dSLR thread

[ddrueding]

Interesting e_dawg, thanks for compiling the list.

Olympus total: 5,404
Nikon total: 202,757
Canon total: 291,790

 

[LunarMist]

It is not surprising that the pro cameras are less popular on the "flickr". I don't see any D2H or D2HS listed at all, and the proportion of 1D/1D MK II/1D MK IIn is quite low. The users are out probably out shooting games or events and selling the images elsewhere than on the "flickr". Where are the MFs with digital backs?

 

[LunarMist]

I can't believe Canon is not bending over backwards to rectify the situation quickly and thoroughly.

It is the other way around. Canon has the customer bent over all right.

 

[udaman]

I imagine a 5D would be perfect for it.)

And stop grumbling about the price. Do you know what full size sensors cost to make? It's heaps!

Link please tannin, to internal documents that prove this cost??? I'm calling BS, make them in the same numbers as a Rebel and the cost premium would be less than the difference between the original 'dumbed' down 300D and the 10D.

BTW, as I've said it before, I guess none of you ever owned/used -except maybe old fart LM, but I'm sure he never gave it a chance when he could lug around "2 ton" (how is that a corrollary to the 'miniature' reference ) tanks- you're all clueless as to what ergonomics is until you've used an Oly OM-1 or OM-2, they wrote the book on ergonmics with that camera, and there is no good reason a FF digital sensor could not be engineered to fit into that FF 35mm camera body style. As I've already said in a prior post, ergonomics on the 5D as well as the 30D just blow. The full size pro bodies are way, way, way too big. Leica M series digi rangefinder rocks!

That Olympus seems rather inexpensive, so is the cost really a major issue? I'm curious what the market niche of the Olympus and miniature sensor are compared to a body with a larger small sensor, such as a D80 or similar?

Wow, what a bigot! Do a little math, 1st grade LM. Oly has a 2x crop factore sensor, the larger smaller sensor you speak of in a D80 is 1.5x, and the canon rebel & 20/30/40D are 1.6x. All of the latter are miniature in comparison to FF sensors, why aren't you referring to them as 'miniature' too?

It is not surprising that the pro cameras are less popular on the "flickr". I don't see any D2H or D2HS listed at all, and the proportion of 1D/1D MK II/1D MK IIn is quite low. The users are out probably out shooting games or events and selling the images elsewhere than on the "flickr". Where are the MFs with digital backs?

Not a single 5D, FF sensor digicams must really blow, or they are TOO expensive for anyone but a pro!

Hasselblads cost $30+ not including lenses, you think Paris is going to post on flicker, get real

It is the other way around. Canon has the customer bent over all right.

Bit cynical coming from the biased crowd here that will take it in the arse from M$.

 

[LunarMist]

BTW, as I've said it before, I guess none of you ever owned/used -except maybe old fart LM, but I'm sure he never gave it a chance when he could lug around "2 ton" (how is that a corrollary to the 'miniature' reference ) tanks- you're all clueless as to what ergonomics is until you've used an Oly OM-1 or OM-2, they wrote the book on ergonmics with that camera, and there is no good reason a FF digital sensor could not be engineered to fit into that FF 35mm camera body style. As I've already said in a prior post, ergonomics on the 5D as well as the 30D just blow. The full size pro bodies are way, way, way too big. Leica M series digi rangefinder rocks!

No, I've only used some OM lenses on the Canons. Back in those days I had Nikons. In the mid 70s they were larger than the OM series, but not huge by today's standards. I have used a variety of gear that was not ergonomic, such as the GSW690 III clunker and awkward Contax rangefinders. Getting the best shot in the situation is more important than how the camera feels. The F100 had the best ergonomics of any 35 mm film body I used, though that did not include the F6.

All that being said, I'd love to have a compact, lighweight body with high performance and highest possible IQ. For example a D300 with 20Mpix FF sensor or something like that would be nice. Unfortunately such a class of DSLR bodies does not yet exist.

 

[e_dawg]

It is not surprising that the pro cameras are less popular on the "flickr". I don't see any D2H or D2HS listed at all, and the proportion of 1D/1D MK II/1D MK IIn is quite low. The users are out probably out shooting games or events and selling the images elsewhere than on the "flickr". Where are the MFs with digital backs?

