Well, almost. The Canon sensors are smaller than Nikon and other brands. The 21 MP 1Ds MK III/5D II has the same sensor pitch (6.4 µm) as the 8.2 MP 20D/30D.
Well, almost. The Canon sensors are smaller than Nikon and other brands. The 21 MP 1Ds MK III/5D II has the same sensor pitch (6.4 µm) as the 8.2 MP 20D/30D.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Sorry, slip of the brain there. I was mixing up the 24MP Nikon/Sony sensor with the 21MP IDs II/5D II one.
Stereodude
Not really a
So recently I had a hankering to shoot IR, but IR film is basically gone with the exception of Ilford's extended response SFX200 (not true IR). In addition to the lack of film choices, film based IR requires a filter, long exposures, and a lot of guess work because the meter is largely useless. I decided to look to digital IR instead. With digital IR, you change the filter in front of the sensor and leave the rest of the camera alone. So, you don't have a dark viewfinder, AF works normally (for the most part), metering is normal (plus you can review the histogram on the LCD), and you don't have long exposures.
There are several places that will IR convert a camera for you, but they want >$300 to do so. That was more than I was willing to pay, but you can also buy just the IR filter and DIY it for significantly less. So, I picked up a fairly cheap used Rebel XT from a seller on Fred Miranda's forum with the intention of IR converting it. I bought the standard IR filter for the Rebel XT from Life Pixel and last night I converted the Rebel XT to IR. Aside from the guide on Life Pixel's site for the Rebel XT missing a step it wasn't too hard to do.
This morning I took the camera outside and took a few quick test shots and here's what I got. The camera has a custom WB (otherwise the shots are red) but the pictures are otherwise just resized.
Shot 1 (Color & BW):
Shot 2 (Color & BW):
There are several places that will IR convert a camera for you, but they want >$300 to do so. That was more than I was willing to pay, but you can also buy just the IR filter and DIY it for significantly less. So, I picked up a fairly cheap used Rebel XT from a seller on Fred Miranda's forum with the intention of IR converting it. I bought the standard IR filter for the Rebel XT from Life Pixel and last night I converted the Rebel XT to IR. Aside from the guide on Life Pixel's site for the Rebel XT missing a step it wasn't too hard to do.
This morning I took the camera outside and took a few quick test shots and here's what I got. The camera has a custom WB (otherwise the shots are red) but the pictures are otherwise just resized.
Shot 1 (Color & BW):
Shot 2 (Color & BW):
ddrueding
Fixture
That looks awesome...I gotta get me some of that.
Stereodude
Not really a
A few more from outside our office taken with the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8.
ddrueding
Fixture
That is fantastic. I love how sharp everything is.
Stereodude
Not really a
Shooting with an ultrawide angle lens at f8 tends to make sure you've got an excess of DOF.
Pradeep
Storage? I am Storage!
Thanks. In either case it's clear APS-C has hit diminishing returns. It's like 720p was relevant for several years before 1080p became common.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
No it's not:
(1600 ISO f/5.6 1/200th, 40D, hand-held, 400mm.)
Light doesn't get much worse than that. You can do it, though it's not easy.
But let's consider your question afresh.
Q: What is it that makes long lenses hard to use in low light?
A: Camera movement blur.
Q: What causes blur, and why is it worse with long lenses?
A: It is causes by angular rotation of the film plane relative to the subject. (We can safely ignore some other causes in this context.) The larger the rotation relative to the field of view, the worse the blur. Or, to put it another way, the longer the lens (i.e., the smaller the field of view), the more visible any given rotation becomes.
From this is obviously follows that for any given amount of actual film plane rotation, for any given framing the blur is the same. Whether you achieve this given framing by using a longer lens, using a teleconverter, using a camera with a greater crop factor, or cropping in PP and enlarging is not relevant. You still get the same result.
In practice, you will usually get a slightly worse result by using a shorter lens and cropping, but not because of camera shake (that is the same, assuming you are holding the camera equally still) but because of the various other factors contributing to image quality.
In bad light:
1: use the fastest lens you can
2: push the ISO as high as you dare
3: get close to the subject!
#3 is the key. You can get away with heavy cropping, and you can get away with bad light, but you can't do both at the same time.
paugie
Storage is cool
ah, once again, been encouraged (to try) and discouraged (won't succeed) to take pictures again.
Thanks, Tony.
Thanks, Tony.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Doug, I often use a rig a bit like this one: http://kgear.com/images/SugSysC570A200E280big.jpg
It's a modular system so you can arrange it any way you like. I have the belt with a dagonal shoulder strap to help with the weight (which is considerable) and three holsters attached, to fit (typically) 50D & 100-400; 20D & 10-17; 40D & 24-105. That way I still have both hands free and can carry the 1D III & 500 over my shoulder on a tripod. Not something I like to walk a long way with, obviously, but very practical.
Mostly, however, I use a single big Lowepro Specialist 85AW bag and leave the 100-400 behind.
It's a modular system so you can arrange it any way you like. I have the belt with a dagonal shoulder strap to help with the weight (which is considerable) and three holsters attached, to fit (typically) 50D & 100-400; 20D & 10-17; 40D & 24-105. That way I still have both hands free and can carry the 1D III & 500 over my shoulder on a tripod. Not something I like to walk a long way with, obviously, but very practical.
