dSLR thread

[ddrueding]

I hear you, Tannin. I've spent a fair amount of time on your site looking at the shots and the lenses used; there is no way I'm going to buy and carry all that gear. And I understand what you mean about getting into place, I attempted just that on some deer the other day. Hell, even getting a domestic cat into position is a PITA.

 

[Gilbo]

SLR Gear have their first two Olympus lens reviews done.

The Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 e_dawg just got, was well-liked by the reviewers (it's the 2nd link above). From the conclusion:

The 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 is the ultimate walk-around lens for the Olympus four-thirds system. While not as versatile as a superzoom (54mm isn't very long, as far as telephoto lenses go, even with the 2x crop factor) the optical quality is truly remarkable. Combined with excellent resistance to distortion and shading, and a respectable chromatic aberration profile (you have to look hard to find CA in images produced by this lens), this lens does the job, and does more than well enough to justify the reasonable price demanded for it.

 

[Gilbo]

By the way, e_dawg got the 12-60mm, not the 14-54 I was talking about.

 

[LunarMist]

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.

A 500/4 is not a hardcore birder's lens. It is a general purpose wildlife lens. I have used mine with a little success on birds, but serious birders use 600 mm or longer lenses. Bird photography is specialized and can be rather difficult, requiring patience and dedication to scout out areas, set up blinds, etc. Sometimes I think about getting a 600/4, but it would be hard to give the 500/4, and then there would be a gap between 400 and 600. Decisions...

 

[Tannin]

Have to disagree with you there Lunar. The Canon 500/4 is the serious bird photographer's lens, although there are also applications that call for a 600/4, a 400/5.6, a 400/4 DO, a 100-400, even (from time to time) a 400/2.8 or a 300/2.8.

Everybody has (or wants) a second top-class birding lens, but the great majority go for a 500/4 as the primary tool - something like 60% at a guess.

Why the 500/4? Simply, because it's close to half the weight of the 600/4 or the 400/2.8, and that means you can hand-hold it (though you tend to use it with a tripod more than half the time). Nothing else offers:

* fairly serious reach
* fairly useful speed
* Handholdable (just)

The 600/4 and the 400/2.8 are too heavy, the slow 400s are a bit short and a bit too slow, while the 400 DO and the 300/2.8 are length-challenged.

With that said, there are tasks that each one of those lenses can do that none of the others can:

For waders and anything else where you are seriously challenged for length, the 600/4 is the go-to unit - pretty soon the 800/5.6 will arrive to provide another option in that same category. (Consider the monster Sigma in this same class too.)

For flight shots, the 400/5.6 is clearly favoured, though there is a pretty good argument for the 100-400, or the 400 DO.

For rainforest work, and other places where the light is terrible, the 300/2.8 is favoured, and a handful of bird guys I know or know of use the monster 400/2.8, but that's really a sport lens.

The 500/4 I bought was clearly the best choice for the stuff I do, but before too long I'll certainly be adding some more strings to my bow. I'm stll pondering between:

600/4 - unlikely, though I nearly got one earlier this year.
800/5.6 - I've taken to looking hard at shots with teleconverters, and I'm just not really happy with the results of even the 1.4 - I've taken to using the 500/4 as a bare lens most of the time recently, even when the light is good and I'm reach-challenged. In other words, though a 600/4 seems to make sense on the surface of things, I'd rather use an 800/5.6 bare than a 600/4 with a 1.4 on it. If I need f/4, I can revert to the 500.

300/2.8: Just for rainforest. Seems too much to spend on a lens that wouldn't get used much, despite the fact that it would be very, very useful under certain circumstances.

400/2.8: Another rainforest-only jobbie, and despite the extra length, it's way too heavy and costs the earth. Not for me.

400/5.6. Could be useful now and then - as I said, it's regarded as the lens to have for flight shots because of its light weight, fast focus, and excellent image quality - but not enough of an advance on the 100-400 to be worth giving up the flexibility of the zoom. (I don't own or need a 70-200 as the 100-400 covers the gap between my 24-105 and the 500/4 nicely. It's got closer focus (needed for small birds) than just abut anything, and doesn't just do birds, some of my favourite landscapes and even candid portraits are thanks to the 100-400.)

400/4 DO - gets mixed reviews still, but very much on my radar. A truly hand-holdable lens with 400mm reach and f/4 speed is a constant siren call to my wallet. But at around $10,000 for only 400mm it's hard to swallow. At around $5000 I'd have one already.

Executive summary: 800/5.6 is the most likely next one for me, though the 400/4 DO is still a possibility, and a 300/2.8 might find its way into my like one day.

 

[udaman]

Have to disagree with you there Lunar. The Canon 500/4 is the serious bird photographer's lens, although there are also applications that call for a 600/4, a 400/5.6, a 400/4 DO, a 100-400, even (from time to time) a 400/2.8 or a 300/2.8.

