Stereodude
Not really a
Sounds like you have a problem then if you can't use a flash... Maybe you need a night vision scope for your camera.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Actually, I have reconsidered my earlier advice of going with a 50/1.4. Instead of relying solely on aperture / lens speed to allow you to use a higher shutter speed to prevent camera shake and motion blur, you can also go with a shorter focal length to boost your system's resistance to camera shake and motion blur (works more on camera shake than motion blur).
With that in mind, I would recommend the Sigma 30/1.4. It is arguably the KING of low-light handheld people / social / club photography right now. In fact, I purchased one about a month ago. You can shoot it at 1/20 to 1/60 sec at 1600 ISO and get decently bright, blur-free pics in most indoor settings.
Ironically, I am also returning my 30/1.4 tomorrow for a refund, as it doesn't do enough for me, and I can use the money to fund other purchases. While it is great for taking pics of people indoors at clubs, I am not a fan of the image quality when taking landscape and building pics in bright light. I have a Nikon 35/2 that is superior for those situations.
With that in mind, I would recommend the Sigma 30/1.4. It is arguably the KING of low-light handheld people / social / club photography right now. In fact, I purchased one about a month ago. You can shoot it at 1/20 to 1/60 sec at 1600 ISO and get decently bright, blur-free pics in most indoor settings.
Ironically, I am also returning my 30/1.4 tomorrow for a refund, as it doesn't do enough for me, and I can use the money to fund other purchases. While it is great for taking pics of people indoors at clubs, I am not a fan of the image quality when taking landscape and building pics in bright light. I have a Nikon 35/2 that is superior for those situations.
ddrueding
Fixture
I also bought the Canon 35/2, but the distance I am from the subject makes a 50mm almost perfect.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Questions for the gurus here:
1) What is likely to be the street price of the new Nikon D300 once the hoopla dies down after it's released?
2) Canon does not seem to have a lens to match the Nikkor AF-S DX VR Zoom 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED. The best I am seeing is two lenses to match it, the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
3) Nikon does not seem to have any primes for the DX cameras (1.5x crop), only zooms.
1) What is likely to be the street price of the new Nikon D300 once the hoopla dies down after it's released?
2) Canon does not seem to have a lens to match the Nikkor AF-S DX VR Zoom 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED. The best I am seeing is two lenses to match it, the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
3) Nikon does not seem to have any primes for the DX cameras (1.5x crop), only zooms.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
1. US$1800 or C$1700 
2. Canon users can use the Sigma 18-200/OS HSM as a close match. The Nikon is slightly superior in the mid range and is faster at the long end, but is slightly softer at the long end. The Sigma is soft in the corners at two specific focal lengths: 35 mm and 105 mm. Sigma's optical stabilizer is not as effective as Nikon's VR, but should still give about 2 stops to Nikon's 3.
3. Nikon doesn't have any primes designed *only* for DX cameras, but you can use any of their AF primes on any of the current bodies except for the D40 series. IMO, there is no reason to specifically look for a DX prime for most focal lengths. The only advantage a DX prime would have is that it would be smaller and lighter at long focal lengths (>105 mm). For short/medium focal lengths, it doesn't really matter, as regular primes are all small/light enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
2. Canon users can use the Sigma 18-200/OS HSM as a close match. The Nikon is slightly superior in the mid range and is faster at the long end, but is slightly softer at the long end. The Sigma is soft in the corners at two specific focal lengths: 35 mm and 105 mm. Sigma's optical stabilizer is not as effective as Nikon's VR, but should still give about 2 stops to Nikon's 3.
3. Nikon doesn't have any primes designed *only* for DX cameras, but you can use any of their AF primes on any of the current bodies except for the D40 series. IMO, there is no reason to specifically look for a DX prime for most focal lengths. The only advantage a DX prime would have is that it would be smaller and lighter at long focal lengths (>105 mm). For short/medium focal lengths, it doesn't really matter, as regular primes are all small/light enough that it shouldn't be an issue.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
1) No idea, but expect it to be in very short supply for a long, long time. Nikon never seem to be able to produce the required zillion copies of their latest and greatest model until it's been on the market for a year or so, and thus have no incentive to discount until something else is not too far away.