Mostly, however, I use a single big Lowepro Specialist 85AW bag and leave the 100-400 behind.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Yay, maybe this will be the last of the 1D crop-factor from Canon as rumored, meebe then we'll finally get something useful like a <$1k FF sensor Rebel or xxDs
? Let's celebrate the end of the 1D!!!LOL, LM ...I was wondering how many minutes after midnight it would take 4 the Canon fanboi here on SF to post up on the new Canon dslr...not many
....while *completely* ignoring the prior announcement of the superior, class leading for years now, Nikon D3 series. Also spanks Canon with ability to use so many more of the lenses in the line; DX, 11fps no prob...Canon forgittaboutit. Guess the only thing the Canon is leading on is HD video...something we all know will be used by *all* the Canon fanboi here...based on prior comments by them
.Early ISO104k on the D3s doesn't look so great, bet Canon is worse from detail POV...will wait for the full Ken Rockwell report on IQ
.http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/camera/slr/digital/d3s/pic02.htm
The Fallacy of Judging Image Quality Online
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rant23b.shtml
1Ds probably a year away??? Ya don't read canonrumors? Spring '10, 32mp:
http://www.canonrumors.com/page/2/
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
[SIZE=+1]It's Official:[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] The end of the DSLR's reign for outdoor, nature, interior and landscape photography. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]NEW: [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Canon 5D Mk II, LEICA M9 and Nikon D3 image comparisons. [/SIZE]
Does the M9 obliterate the D700 and the 5D Mark II? Yes.
Is the Leica easier to carry? Yes.
Is the Leica far easier to operate, without all the menu crap? YES!
There is no comparison. See the image results for yourself.
World's Best Digital Camera.
[SIZE=+1]NEW:[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] Leica M9 Full Hands-On User Review[/SIZE].
Now that I've had one a week, I completely rewrote my original report. It's not as funny, but far more informative.
Sorry if it's all I've gone off about the past month, but it's that important. The M9 really does do all the things for which I've been pestering Nikon and Canon these past ten years since the first practical DSLR was announced in 1999.
For instance, the M9 fully addresses 19 of the 22 things that suck about the Canon 5D Mark II. How's that for Leica: they came out of nowhere and fixed the things that Canon has ignored for the past year.
Bravo!
What interests you with this camera? It seems like a step back in terms of mega-pixels from your 1Ds MKIII.
Stereodude
Not really a
Probably because it's fast at 10FPS shooting.
Speed, buffer and pixel size (reach). I'd be keeping both 1Ds MK IIIs and disposing of the 1Ds Mk IIs and some other bodies.
Vincent Laforet made a short movie with a pre-production 1D MKIV. So far I'm impressed.
Stereodude
Not really a
Well, FWIW, the new intro to SNL was shot with the 5D MkII.
Maybe not, but I'm really liking it for video.
Sure, that is an appropriate use. Mainly it is a cheap way to achieve good HD and the shallow DOF look of cinema with fast glass.
ddrueding
Fixture
What are people's thoughts on the 7D? Mainly looking for better high-ISO performance than my XSi and to play around with video. Also looking into a long-ish macro lens.
Stereodude
Not really a
I'm skeptical that it has better high ISO performance seeing that they cranked up the pixel count, but what do I know?
ddrueding
Fixture
Do you feel that there is better high-ISO performance somewhere else in the sub-$2k EOS line? I looked at a comparison with the 50D and preferred the 7D.
Stereodude
Not really a
Yeah, a used 5D Mk I.
You looked at what - in-camera jpegs or RAW files?
ddrueding
Fixture
Yeah, a used 5D Mk I.
An interesting idea, though I am nervous about buying used camera gear...anyone have any experience?
ddrueding
Fixture
RAW, uncorrected. 1600 looked better on the 7D, 3200 was not good but break-even. Everything above that was too bad to use, so I stopped looking.
ISO 1600 is the highest I'd voluntarily go with any Canon, and that is pushing it even for 1D MK III. I use the 1Ds MK III up to 1250.
Go with Nikon D700 if you want somewhat better high ISO imaging at a decent price.
Go with Nikon D700 if you want somewhat better high ISO imaging at a decent price.
Stereodude
Not really a
I've bought several used cameras. One from Ebay (EOS-3) and several from the forums at Fred Miranda & POTN (EOS-3 / Elan 7n / Rebel XT). The one from ebay came in better condition than I expected (mint). The Elan 7n came in worse condition (it had been dropped and needed repairs). It's a bit of crapshoot.
ddrueding
Fixture
I think I would take too big a hit repurchasing all my glass if I went Nikon...
Yes, and much of it was negative, especially on camera bodies.
If the item is cheap then the risk may be acceptable. Prime lenses are relatively safe, wideangle zooms are iffy, and other lenses are in between. Consider whether the item is still serviced by the manufacturer. If repair parts are not available, the risk of failure may be unacceptable.
ddrueding
Fixture
Have you seen this B&H page with info regarding that lens?
ddrueding
Fixture
Awesome.
Howell
Storage? I am Storage!
Did you check out the lens coozie? Its $600 of neoprene.