I didn't bother to copy the low volume cameras and include them in my post... but they do exist on flickr:

D2H 465
D2Hs 70
1D/IIn 637

http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

Indeed, there is over/under representation with various camera models depending on how likely its users are to post their pics on flickr.

There are a ton of Rebel posters as these are the typical photo/computer geek types who can afford an SLR and would post on flickr. The same goes for the 20/30D and D50/70/80, although not as much.

Another group would be the users who just got their first SLR and don't know much about photography and are not overly tech savvy. They just want a camera to take nice family and vacation pics and nothing more. Those are probably the D40 and Olympus E-410 users. I'm sure there are a lot more of them out there, but they are not going to post on flickr.

Then there are the pro / semi-pro types with the 1D and D2 bodies who can't be bothered to spend too much time on flickr.

Then there are the semi-pro / enthusiast types with the D200 and the 5D who use flickr because they want to show off their lighting setups and mastery of composition

 

[e_dawg]

Not a single 5D, FF sensor digicams must really blow, or they are TOO expensive for anyone but a pro!

No, I just missed the 5D when i was copying all the other cameras:

5D 5,129

 

[Tannin]

Link please tannin, to internal documents that prove this cost??? I'm calling BS, make them in the same numbers as a Rebel and the cost premium would be less than the difference between the original 'dumbed' down 300D and the 10D.

Mate, you are completely off the planet now.

First, you are asking me for industrial espionage. If I had those internal papers - and short of being a major crime king, I'm not going to - I certainly woudn't be posting them here!

Tell you what, you link to Microsoft's internal confidential legal papers relating to their actions re ... oh .. pick any dirty play of theirs you like, I won't be fussy .... and I'll link to some sensor manufacturer's costing database. Deal?

But, as it happens, you don't have to be James Bond or even Maxwell Smart to figure this stuff out, you have the necessary facts at your fingertips, probably even in your head, if you bother to look for them. Let's think it through together.

• The cost of a semiconductor is related to the area of the chip.
• Note: area, not number of transistors, area.
• The area of a FF sensor is, by semiconductor standards, very large indeed.
• "Is related to" does NOT equal "is directly proportional to". As a very rough approximation, the cost of a larger chip scales in proportion to the square of the area.
• A FF sensor is NOT 1.6 times bigger in area than a standard 1.6 crop factor sensor - in fact the 1.6 crop sensor is about 330 square mm where a FF sensor is 864 square mm. The crop sensor, in other words, is less than 40% of the size of the FF sensor.
• The largest sensor that can be manufactured in a single pass is a 1.3 crop (Canon 1D II and 1D III) - any bigger than that and the manufacturer has to, in effect, make two chips and bond them together, much as Intel did back in the days of the old Pentium Pro. This costs much more again, requires another failure-prone step in the manufacturing process, and introduces a whole new world of pain for the people responsible for machinery callibration.

Executive summary: it costs an absolute bucket of money to make a FF sensor. This is why the people who keep clamouring for a "5D in a 30D body at a near-30D price" are certifable lunatics: the 5D body, for al practical purposes, is the 30D body, and the savings to be made by putting that mega-expensive sensor into a plastic body amount to small change.

The cost of FF sensors will fall, nothing is more certain, but you can be equally certain that it will fall quite slowly. You cannot overcome basic physics without a lot of hard work. (Except with drugs, which is about the only way you'll see a FF sensor at 400D prices anytime this decade.)

(Or, if you are feeling adventurous, you could try giving the drugs to a pencil pusher at Sony or Canon. The right dosage to the right person at the right time and who knows? We could see a 1Ds III for $500 US and a Nikon 500/4 VR for $1000. Given the dosage needed to get that sort of pricing decision out of the beancounters, you'd probably only see them made in a nice shade of puce with lemon-yellow spots, and even that just until the ambulance arrived ..... )

 

[e_dawg]

Interesting e_dawg, thanks for compiling the list.

Olympus total: 5,404
Nikon total: 202,757
Canon total: 291,790

Where did you get these numbers dd? The Nikon and Canon totals seem really high!