2) Canon probably think that an 18-200mm lens is never going to be a practical proposition, and that people who really want one lens to do absolutely everything are natural point and shoot buyers. I know I do. With that said, Nikon and Sigma et al are selling them by the truck load. Well, Sigma is; Nikon (as usual) can't seem to get their manufacturing volume up as there are still long waiting lists for the 18-200 VR. Frankly, it is beyond me to grasp why anyone would (a) spend a good deal extra for the (marginal?) improvement in image quality a D300 could sensibly deliver over (for example) a D80, a D40X, a 30D, 400D, or a K10D, and yet (b) stick a slow 18-200mm class mega-zoom lens on it when for just a little more (or possibly even for less) they could get two or three really useful lenses. If you want that sort of range, consider an 18ish-55ish standard zoom, and a 70-200. (Ka-ching! There goes my 2c!)
3) Nikon does not seem to have any primes for the DX cameras (1.5x crop), only zooms. NOBODY makes crop-camera-only primes, except for the odd one as a sort of accident. There is the excellent Canon EF-S 60mm macro, the well-regarded Sigma 30mm f/1.4 .... and .... I can't think of any others. There are probably a few more, but not too many. Why should Nikon (or Canon, Pentax, whoever) spend money developing a new lens that is less capable than their existing large range of primes? ("Less capable" insofar as they will only work with a certain subset of possible cameras, rather than with all bodies using any given mount.) There isn't a great deal to be gained by making a DX format prime: sure, it can be a bit smaller and lighter, but not much, and barely any cheaper to manufacture - possibly more expensive by the time you factor in economies of scale and the need to also keep on making the full-size prime side-by-side with the DX prime to satisfy your film and digital full-frame customers. With a zoom, expecially with a wide-angle zoom, the whole thing is a lot bigger and more complicated in the first place, so a DX version makes much more sense.
2) Canon probably think that an 18-200mm lens is never going to be a practical proposition, and that people who really want one lens to do absolutely everything are natural point and shoot buyers. I know I do. With that said, Nikon and Sigma et al are selling them by the truck load. Well, Sigma is; Nikon (as usual) can't seem to get their manufacturing volume up as there are still long waiting lists for the 18-200 VR. Frankly, it is beyond me to grasp why anyone would (a) spend a good deal extra for the (marginal?) improvement in image quality a D300 could sensibly deliver over (for example) a D80, a D40X, a 30D, 400D, or a K10D, and yet (b) stick a slow 18-200mm class mega-zoom lens on it when for just a little more (or possibly even for less) they could get two or three really useful lenses. If you want that sort of range, consider an 18ish-55ish standard zoom, and a 70-200. (Ka-ching! There goes my 2c!)
3) Nikon does not seem to have any primes for the DX cameras (1.5x crop), only zooms. NOBODY makes crop-camera-only primes, except for the odd one as a sort of accident. There is the excellent Canon EF-S 60mm macro, the well-regarded Sigma 30mm f/1.4 .... and .... I can't think of any others. There are probably a few more, but not too many. Why should Nikon (or Canon, Pentax, whoever) spend money developing a new lens that is less capable than their existing large range of primes? ("Less capable" insofar as they will only work with a certain subset of possible cameras, rather than with all bodies using any given mount.) There isn't a great deal to be gained by making a DX format prime: sure, it can be a bit smaller and lighter, but not much, and barely any cheaper to manufacture - possibly more expensive by the time you factor in economies of scale and the need to also keep on making the full-size prime side-by-side with the DX prime to satisfy your film and digital full-frame customers. With a zoom, expecially with a wide-angle zoom, the whole thing is a lot bigger and more complicated in the first place, so a DX version makes much more sense.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
LOL... I feel the same way about guys who pay $$$ for a new lens and body, yet refuse to spend $20-40 more for a good filter instead of going for the cheapest Tiffen (uncoated) or Hoya single-coat filter, or make the sales guy throw in a store brand special. "why should I pay double for a stupid filter?"
