dSLR thread

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
In 2007 (or early 2008?) I sent in a rebate for several cards and never received anything. Then last June I bought 3x8GB EX3 30 MB/sec. and was expecting to receive a $120 rebate card. I received only $40 and finally threw it in the trash. F*ck them. Rebate ripoffs are not worth my time.
 

Chewy509

Wotty wot wot.
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
3,351
Location
Gold Coast Hinterland, Australia
In 2007 (or early 2008?) I sent in a rebate for several cards and never received anything. Then last June I bought 3x8GB EX3 30 MB/sec. and was expecting to receive a $120 rebate card. I received only $40 and finally threw it in the trash. F*ck them. Rebate ripoffs are not worth my time.

I know here in Oz, the ACCC (Australia Competition and Consumer Commission) advises not to use rebates in purchasing decision, as they find more often than not, rebates are not honored correctly, in a timely fashion, or not at all.

Personally, if they want to give me a rebate, I'll take it at the time of purchase as immediate cash off the purchase.
 

mubs

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Nov 22, 2002
Messages
4,908
Location
Somewhere in time.
Interesting angles on the ones with the yellow plane; your vantage point seems level with the planes in the shots, or higher. How so?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I can assure you I was on the ground shooting up from one spot the whole time.

All the planes flew fairly low to stay under the clouds, so that helped some. Beyond that, it's just how they happened to be oriented when I tripped the shutter.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,728
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Nice pictures. I went to the Salinas Airshow a couple weekends ago. Blue Angels and a great A-10 demonstration, but no B-1 or B-2. And no camera (I forgot) :(
 

Will Rickards

Storage Is My Life
Joined
Jan 23, 2002
Messages
2,012
Location
Here
Website
willrickards.net
Stereodude,

Why do you keep posting the thumbnail links to images? I can never really see anything from those tiny pictures and always have to remove the .th from the links to see them.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Nice pictures. I went to the Salinas Airshow a couple weekends ago. Blue Angels and a great A-10 demonstration, but no B-1 or B-2. And no camera (I forgot) :(
A reasonable percentage of my pictures came out ok considering I had never shot an airshow before. From what I saw when I got home I probably I should have used a slightly higher shutter speed though. There's a bit of motion blur in a lot of my shots. It's really a fine line though. If you shoot with too fast of a shutter you'll freeze the props and get static looking pictures.

They had an A-10 demonstration, but I missed it. :( The Air Force version of the Navy's Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, performed in their F-16's at the end of the show. I haven't gotten to looking through that portion of my pictures yet. :skepo:

I do wish I had a monopod and a 1.4x TC at the show though. :-? Next time I guess.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
Why do you keep posting the thumbnail links to images?
I was under the impression it was considered poor forum etiquette to post a pile of full size images in a thread.
I can never really see anything from those tiny pictures and always have to remove the .th from the links to see them.
There are no .th in any of the links. Every one of them opens in a new tab full size when clicked. :confused:
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
I don't have a problem with Ken Rockwell. I have a problem with the sheep in his flock. Ken presents his opinion. That's fine and he's entitled to it. The problem is that people read his opinion and take it as an absolute fact and it degrades from there.
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
That cheaper Sony is in the 5D II class, not the D3X or 1Ds MK III class. The original 5D was around $2000 before the 5D II was available. It's not really that much of a stretch. Basically the sensor manufacturing prices have come down. I'm still waiting for the D700x.
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
So Sony has announced their a850

http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_r...aging/digital_cameras/dslr/release/41559.html

To think that a 24 MP full frame sensor DSLR would be $2000 when the 1Ds MkIII entered the ring at $8000, that is impressive progress. In fact it could be seen that Sony is now pushing Nikon and Canon in a way that they just didn't have to back in the day when it was a cosy duopoly.
The A900 didn't exactly blow the doors off the competition with it's noisy performance. I wouldn't expect the A850 to differ.

Still, I hope they put some price pressure on Canon (who is busy playing games with 5D Mk II supply to keep the price artificially high).
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
There is a point of diminishing returns on cheap 24x36 bodies with high-res sensors. The lens costs as percentage of the system go up substantially if high IQ is desired. The novice users with no 135 experince will be horrified that their relatively expensive zooms are no longer up to par. It happens very time.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,728
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Guess I should start saving up for L-series glass, then. Or should I be looking to Nikon, too? The mucking about with the 5DII is annoying, but I don't have the money for it at the moment anyway.
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
In the long term I see DSLRs and camcorders merging into something that shoots video and you just pick the frames you want as photos. The Red devices showing what is possible.
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
At 16 mp the 1Ds mkII could easily show the diff between the 100mm macro and the 24-70mm 2.8 L series. I can only imagine what 24 mp is revealing.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,728
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Thanks for the link. Looks good. The ISO12800 test shot is noisy, but at least it has ISO12800. And I wouldn't need to ditch all my -S lenses.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
I would not want to use a 7D over ISO 800 unless necessary, and then not over 1600 for sure. High-ISO NR sucks. I'm not sure that it has anything useful for me, unless maybe it focuses at f/8?
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
It doesn't focus at f8. FWIW, I think it would have been a better camera at 12MP at 12FPS instead of 18MP at 8FPS.

I also don't understand why it only has a 15 shot buffer for RAW. :erm:
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
It doesn't focus at f8. FWIW, I think it would have been a better camera at 12MP at 12FPS instead of 18MP at 8FPS.

MP are useless without AF.

Well, maybe 14-15 MP with better IQ. ;) Canon likes to retain mediocre IQ and increase the pixels.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
Someone on POTN posted a comparison between the 7D and the 5D MkI and it's not pretty. The 5D smokes it in image quality. link

That's likely not a 1:1 comparison. The 5D is probably closer or has a longer lens attached. I would not use such a low-res body as the 5D for anything at distance. A little over 4 MP in the center is not a match for 18.
 

LunarMist

I can't believe I'm a Fixture
Joined
Feb 1, 2003
Messages
17,497
Location
USA
The 5DI still costs considerably more, so I would expect it to. IIRC, the FF sensor helps as well.

Sensor size is generally more important than pixel size if you have the reach to fill the frame.
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,728
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Sensor size is generally more important than pixel size if you have the reach to fill the frame.

Changing topic slightly. I find that the things that are far away that I would want to photograph are things that tend to move (birds, cars, people). This lends itself to hand-held shots (as tracking is required). Hand-holding at even 480mm (35mm eq) is near impossible in anything but bright daylight. Would it be preferable to shoot at 80mm and take the lower MP sharp center?
 

ddrueding

Fixture
Joined
Feb 4, 2002
Messages
19,728
Location
Horsens, Denmark
Yeah, a new tripod and all associated gear is also on "the list". Unfortunately, "a house" is now in front of everything else on "the list".
 

Stereodude

Not really a
Joined
Jan 22, 2002
Messages
10,865
Location
Michigan
That's likely not a 1:1 comparison. The 5D is probably closer or has a longer lens attached. I would not use such a low-res body as the 5D for anything at distance. A little over 4 MP in the center is not a match for 18.
They are 1:1. Apparently the 5D had the 100mm F2.8 macro on it and the 7D had it's zoom lens on it which accounts for the softness in the 7D shot.
 

Pradeep

Storage? I am Storage!
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
3,845
Location
Runny glass
They are 1:1. Apparently the 5D had the 100mm F2.8 macro on it and the 7D had it's zoom lens on it which accounts for the softness in the 7D shot.

It's hard to beat the 100mm macro for performance. It easily outperforms many L series lenses.
 
Top