 

[e_dawg]

RE: cost of FF sensors...

With the arrival of Nikon to the FF party and the knowledge that they are going to take the FF sensor downmarket from the D3 and produce a 5D competitor, this bodes very well for all things FF and the cost of production.

Remember when LCD panels were ridiculously expensive (my friend purchased a Sharp Acquos 37" for $8,000 CAD less than 5 years ago)? They are now ridiculously cheap (well, it's all relative). You can get a 37" for $1,000 CAD now.

Hopefully that same ability to bring economies of production to larger scale components will happen for the FF sensor market as well. This will help if big guns like Sony/KM get in the FF game and Canon decides to respond to the Nikon D5 (or whatever the lower cost FF body will be called) with an even lower cost model to the 5D.

 

[ddrueding]

Where did you get these numbers dd? The Nikon and Canon totals seem really high!

I just added all the numbers in the columns you provided...and made a few mistakes. I'll total up the numbers direct from the source.

# of Photos (DSLR only)

Canon: 97,290,741
Nikon: 68,301,578
Olympus: 6,126,820

Avg Daily Users (DSLR only)

Canon: 18,322
Nikon: 13,087
Olympus: 1,443

 

[udaman]

Canon, or Epson? HP wide-format, which is best? Rockwell says he doesn't use inkjets (and he hates pigment inks...what a whuss ) anymore, now that he can get chemical based prints from expensive fast machines at CostCo and the like (guess all of his images are so uniformly conforming to commercial printers that no tweaking is ever needed to get optimal image quality on print out???).

Review of Canon's 1st pigment ink wide-format consumer/prosumer printer #9500:

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Canon Pro 9500/page_1.html

After dealing with the super low quality output of the supposedly high quality reviewed Canon i950 (and Canon never did release...HP could do it, so why not Canon?...a Friggin driver update so that you could print a text document w/collated pages back to front, so that you don't have to manually spend half an hour reversing the order of the printed out pages for your 30-50pg document so that page one is on top!!!- the most basic of printer functions and Canon's got their heads up their arses...unEffin believable!) I would have grave reservations about buying any Canon printer.

 

[ddrueding]

Interesting review. If I were to buy a photo printer, that would likely be it. However, having easy access to good prints from places online and nearby stores makes it a silly proposition.

I ordered some 12"x56" panoramas the other day for $20 each, and I'm excited to see how they turn out. I've already gotten some 4x6 prints from the Walgreen's 100 yards away, and from Flickr's online store. They were all great. How long would it take for a printer like this to pay for itself? It would be obsolete first at my print volume.

 

[e_dawg]

Rockwell is a bit of a hack sometimes. Why am I not surprised that he hates pigment inks seeing as he only likes cameras that allow him to crank the colour saturation up past +4 on the custom pic settings menu?

Anyways, I used to feel the same way about printing at home on an inkjet, but after I bought my Epson SPR1800 and am using high quality paper with a calibrated monitor, print quality mode and paper specific profiles, I am so happy with the output that I would not want to get prints from a commercial labs (especially mainstream consumer ones) unless volume and low cost were more important that quality (i.e., making a big print run because everyone at the ceremony asked if you could send them a copy of the pics).

I would buy the semi-pro HP B9180 and Epson SPR1800-3800 models before the Canon Pro 9500 and Pro 9000 models.

 

[LunarMist]

I had an R1800 a few years ago but did not like the compromise of gamut and super gloss vs. accuracy all that much. Of course it depends on the subjects and your areas of interest. I prefer the R2400/3800/4800/7800 K3 inkset which is more traditional like the old SP2200, rather than the R800/R1800 inkset which is more along the lines of the old 1280/1290.

 

[ddrueding]

So what do you use now, Lunar?

My concern is that I like large format prints. 12" is about the smallest dimension that I'll want. This means that all the printers are really expensive. I have a great picture printed on canvas in my dining room, about 24"x40".

 

[e_dawg]

I had an R1800 a few years ago but did not like the compromise of gamut and super gloss vs. accuracy all that much. Of course it depends on the subjects and your areas of interest. I prefer the R2400/3800/4800/7800 K3 inkset which is more traditional like the old SP2200, rather than the R800/R1800 inkset which is more along the lines of the old 1280/1290.