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Couldn't agree more, Doggy One. Either get a top-quality filter, or don't get a filter at all. I bought a set of cheap, bottom-of-the-range filters once. Once was enough to learn my lesson. Added a whole new meaning to the term "coke bottle".
Stereodude
Not really a
I want to know what real photographers really put UV filters on their lenses for general use?
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Aaah, thank you, gentlemen, for the responses and for sharing your wisdom! As always, I am much obliged!
That, sir, is because of the following logic. On my long, slow road to penury, I wish to buy one lens that can cover most of my needs to begin with. As I get poorer, i add a lens here and there to complement what I have. The specific reason is to be able to shoot group photos (wide angle) + zoomed photos of 1 or two persons from a distance. In this setting (fast paced), it'll be a killer to constantly have to switch lenses for each type of shot. I am aware of the trade-offs of an all-in-one lens.
I have of course heard of Sigma and Tamron, but know nothing about which lenses of theirs are good. When I reach that stage, I'll ask
Early November I will review my situation and ask for more advice! Meanwhile, back to research on which bank to rob (ooops)
So you're saying it's going to sell at list for a long time?Stereo said:
Aaw, that's too badTannin said:
Tannin said:
That, sir, is because of the following logic. On my long, slow road to penury, I wish to buy one lens that can cover most of my needs to begin with. As I get poorer, i add a lens here and there to complement what I have. The specific reason is to be able to shoot group photos (wide angle) + zoomed photos of 1 or two persons from a distance. In this setting (fast paced), it'll be a killer to constantly have to switch lenses for each type of shot. I am aware of the trade-offs of an all-in-one lens.
I have of course heard of Sigma and Tamron, but know nothing about which lenses of theirs are good. When I reach that stage, I'll ask
More than the image quality (of which I know nothing at this time), it's features that make the D300 stand out; the higher ISO, the LCD, sensor cleaner, etc., all of which I believe will be really useful in my context. I keep checking everyday for reviews, but there's none yet. Who knows, it may turn out to be a dud.Tannin said:
Early November I will review my situation and ask for more advice! Meanwhile, back to research on which bank to rob (ooops)
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Depends on what your definition of real is. If there's no pretention behind the definition, lots of us use UV filters. If you mean it the way I think you mean, not too many pros use them these days.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Depends on the lens, Stereodude. No-one uses them as actual filters, at least no-one that I've ever heard of, but they continue to have a useful role as lens protectors, depending on the particular lens, and on the way that lens is used.
I shoot exclusively outdoors, in the bush, carrying a variety of lenses ready for the sort of near-instant use that is required if you do wildlife and nature. Where a studio photographer can treat each item of kit as something delicate and precious, PJ, sport photographers, and people like me routinely work their gear pretty hard, and do not have to opportunity to look after it as carefully as a studio guy.
For some lenses, extra protection isn't really needed as the shape of the lens hood means that the objective is deeply recessed and difficult to damage. Examples: my 60mm macro, just about anything in a telephoto length. With some lenses, it costs almost as much to buy a quality filter as it would to replace the lens (EF-S 18-55, EF 50/1.8) so, again, no filter is required.
But with others (EF-S 10-22, TS-E 24) the objective glass is almost flush with the lens hood and given the cost of replacement, you'd be nuts not to use a filter as routine unless you are in a studio or similar safe environment. My 24-105 I am undecided on. I bought a filter for it, decided it was messing up the image quality, and took it off. But it's a bit too exposed for my liking, and I've nearly talked myself into believing that that my poorish image quality was as much the (then new) 400D as it was the filter on the 24-105. Now that I've (more or less) retired the 400D, I think I'll put the filter back on and see how it goes.
Edit: what happened to the "disable smilies" option? Maybe you don't get it on edit, only on first post. Oh well. Sloppy looking post from me again. I guess you are all used to it.
I shoot exclusively outdoors, in the bush, carrying a variety of lenses ready for the sort of near-instant use that is required if you do wildlife and nature. Where a studio photographer can treat each item of kit as something delicate and precious, PJ, sport photographers, and people like me routinely work their gear pretty hard, and do not have to opportunity to look after it as carefully as a studio guy.