Everybody has (or wants) a second top-class birding lens, but the great majority go for a 500/4 as the primary tool - something like 60% at a guess.

Why the 500/4? Simply, because it's close to half the weight of the 600/4 or the 400/2.8, and that means you can hand-hold it (though you tend to use it with a tripod more than half the time). Nothing else offers:

* fairly serious reach
* fairly useful speed
* Handholdable (just)

The 600/4 and the 400/2.8 are too heavy, the slow 400s are a bit short and a bit too slow, while the 400 DO and the 300/2.8 are length-challenged.

With that said, there are tasks that each one of those lenses can do that none of the others can:

For waders and anything else where you are seriously challenged for length, the 600/4 is the go-to unit - pretty soon the 800/5.6 will arrive to provide another option in that same category. (Consider the monster Sigma in this same class too.)

For flight shots, the 400/5.6 is clearly favoured, though there is a pretty good argument for the 100-400, or the 400 DO.

For rainforest work, and other places where the light is terrible, the 300/2.8 is favoured, and a handful of bird guys I know or know of use the monster 400/2.8, but that's really a sport lens.

The 500/4 I bought was clearly the best choice for the stuff I do, but before too long I'll certainly be adding some more strings to my bow. I'm stll pondering between:

600/4 - unlikely, though I nearly got one earlier this year.
800/5.6 - I've taken to looking hard at shots with teleconverters, and I'm just not really happy with the results of even the 1.4 - I've taken to using the 500/4 as a bare lens most of the time recently, even when the light is good and I'm reach-challenged. In other words, though a 600/4 seems to make sense on the surface of things, I'd rather use an 800/5.6 bare than a 600/4 with a 1.4 on it. If I need f/4, I can revert to the 500.

300/2.8: Just for rainforest. Seems too much to spend on a lens that wouldn't get used much, despite the fact that it would be very, very useful under certain circumstances.

400/2.8: Another rainforest-only jobbie, and despite the extra length, it's way too heavy and costs the earth. Not for me.

400/5.6. Could be useful now and then - as I said, it's regarded as the lens to have for flight shots because of its light weight, fast focus, and excellent image quality - but not enough of an advance on the 100-400 to be worth giving up the flexibility of the zoom. (I don't own or need a 70-200 as the 100-400 covers the gap between my 24-105 and the 500/4 nicely. It's got closer focus (needed for small birds) than just abut anything, and doesn't just do birds, some of my favourite landscapes and even candid portraits are thanks to the 100-400.)

400/4 DO - gets mixed reviews still, but very much on my radar. A truly hand-holdable lens with 400mm reach and f/4 speed is a constant siren call to my wallet. But at around $10,000 for only 400mm it's hard to swallow. At around $5000 I'd have one already.

Executive summary: 800/5.6 is the most likely next one for me, though the 400/4 DO is still a possibility, and a 300/2.8 might find its way into my like one day.

http://www.questarcorporation.com/birder.htm

http://www.questarcorporation.com/questar.htm

Questar 1300mm is the serious birder's lens @20ft-2000ft (6.1m-610m ). Costs ~1/2 of those above, weighs half (<1.81kg) the weight of the 500 F4 Canon. who wants to lug around all those massive Canon's, massively large and heavy Canon bodies & lenses??? Tannin must have the strenht of the Terminator or an orangutan

The 'fairly' serious reach, is not even remotely close to the Questar Birder...a true serious reach lens.

The Questar Birder is the spotting scope everyone turns to when identification hangs in the balance. Standard powers of 8.5x, 40x and 65x resolve details that are feather-edge fine at 20 feet or 2000 feet. Optional available eyepieces can vary this to increase powers. The built-in multi port control box allows for Visual & photography. Our 89mm aperture and long 1300mm focal length provide light grasp and the power to reach out beyond the limits of other scopes. Our unique Control Box allows three magnifications without changing eyepieces, with a camera mounted at the same time. Focus is perfect from edge to edge, eliminating the eyestrain associated with field curvature. Colors are completely distortion-free and vivid. Each Questar is tested and guaranteed to out-resolve any scope on the market. The Questar Birder's rapid focus will aid you with speed and precision when changing powers or pursuing targets. With an instrument weight of less than 4 lbs. (13 lbs. in its waterproof carrying case), the Questar Birder travels effortlessly.

 

[Tannin]

Complete nonsense, Udaman. You use a spotting scope for bird photography when you are unwilling to spend enough to buy the proper equipment, or when you already own the scope for looking through in the ordinary way and want to "double your return" by pressing it into service in a secondary role as an ersatz long photographic lens.