Yes, the 800/1800 was designed to be more all-purpose and have a wider gamut, but did you find the accuracy that poor? Depending on the calibration and profiles used, it's hard to say. In fact, last year, Epson released new "premium" profiles specific for each print quality setting with each of their papers.

Also, what rendering intent did you use? Perceptual tends to shift colours more than RC, IIRC.

 

[e_dawg]

I posted a review of the E-510 on DCRP here, but will paste a copy here for your convenience:

Noise and Dynamic Range

The drawback of having a smaller sensor (noise) is as expected I was hoping those reports of more noise and less dynamic range were wrong (because there were so many glowing reports that refuted these negatives), but they were right to a certain extent. It's not as bad as some people reported (imaging-resource.com is unusually negative with the E-510, given that they rarely give a negative review of anything they review), but it's there.

Depending on how you manage contrast, exposure bias, tone, WB, NR, and sharpness, there is between 0.5-1.0 less stop of sensitivity available for the same amount of noise and detail retention and about half a stop less range with the highlights. Ultimately, at low ISOs, there's about half a stop less DR (limited mainly by highlight range), and at high ISOs, there's about 0.5-1.0 stop less DR than the Nikons (limited mainly by sensor noise).

I found the best setting for detail retention vs noise is to turn the noise filter off, sharpness to -2, shoot in RAW + JPEG, and do NR in Noise Ninja if necessary and USM at the end.

Exposure and tone

I find the exposure to be a little less reliable and consistent than the Nikons overall. Like the D40/80, it can blow the highlights, but I don't think it is as consistent at doing so.

The default contrast and tone curve is too steep. Specifically, it keeps the shadows and lower midtones low to mask noise like the Fuji F10/11/30/31/40 P&S models do. The result is that the images look surprisingly noise free, sharp, and contrasty out of the box. But if you really want to get it right and prop up the upper shadows and lower midtones to extract detail and smooth out the tone curve, this will bring out the noise as well.

I have taken to setting the contrast at -2 in-camera and shoot in RAW to compensate for this (settings default to automatically read from the camera in the RAW converter, so it's easier this way... JPEGs look better too).

AF

The 3-point AF has been panned by some reviewers as being slow and struggles in low light, and limited by its 3-point system.

Personally, I do find it a bit slow, but only in low light where it does a bit compared to the D40/80. The difference is small. I bet if slightly faster lenses than the kit lenses were used, this would not be a problem.

As for only 3 points, it wasn't a limitation for me with the D40 and it isn't on the E-510.

The AF assist is annoying because a weaker version of the red-eye reduction flash burst is used instead of an AF lamp. I guess it's stronger and more effective than an AF lamp, but it's definitely more annoying.

The kit lenses are acceptably fast and quiet when focusing. You would be forgiven if you were to mistake them for USM/SWM/HSM lenses.

I imagine the SWD lenses would be an improvement on the kit lens AF in terms of speed and silence, but not nearly as much as it would be on the E-3.

Colour, WB

The auto WB seems decent; haven't done enough testing with it yet to see if it's as good as the Nikons. Really cool feature is that you can assign the Fn button to set a custom WB on the fly. Just hold it down and press the shutter while aiming at a white or grey object. You can also select the actual colour temperature by rotating the dial (3700K, etc.). I find these two features quick, convenient, and better implemented than on the Nikons.

Flash

Come on, do I even have to spell it out here? Of course the Nikons are better. And no CLS unless you get the E-3 and the new R-type wireless flashes.

Red-Eye reduction is always annoying, but using the pre-flash is more annoying than the AF assist light.

LCD display, Live view

Not a big fan of Live view, but I can see situations in which it would be useful. When it was introduced, it was unique, especially with full-time unlimited operation. You can preview WB, exposure, and other image settings before you take the shot. I especially like the ability to display a live histogram so you can check shadow and highlight clipping and under/over exposure BEFORE taking the shot. LV is also good for MF, etc. But generally, this is not something I normally use.

The display itself is a little disappointing in its colour and gamma accuracy. The gamut is a little narrow and the colours look a little pale. Things tend to look a little dark compared to the bright, contrasty, and saturated Nikon LCDs.