For some lenses, extra protection isn't really needed as the shape of the lens hood means that the objective is deeply recessed and difficult to damage. Examples: my 60mm macro, just about anything in a telephoto length. With some lenses, it costs almost as much to buy a quality filter as it would to replace the lens (EF-S 18-55, EF 50/1.8) so, again, no filter is required.
But with others (EF-S 10-22, TS-E 24) the objective glass is almost flush with the lens hood and given the cost of replacement, you'd be nuts not to use a filter as routine unless you are in a studio or similar safe environment. My 24-105 I am undecided on. I bought a filter for it, decided it was messing up the image quality, and took it off. But it's a bit too exposed for my liking, and I've nearly talked myself into believing that that my poorish image quality was as much the (then new) 400D as it was the filter on the 24-105. Now that I've (more or less) retired the 400D, I think I'll put the filter back on and see how it goes.
Edit: what happened to the "disable smilies" option? Maybe you don't get it on edit, only on first post. Oh well. Sloppy looking post from me again. I guess you are all used to it.
Stereodude
Not really a
That's kind of what I meant. I'm certainly no real photographer though and I don't use them either. I guess I'm just careful with my gear. I've never had anything happen to one of my lenses that could have been prevented by a UV filter though either.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
You play the odds, eventually you will scratch the front element of a wide-angle $1k lens, and kick yourself in the arse for not using an inexpensive polarizing filter over the front. Filter keeps dust off the front of the lens, much easier to clean...and if you accidentally scratch/damage the filter it's not such an expensive proposition to replace. Eh, to each hers/his own.
Stereodude
Not really a
And as protection from that scratch on the front element you can sacrifice the image quality of every picture you take until that happens. No thanks!
ddrueding
Fixture
Ugh...I thought I could handle the RAW conversion times on my CPU without having to go quad core. But now I'm doing HDR merges...I need more power!
ddrueding
Fixture
Based on my attempts to take pictures of bronze statues in sunlight, someone mentioned "HDR", which I hadn't heard of before. I looked it up, and liked the concept and some of the images posted around.
So today I went back to the statues and tried fooling around. I ended up with 16 pictures ranging from +6 to -3EV, and used Photoshop to align them and do it's merging thing. This took about an hour (see sig).
The result still sucks, but it is better than my last attempt.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
What you need to satisfy your insatiable thirst for more computing power, DD, is a Cray. wneddnce:
wneddnce:
Stereodude
Not really a
You only need about 3 pictures to do the whole HDR thing.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
For the folks that use D-SLRs:
Do you find difficulty in having to use the viewfinder all the time? I used film SLRs a bit a lifetime ago and did ok squinting through the viewfinder. Now I wear glasses and my eyesight ain't all that great. Those dipoter adjustments don't do much for me; my astigmatism is bad and everything is still fuzzy without my glasses. The LCDs on P&S digicams are great for me. I'm concerned that I will almost not be able to use D-SLRs because I'd have to use the viewfinder.
That's why I wait with bated breath for a review of of the 40D and the D300 and their LiveView feature. So far, no review. Grrrr.
Do you find difficulty in having to use the viewfinder all the time? I used film SLRs a bit a lifetime ago and did ok squinting through the viewfinder. Now I wear glasses and my eyesight ain't all that great. Those dipoter adjustments don't do much for me; my astigmatism is bad and everything is still fuzzy without my glasses. The LCDs on P&S digicams are great for me. I'm concerned that I will almost not be able to use D-SLRs because I'd have to use the viewfinder.
That's why I wait with bated breath for a review of of the 40D and the D300 and their LiveView feature. So far, no review. Grrrr.
ddrueding
Fixture
The viewfinder is a new experience for me, all my cameras have had LCD displays (young'un alert!). The diopter adjustment does help, but I also find myself looking at the image review and re-framing sometimes. Not a big deal, IMHO.
ddrueding
Fixture
How far apart can/should I space them? 2 stops?