Digiscoping can be remarkably effective, but it doesn't even come close to the results you get with even relatively modest designed-for-the-purpose photographic gear. This is why I switched - after some years of digiscoping, I wanted better image quality and the ability to take pictures of all birds, not just ones that sit still for long enough to let you digiscope thm. I achieved this with a relatively modest lens in the 100-400. Stepping up to the 500/4 took it to another dimension.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself at http://tannin.net.au - look at the 2003, 2005, and early 2005 shots (digiscoped) and compare them with the late 2005/early 2006 ones (mostly the 100-400), then those since (mostly the 500/4). Note also that the later shots are (in general) of much more difficult birds: rarer, shyer, less cooperative.

In any case, although everybody always wants more reach, the really good bird photogs aim to use shorter lenses. The less air between you and the bird (and the less glass) the better the shot. Naturally, this requires more skill, paitence, and above all fieldcraft - but that's the way you start to gravitate as you gain experience and lift your game.

 

[Tannin]

In a word, no. You use a spotting scope for bird photography when you are unwilling to spend enough to buy the proper equipment, or when you already own the scope for looking through in the ordinary way and want to "double your return" by pressing it into service in a secondary role as an ersatz long photographic lens.

Digiscoping can be remarkably effective, but it doesn't even come close to the results you get with even relatively modest designed-for-the-purpose photographic gear. This is why I switched - after some years of digiscoping, I wanted better image quality and the ability to take pictures of all birds, not just ones that sit still for long enough to let you digiscope thm. I achieved this with a relatively modest lens in the 100-400. Stepping up to the 500/4 took it to another dimension.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself at http://tannin.net.au - look at the 2003, 2005, and early 2005 shots (digiscoped) and compare them with the late 2005/early 2006 ones (mostly the 100-400), then those since (mostly the 500/4). Note also that the later shots are (in general) of much more difficult birds: rarer, shyer, less cooperative.

In any case, although everybody always wants more reach, the really good bird photogs aim to use shorter lenses. The less air between you and the bird (and the less glass) the better the shot. Naturally, this requires more skill, paitence, and above all fieldcraft - but that's the way you start to gravitate as you gain experience and lift your game.

My scope, by the way, is the best quality spotting scope on the market, a Swarovski. It's for sale.

 

[Handruin]

Update for information regarding the Canon 1D mark III sub-mirror problem. Tannin, take a look at this exception list to see if your serial number is listed. If it is, that means you have the corrected parts for your mirror. I looked and mine was not listed. The Rob Galbraith website says they will have an updated test with the fixed sub-mirror part coming late in the the week of 11/19/07.

Here is the updated announcement.

 

[udaman]

In a word, no. You use a spotting scope for bird photography when you are unwilling to spend enough to buy the proper equipment, or when you already own the scope for looking through in the ordinary way and want to "double your return" by pressing it into service in a secondary role as an ersatz long photographic lens.

Digiscoping can be remarkably effective, but it doesn't even come close to the results you get with even relatively modest designed-for-the-purpose photographic gear. This is why I switched - after some years of digiscoping, I wanted better image quality and the ability to take pictures of all birds, not just ones that sit still for long enough to let you digiscope thm. I achieved this with a relatively modest lens in the 100-400. Stepping up to the 500/4 took it to another dimension.

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself at http://tannin.net.au - look at the 2003, 2005, and early 2005 shots (digiscoped) and compare them with the late 2005/early 2006 ones (mostly the 100-400), then those since (mostly the 500/4). Note also that the later shots are (in general) of much more difficult birds: rarer, shyer, less cooperative.

In any case, although everybody always wants more reach, the really good bird photogs aim to use shorter lenses. The less air between you and the bird (and the less glass) the better the shot. Naturally, this requires more skill, paitence, and above all fieldcraft - but that's the way you start to gravitate as you gain experience and lift your game.

My scope, by the way, is the best quality spotting scope on the market, a Swarovski. It's for sale.

As Tea would say, have you used a Questar tannin?

Until you have, I'm not impressed with life your 'game' in getting closer to the subject with your supposed best spotting scope, or 500/F4 Canon (although, this is always more desireable from a photographic quality standpoint...getting the close range sightings...with less air..less atmospheric distortions). You could get even greater reach from a Questar 7in with a tripod, but the image quality is not spectacular. In then end the 'trophy hunters' get their shot from less than using a 500/F4. It all depends on how much time you want to zealotlessly (sp?) spend to get that 'ultimate' image. Long range imagery, 'birding' is a life long endeavor for those who aspire to satisfiy themselves for those elsuve spectacular images.

My hat off to you tannin. Birding is a difficult and frustrating endeavor (as are many things in life), capturing the ephermeral hummingbirds in flight, via video photography (which IMHO is the only way for humans to present to other humans the instantaneous speed of life humingbirds live at, hummmingbirds live at warp speed, which recalls a StarTrek episode, such that with heartbeats that seem insane to humans and other animals they live for their short lives....at warp speed) is quite difficult at present. Canon TX1 will not get you good hummingbird in flight images...wait another 5-10 yrs.