Image review is pretty good with the dial acting as a quick and convenient way of controlling the zoom and the multi-direction pad moving the image around. Definitely better than the Fuji S5 Pro and a little faster than the Nikons to move around in (I find moving left/right/up/down on the Nikons to be a little slow). Like the ability to blink areas of clipped shadows as well as highlights (Nikons only show highlights), but find that it takes longer to cycle through the display styles before getting back to just the picture.

Image Stabilization

One of the main reasons to buy an E-510 over and E-410, it does a good job overall. I would put its average level of effectiveness at about 2-3 stops.

Handheld, I have been able to take sharp pics at 1/6 a second at f = 30 mm (60 mm @ 35FF equiv), 1/8 sec at f = 60 mm (120 @ 35eq), and have been able to use 1/20 to 1/30 with f = 150 mm (300 @ 35eq) with success (3.5-4 stops max).

Compared to Nikon VR, it is similar, but VR II has a clear one-stop edge. Using the 18-200/VR, I can get sharp pics at 200 mm with a shutter speed of 1/15 sec.

Overall, it is comparable in effectiveness to the older VR lenses.

Optics - 2 lens kit

This kit is a bargain. The 14-42/3.5-5.6 (28-84 @ 35 mm equiv) and 40-150/3.5-5.6 (80-300 @ 35eq) are normally $250 and $280 each, respectively, if you buy them separately. They are both amazingly light and compact, yet feel well constructed. Zoom ring is nicely dampened and you don't have too much of that wobbly rattling plastic feel most kit lenses have.

Except for the barrel distortion of the 14-42 at the wide end, it's a decent lens. Nothing spectacular, just a solid lens, and good for a kit lens.

The 40-150 is a gem. It's surprisingly quite sharp throughout most of its range, getting a bit softer at the long end but still better than lenses like the 50-200/VR and 70-300/VR at their long ends. Very impressive for a kit lens.

This is where you see the advantage of the Four-Thirds system -- small, light lenses with lots of range and excellent optical quality.

Naturally, it would be nice if they were faster, especially the 40-150 at the long end. However, this is true of all mainstream consumer zooms, and the lens would double or triple in size, weight, and cost.

Conclusion

The E-510 + 2 lens kit is an excellent value for a 10 MP image stabilized camera with a ton of features and 2 excellent lenses. Its 4/3 sensor is both a blessing and a curse with excellent compact lenses but a slightly noisier sensor that has a bit less dynamic range.

Overall it is not as good a performer as its Nikon and Canon 10 MP equivalents, but it's not as expensive as them either and it is smaller and lighter due to the 4/3 lenses. Performance and feature-wise, I would compare it to the D40 much more than the D80.

It is my hope that it will replace my Nikon/Fuji setup as a lighter and more compact travel system, and that's what I would recommend it to for to others. I have the 12-60/2.8-3.5 on order (24-120 @ 35eq or 16-80 @ APS-C 1.5x) to be my single-lens walkaround / vacation solution. If I needed more reach, I would take the small and sharp 40-150/3.5-5.6 with me too.

 

[Gilbo]

Thanks for the detailed comments e_dawg. I'm quite curious about the Olympus system. That 12-60 f/2.8-3.5 looks like a phenomenally useful lens --I'd love to hear your comments on it once you've had a chance to use it for a bit.

 

[Will Rickards]

I've got the nikon D40 with the kit lens (18-55mm no VR).
I'm considering my next lens.
I was looking at the Nikon 2161 (70-300mm VR) @ $480 and the Nikon 2159 (18-200mm VR) @ $700.

I wanted more zoom (can't seem to ever get enough right?). I was taking pictures of Liam at soccer and even though I was right on the boundary of the field I couldn't really zoom in on him. I took lots of group shots that maybe I could crop but weren't that good anyway (handheld with no VR).
I thought the 70-300mm would give me that zoom.

So what is really the difference between 200mm and 300mm?
I'd probably prefer the 18-200mm because I'd get VR with my indoor no flash shots and it would be a single lens.

 

[ddrueding]

So what is really the difference between 200mm and 300mm?

This is a question that I am interested in as well. My longest lens at present is 55mm, so something must be done.

