing that the footage wasn't altered in terms of color or noise reduction really shows that the visual quality is rather capable with this camera especially when that video was only 1/4 the full resolution from the camera. The night shots looked very clean and noise-free.

To quote Vincent in his blog:
Keep in mind - this is raw footage (not RAW) from both Canon XH A1 camcorder - and a few clips for the Canon EOS 5D MKII - you’ll see that the two are toe to toe (not really) on bright scenes… but in low light - NO COMPARISON… so I’m not sure of how Canon feels about my trashing their top of the line XH A1 camcorder… but common sense leads me to state the following: if the Canon still camera team and the video team have come together to produce the Canon EOS 5D MKII - the next HD camcorder they come out with - may just floor us all…

Mubs, I believe it's using the latest quicktime plugin (7.5.5) using the Apple H.264 codec.
 

e_dawg

Storage Freak
Joined
Jul 19, 2002
Messages
1,903
Location
Toronto-ish, Canada
The 5DII video definitely looks better than anything the D90 could produce. As Gilbo mentioned, it's a little misleading because no typical consumer could actually shoot movies that looked that good without the fancy tripod/gyro stabilization, professional lighting, directing, pre-production, assistants, grips, digital editing (not altering, but just production), etc.

It's hard enough getting professional looking shots out of a still camera with the composition, lighting, and PP, but it's comparatively easy compared to the skills and equipment you need to pull it off with video. There's a ton of casual photographers out there who can't even pull off a technically good still shot (not that they are really trying, mind you). I can only imagine what their videos will look like.
 

udaman

Wannabe Storage Freak
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
1,209
The 5DII video definitely looks better than anything the D90 could produce. As Gilbo mentioned, it's a little misleading because no typical consumer could actually shoot movies that looked that good without the fancy tripod/gyro stabilization, professional lighting, directing, pre-production, assistants, grips, digital editing (not altering, but just production), etc.

It's hard enough getting professional looking shots out of a still camera with the composition, lighting, and PP, but it's comparatively easy compared to the skills and equipment you need to pull it off with video. There's a ton of casual photographers out there who can't even pull off a technically good still shot (not that they are really trying, mind you). I can only imagine what their videos will look like.

See my post prior, explains well enough market that the vid portion addresses. Besides, you don't need super high quality vids of celebutants to make the headlines :D. As an aside, Canon's behind the ball again, same as their 'indy' prosumer camcorders. Panny did it right from the start, just like Nikon sort of did, using 24fps P...1080P @24fps is better still, we'll get that later. Seems Jim Jannard has changed his mind about the Red One Scarlet for the time being.

I note, the LG KC910 out soon, does 8MP, dig. image stablization & manual focus, lol. Soon the smart phones will start replacing many a pocketable PnS digicam :D Can't find the link, there was a simplistic comparison of one 8mp camphone with, iPhone's 2mp & another well regarded 5mp, and the 8mp IQ was a vast improvement. Not PnS IQ level yet, but getting close ;)

http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/LG-KC910-is-the-8-megapixel-successor-of-Viewty-article-a_3069.html
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
So what did we get from PK this year? Canon has the 5D MK II yuck, and only two new lenses which are not really interesting. They just keep tweaking and regurgitating MK II of everything. Meanwhile, there is no D3X from Nikon. :( Sony has some possibilities, but lacks long teles and pro support. Double bleh.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
I don't know. PTGUI is a fine tool for stitching. HDR usually degrades images quality much more than stitching, so perhaps the software does that part prior to the stitching. Perform a test of different software using a small data set before working on the large images.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,719
Location
Horsens, Denmark
I've already used Photomatix to convert the 388 RAW files into 96 radiance (.hdr) images - it's batch mode is great, as it the ability for it to crop any edges that didn't include all the exposures. Now I just want to send the 96 32-bit images into a stitching app. What other programs should I be looking at? Autopano Pro?
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,454
Location
USA
Not a fan of the 5DII? Not enough of an improvement? Too many kitchen sinks?

Not a fan of the 5DII? Not enough of an improvement? Too many kitchen sinks?

It has very poorly placed AF zones like the 5D, making it difficult or unsuitable for some action and has too many MP. I would have much preferred 16.7 MP with better mid- and high-ISO performance. Canon seems to be in reaction mode now and following the market.
 
Top