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Go read the reviews, the D300/D3 in addition to having much sharper LCD sceens via 3 times the pixels---which in addtion to digital zooming fuction, should help with focusing accuracy, have better Live View LCD capability than Canon; though I'm thinking that Live View will only get better with each progressive reiteration in the future.
When you become more experienced with exposure on your particular camera I think you'll probably find that 1 stop between exposures is probably the max you want to try. Going to +6EV is an exercise in futility, as you would be exposing like that to only get the darkest shadow areas, while giving up all highlights. Better to go in the opposite direction of -6EV and only +3EV. But 3 isn't really enough, except for crude HDR, go for 5-7 pixtures at either 1 or .7 stop increments.
yeah, and if you need more CPU power cause you're impatient, get a Mac
An 3Ghz Xeon powered 8-core tower. Or wait for Nov. 11 shipping/introduction annoucment from Intel on the new 45nm 3.16Ghz Xeon, or 45nm desktop 3.3Ghz Core Extreme processors
ddrueding
Fixture
OT: Hardware can no longer be an argument for going to the dark side; they use the same hardware as everyone else.
udaman
Wannabe Storage Freak
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Ken Rockwell loves http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dxo/optics-pro.htm
DxO Optics Pro V4.2 review
Keith Coooper uses it too, and reviewed it here:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/dxo_optics_pro4.html
Version 5 is out and adds more features/speed, anyone have any opinions about this product? Will this be the new ultimate noise reduction tool to get for high ISO images?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1191257320.html
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8744-9106
Nikon D300/D3 have in-camera CA correction processing, which apparently works best for their lenses but will also work for other manufacturers. From imaging resource's preview of the D3:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3A4.HTM
Is this a trend, that will trickle down to all dSLR's, and then maybe even better PnS?
DxO Optics Pro V4.2 review
Keith Coooper uses it too, and reviewed it here:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/dxo_optics_pro4.html
Version 5 is out and adds more features/speed, anyone have any opinions about this product? Will this be the new ultimate noise reduction tool to get for high ISO images?
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1191257320.html
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-8744-9106
Nikon D300/D3 have in-camera CA correction processing, which apparently works best for their lenses but will also work for other manufacturers. From imaging resource's preview of the D3:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/D3A4.HTM
Is this a trend, that will trickle down to all dSLR's, and then maybe even better PnS?
Stereodude
Not really a
That depends. You should take a shot and expose for each element in the picture you want properly exposed.
Will Rickards
Storage Is My Life
Coming from a point and shoot camera, definitely something you have to get used to. It is not really a problem for most shots. And it helps put your hands in the correct position of one hand holding the lens and the other the body.
But for those shots where you can't look through it.... say down near the ground for shots of a two year old or shots with the camera held above your head to take a shot over a crowd, it is a pain. If you missed the shot completely or cut off a head you have to look at the lcd after the fact to figure that out. You kind of get used to shooting in continuous mode with shots like that and hope one comes out. I'm finding the three area autofocus of the D40 the most limiting in these types of shots. Without being able to look in the view finder and make sure it is focused on the correct subject, the shots are often not focused on the correct subject.
I don't wear glasses and see perfectly fine (slightly nearsighted at night) so looking through the viewfinder is fine for me. It actually helps with focus probably better than an lcd would. Maybe it is different with the high res lcd's nowadays and they could be used for focus effectively. But the LCD on my old p&S canon A60 was notorious for letting me think it was focused but it really wasn't sharp enough.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Thanks guys who answered my question.
I have a little bit of trouble with the viewfinder, but I use it while wearing my glasses. My eye sight is also bad, but I can manage using the viewfinder of my 20D. I never rely on the LCD for a good picture, only for framing it. I believe that some cameras can have custom viewfinders made to fit your prescription. I don't know for sure, but I thought someone on this forum mentioned that a while ago.
The pro series cameras have better viewfinders from what I've read. The consumer ones are smaller and not as bright, so that might it more difficult on your eyes.