 

[e_dawg]

I wanted more zoom (can't seem to ever get enough right?). I was taking pictures of Liam at soccer and even though I was right on the boundary of the field I couldn't really zoom in on him. I took lots of group shots that maybe I could crop but weren't that good anyway (handheld with no VR).
I thought the 70-300mm would give me that zoom.

So what is really the difference between 200mm and 300mm?
I'd probably prefer the 18-200mm because I'd get VR with my indoor no flash shots and it would be a single lens.

It depends on how much you want a single lens all-purpose solution or whether you want to specialise (UK/Cdn spelling ) and have a multi-lens collection with each lens being geared towards certain uses.

It also depends on how much you want to spend, how "fast" a lens you are looking for (max aperture), and how much size and weight you're willing to live with.

While the 18-200/VR is an excellent single lens all-purpose solution, it is not designed for sharpness at the long end. It's there in case you need it. Above 135 mm or so, it gets noticeably soft wide open and isn't much better when you stop down. So, if you figure you're going to be using it outdoors and need to use it at 200 mm, be prepared for some softness.

The 70-300/VR is definitely preferable if you're going to shoot outdoors, as you'll need that 300 mm reach for wildlife and sports. It is very sharp at the short end up to about 150 mm, but becomes a bit soft at the long end. Above 210 mm or so, it starts getting a bit soft, although it doesn't degrade as much as the 18-200. At 300 mm wide open, you will notice it a bit, but if you stop down to f/8, it should be acceptable. But the problem is that you're going to need a lot of light to take an action shot even at f/5.6, let alone f/8.

Please remember that VR will only help reduce camera shake, but it will not reduce motion blur of moving subjects. For sports photography, you will need a high shutter speed to freeze the action. And with slow consumer zooms that max out at f/5.6, it will be tough to use fast shutter speeds unless you crank the ISO to 1600 or have a lot of light.

dd, if you don't need 300 mm of reach, the Canon 70-200/4L is a fantastic semi-pro lens that is reasonably fast, but still compact and light enough compared to the f/2.8 beasts

 

[Will Rickards]

I guess I just need to see the pictures... off to go read some reviews.

 

[LunarMist]

dd, if you don't need 300 mm of reach, the Canon 70-200/4L is a fantastic semi-pro lens that is reasonably fast, but still compact and light enough compared to the f/2.8 beasts

Each of the four current Canon 70-200 L versions are fine pro grade lenses. I've owned 5, including at least one copy of each of the four types. Is that your favorite of the four?

 

[e_dawg]

Whoops, should clarify that if I had a Canon body, the 70-200/4L *IS* USM would be at the top of my list for a tele zoom.

 

[e_dawg]

Thanks for the detailed comments e_dawg. I'm quite curious about the Olympus system. That 12-60 f/2.8-3.5 looks like a phenomenally useful lens --I'd love to hear your comments on it once you've had a chance to use it for a bit.

Whoops, turns out it's actually a 12-60/2.8-4.0 lens instead ... there goes another 1/3 of a stop

Haven't had a chance to use it much, except to say that it is noticeably faster than the kit lenses when focusing. I wasn't sure if the SWD would work in the E-510 or not (the SWD was only promoted to work with the E-3 although the dual screw-drive + SWD electrical contacts allows it to be used with any 4/3 body), but it appears that it works just fine.

 

[e_dawg]

I guess I just need to see the pictures... off to go read some reviews.

Here's a 100% crop of the top left corner of the frame for the 18-200/VR... JPEG out of the camera, cropped, then 20% USM at radius 7

1/400 sec, f/7.1, ISO 100, contrast -1, JPEG basic, no-resize, 20% USM

Notice the blur, lack of contrast, and the chromatic aberration? And this image has already been sharpened a bit.

 

[LunarMist]

Whoops, should clarify that if I had a Canon body, the 70-200/4L *IS* USM would be at the top of my list for a tele zoom.

Do you have one, or just talking?

 

[ddrueding]

Wow e_dawg, that is a pretty nasty looking image.

 

[ddrueding]

So what is really the difference between 200mm and 300mm?

Trying to figure a way to quantify this for myself as well. Here is what I came up with. Calculations are at full-frame, because my math skills suck.

200/300mm lens = 12/8.2 degree diagonal angle of view

At 50 yards, the field of view is 10/7.1 yards diagonal.

An object 6' tall fills the frame at 41/59 feet.

 

[ddrueding]

Trying to figure a way to quantify this for myself as well. Here is what I came up with. Calculations are at full-frame, because my math skills suck.

200/300/600mm lens = 12/8.2/4.1 degree diagonal angle of view

At 50 yards, the field of view is 10/7.1/3.6 yards diagonal.

An object 6' tall fills the frame at 41/59/84 feet.

 

[e_dawg]

Do you have one, or just talking?

Oh no, I don't own any Canon dSLR equipment. I have all Nikon (and now Olympus stuff) but have been looking at a couple Canon lenses with envy because I am tired of either going light and carrying a slow consumer 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR zoom or 180/2.8 +/- 1.4x TC, or using the massive 70-200/2.8 VR +/- 1.4x TC. Nikon does not have a 70-200/4 equivalent (except for the old discontinued lackluster 70-210/4)

As well, Nikon has a 300/4 that's of "acceptable" weight to me, but no VR. Canon's 300/4L IS has IS. So that's two teles that I would find useful but are unavailable to me with the Nikon system.

 

[ddrueding]

So I've come to the conclusion that I want more than 200mm of reach. I would LOVE the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS, but $1500 is quite a bit. That leaves me with the 300mm lenses, either one of the 4 70-300 or 2 75-300 or 100-300. And I think IS at these lengths is a must, so that leaves two of the 70-300s, one with diffractive optics and one without. Considering the DO is nearly as much as the 100-400 mentioned above, that leaves the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS.

Am I wrong insisting on IS @ 300mm? Is there another lens I should be looking at?

 

[udaman]

Trying to figure a way to quantify this for myself as well. Here is what I came up with. Calculations are at full-frame, because my math skills suck.

200/300/600mm lens = 12/8.2/4.1 degree diagonal angle of view

At 50 yards, the field of view is 10/7.1/3.6 yards diagonal.

An object 6' tall fills the frame at 41/59/84 feet.

Why spend $650 at the low-end for a new lenses if you are not sure what reach you will be wanting?

Not sure if there are any full line rental shops in PA, but you could spend the weekend searching around:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=25506

They usually cost about $50/day (many times you can get the day rate for the whole weekend) for rental lenses.

If you don't want to spend the money to rent, then just go to the shops that have the lenses, see if you can get them to put new 'demo' glass on your camera in the store and play with theim there, take distance shots from within the store, or point out a window to get an idea of how a 200 compares to a 300. When you are in the field, you don't measure how far your subject is, you just find out that you do or do not have enough reach .

Also you could take some pix with a 1.4x TC attached, then go home and d/l to the computer and make comparisons.Yeah, they should also let you put one of those big heavy superteles on for comparison, just to see what the additional reach gets you. And when you decide you want more than that, you'll probably have to use a mirror lenses. All of the longer reach <300mm options usually cost ~$1k or *much* more.

 

[udaman]

Here's a 100% crop of the top left corner of the frame for the 18-200/VR... JPEG out of the camera, cropped, then 20% USM at radius 7


1/400 sec, f/7.1, ISO 100, contrast -1, JPEG basic, no-resize, 20% USM

Notice the blur, lack of contrast, and the chromatic aberration? And this image has already been sharpened a bit.

CA? I only see very slight purple fringing at the lower right boarder btw light and dark line of the office building/windows? portion. Pretty minimal from what I can see in that image.

You have contrast set at -1 and you think the image is low contrast because of the lens ...not what Ken Rockwell would advise .

"Blur"? lower left corner (how much of a 100%? crop is this? full res? 6MP 8MP 10MP image? If 10MP and full size image crop (no resize just a crop) I'm not surprised at all. That represents what % of the full image, <1/20th of the total area?

lack of sharpness on the cross-hatch diagonal line patter of the concrete wall (it's a wall is it not?). Sure there is some lack of detail, exaccerbated I'll bet by some vignetting? in the lower left corner, perhaps starting at the 1/2 way point in the image, but this is an example of the corners of the lens @ what FL, 200mm? You think that's bad, go get a Canon 50mm 1.2 and put it on a FF Canon body, then do the same kind of corner area crop with F1.2.

btw, your reasoning for USM 20%, radius 7? In camera sharpening set to what?