My low end Canon DSLRs like the 20D/30D and various Rebels have quite mediocre viewfinders. OTOH, my 1Ds MK IIs and 1Ds, etc. before that have better viewfinders for glasses and are close to 100% frame accurate.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
As SD mentioned, I am of the opinion that you only really need 3 pics for HDR: -2, 0, +2 EV, assuming you can configure your camera to hit those exposure intervals... otherwise, it's 5 shots at 1 EV intervals. Anything more, and its the law of diminishing returns.
Try Photomatix for HDR. It's easier than PS and some would say it gives equal or better results.
http://www.hdrsoft.com/
It's hard to make good looking HDR images. Takes a lot of practice and inspiration from HDR experts. I gave up and resorted to using a Fuji S5 Pro to get me half way there without the restriction of using a tripod. It gives you about 2 more stops of DR than a normal dSLR; HDR gives you about 4-5 usually unless you want to go all out.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Yes, I am sometimes torn because of that. I usually notice the impact on image quality with my Sigma 10-20 superwide outdoors in the sun (can you say "heavenly glow" flare?), and so I have taken to using that lens naked half the time, occasionally using a CPL. It actually has a bulbous front element that, after thinking about it for a while, would seem to be prone to flare... making you wonder why they designed it that way.
ddrueding
Fixture
Still playing. I was of the impression that you would want as much range in your exposure levels as there is in the scene to be captured. If that includes a tree in shadow with a sunlit cloud in the background, that will be much more than +/- 2EV. I don't know what the DR is of the 20D, but I've been experimenting with between 1/3 stop and 2 stop intervals. The system I'm using is completely automated, so the capturing process is easy either way.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
Sure, if it's easy for you then why not? I was just generalizing.
ddrueding
Fixture
That was kind of my question. If there are reasons to take less shots besides difficulty or CPU consumption
I've been playing with shooting like crazy (17 shots, 1/3 stop apart) and then picking the ones that properly expose specific details, letting the rest over/underexpose into the background. Really neat effect so far.
e_dawg
Storage Freak
I used to think that fewer shots would result in sharper images because there would be less misalignment when overlaying images or less changes in the actual scene (e.g., cloud moved slightly, leaves/branches swayed/blowing in the wind slightly, minor camera vibration from the mirror/shutter, lens element vibrations from in-lens optical stabilization...). Basically any movements or changes at all would be additive and cause what you might call a bit of "pixel diffusion", detracting from sharpness.
Now I'm not so sure that this makes a difference, as I've seen many fantastic looking HDR images that have been constructed through the integration of 5-10 source images. However, most HDR images I see on the web are small and low resolution (< 800 x 600 px)...
Now I'm not so sure that this makes a difference, as I've seen many fantastic looking HDR images that have been constructed through the integration of 5-10 source images. However, most HDR images I see on the web are small and low resolution (< 800 x 600 px)...
ddrueding
Fixture
That has been my recent experience as well. If there is any wind at all, trees and clouds are out. I tried taking 2 quick shots with my cat, but even though she was ready to pounce, there was too much movement. The statues were easy, nothing could move but the camera, and that is easy to correct afterwards.
I got a really neat effect doing a fountain, with the water droplets in different locations, it gave a nice effect of motion.
I suppose my next step would be to apply masks to specific layers to avoid the blurring effects.
Gilbo
Storage is cool
Actually, Pentax has quite a variety of digital-only primes. And they've updated all their prime designs from the 35mm film days with new coatings to account for light reflecting back off the sensor. Although "Digital-only" is a bit of a misnomer, since like all Pentax lens since the screw mount ones 40-50 years ago they'll work on any damn Pentax SLRs ever made --they just vignette a lot. This allows Pentax to 1) make some very high quality glass at a reasonable cost, & 2) make some damn compact lenses.
I actually tossed in my Nikon-mount stuff this summer & bought a K10D, mainly because of those super-tiny, super-sharp primes. The primes combined with the shake reduction are quite a useful combination I'm finding. That and weather sealing is impossible to get on Canikon stuff without stepping up to a ridiculously bulky pro body, and nearly all my shooting is done outside when I'm camping. (And the viewfinder is better, and the ergonomics are much better --even better than Nikon--, and hypermanual, and on and on...)