 

[ddrueding]

Why spend $650 at the low-end for a new lenses if you are not sure what reach you will be wanting?

When shooting outdoors, I think "all I can get" the correct answer to how much reach I want. When I was out hiking with the 18-55, I saw objects/birds/whatever at all distances. 95% of them were out of reach. If I was walking around with a 70-300, 50% of them might still be out of reach. But more is better, yes?

 

[e_dawg]

dd, I think you should think about how much size and weight you're willing to carry around as well. You can always go big and get a faster, sharper lens with VR as long as you don't mind paying for it, but it's going to be double the size and weight. And the longer you go, the more lens speed matters, so you will have no choice but to go big and use tripods.

Most consumer 70-300/4-5.6 IS type zooms are just over 1.5 lbs (~700 g) while most 70-200/2.8 IS type zooms are around 3.1 lbs (~1400 g). I've found that the heaviest lenses I am comfortable with carrying and shooting with for a few hours is around 2 lbs (~900 g). If it's for short periods, I could deal with something like the 2.6 lb (1200 g) 300/4L IS, but the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400/4.5-5.6 bazookas at 3.2 lb (1500 g) are getting too heavy.

Granted, you'll want to use a monopod wherever possible, but it isn't always convenient or appropriate to do so.

Personally, I've found the 70-300/4-5.6 and 70-200/4 zooms to be the best combination of size/weight, reach, and speed given my weight restrictions.

In a pinch, you can use a 1.4x teleconverter to get 40% more reach. It's a relatively small adapter lens that is small, useful, and efficient. Only problem is that it further reduces the speed of your lens by 1 more stop, and now you're getting into f/8 territory with consumer zooms and f/5.6 with a shorter f/4 lens like the 70-200 and you get a minor reduction in image quality. 1.7x TC's go even further, but you lose more speed and image quality.

For birding, you will likely need at least 300 mm, and if you get into it seriously, you will be spending a fortune on fast 400 or 500 mm IS lenses with a tripod and a flash beamer to get enough light.

 

[ddrueding]

Hardcore birding, Tannin style, is something too involved for me. Based on the weight issue (good point, BTW), I'll be sticking with the 70-300/4-5.6 IS. I'd be interested to know about how far that lens is good for birds and the like.

 

[e_dawg]

Uda, the CA wasn't too bad in this part of the image; there are areas with a lot more. The local contrast and sharpness is, objectively speaking, relatively poor. Yes, this is a 100% crop from a 10 MP image. I don't expect it to be very good, but I also don't expect it to be this poor. Remember that it is stopped down (well, 2/3 of a stop, but anyways) to f/7.1, so I'm not shooting wide-open here, which would be even worse. It has also been sharpened in PP, so would be even softer if I hadn't.

I used 20% because I didn't think it would be fair to post an unsharpened crop of the 18-200... wanted to sharpen the image a bit as most people do before they post online. In-camera sharpening was set to 0. With the Nikons, the only setting I really need to change is contrast to -1. Otherwise, the JPEGs that come out of the camera are pretty decent.

I can also take some of the in-camera processing out of the equation by showing the converted RAW output, but it wouldn't be a fair comparison either because the Capture NX has auto CA removal.

 

[Tannin]

When I go out hiking with the 500mm f/4 and some converters, I see objects/birds/whatever at all distances. 95% of them are out of reach.

I'm three parts serious when I say that! You always need more reach if you are birding.

I'd say forget doing birds, Dave. If you want to be any good at it, you start at 400mm and go up from there, and the money is only a small part of it - it takes a phenomenal amount of time to get close enough to the right bird in the right light with the right equipment.

You are not the sort of guy who will take something on and be bad at it, if you get started on something you want to do well at it, and if you do that with bird photographs you won't have time to do any of those other things that matter to you.

PS: I have a friend with the 70-300 IS, she gives it a good report. I used it briefly, thought that it was a lot of lens for a small amount of money.