 

[udaman]

These people like the new (2003) Zeiss 85mm the best, weighs less than a Questar, 35mm/dSLR adapter costs $400 though

http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/scopes2003.html

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=-1]We were amazed by some of the findings. In past reviews, the Questar has been our lodestar, by which we measured all other scopes. But now other manufacturers have caught up with Questar. On the chart, you'll find that top score of "20" in the 60x column for the Zeiss Diascope 85 as well as for the Questar Birder.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Zeiss comes with a user friendly option (not that tannin would find it acceptable given the PnS sized sensor) of built in eyepiece camera hybrid (2.0in 'live view' LCD screen is only 150k pixel).

From the pdf on Zeiss site:

low-noise 4 megapixel CCD sensor...is optimally adjusted to the ZEISS Diascope with the help of the high-quality DxO software. And it "only" costs $2k
http://www.birdwatching.com/optics/zeiss_dc4.html

Something useful to go along with your non-image stablizing bling-bling $3.3k Zeiss binos:
http://www.company7.com/zeiss/binoculars/1040gold.html

 

[LOST6200]

I recall that Tony used the telescpoe thing in heis early days. But realistrically a proper camera and lens is eaasily to use and gives the good control.. what is Uda's longest lens Ich wunder?

 

[ddrueding]

Proof that given the right subject, anyone can take a pretty picture.

 

[Howell]

Maybe its just me but it looks a little distorted. I can't pick it out. Maybe a little fish-eye. Absolutly nice subject.

 

[LunarMist]

Something is amiss. The original image is very soft/shaky, indicating a focus error and/or inappropriate shutter speed for the support used. The exposure is uneven, indicating improper use of filtration and/or exposure. Some PP may help after the fact. The most important thing is to understand the failings and be prepared for the next opportunity. You might also want to consider the composition and angle of light. However, the latter may require a different time of day and/or year.

 

[LunarMist]

Maybe its just me but it looks a little distorted. I can't pick it out. Maybe a little fish-eye. Absolutly nice subject.

It looks like wideangle distortion that can be corrected in PP - not the main fault of the image. Oceans are expected to curve a bit due the shape of the earth.

 

[ddrueding]

Looking closer at it, I can see what you mean. I think the horizon isn't level, either. Simple as it is, this is my favorite so far.

 

[ddrueding]

Grrr. Looking at some of the others, there is a lot of dirt on the lens. Strangely, it is only on a certain location/lens combo, and not on ones taken afterwards with the same lens.

 

[Howell]

Looking closer at it, I can see what you mean. I think the horizon isn't level, either. Simple as it is, this is my favorite so far.

Beautiful!

I have this great shot that I'll post sometime. It is a series of shots stitched together. It wasn't until I loaded the pictures into the stitching software that I noticed every frame was rotated about 5 degrees counter-clockwise. I must have been standing on a rock. : D

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks. I did all this hiking and driving, so many beautiful views. This shot (my favorite) was taken while waiting in line for the bathroom of a gas station. :shrug:

 

[e_dawg]

Nice pic dd! Like LM said, it is very blurry. You used the right aperture (f/8 ), shutter speed (1/750 s), and ISO settings (200), so no problem there. Noise reduction and JPEG compression will blur things a bit, but it looks like there was more involved than that. Maybe you're out of focus? Looks like you used the kit lens at 18 mm. While it can be soft at times, at f/8, it should be okay at the centre at least.

You can also see a bit of flare and haze... some of it is due to your lens/filter combo (the dirt you alluded to will cause flare, and most UV filters will cause flare, especially if it's not multicoated), and some of it is atmospheric with the mist. A circular polarizer will help a bit with the latter.

As an FYI, flare often happens in specific situations with a lot of direct and reflected light (sunny day, at the beach, around water, sandy/snowy areas, shooting into the sky or sun). You have to be carfeul which direction you point your lens, shield it well using the lens hood and/or your hand. Don't use a UV filter in that situation, as it only makes things worse. A CPL may help with the atmospheric haze, but you have to balance that with the potential to cause lens flare.

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks very much for the helpful info e_dawg! I'll be looking into that stuff once I finish my work research for the night.

 

[e_dawg]

Wait, did you crop and resize by any chance? This looks like how some of my images look after cropping half the image and blowing it up.

 

[LunarMist]

Holy crap, that exposure is out of control and blur is not likely to be caused by camera shake if handheld. Did you by any chance drop and damage the camera? I've not seen anything like that from a working body/lens.

 

[ddrueding]

Well, I looked through all the shots of that subject and picked the best one. I straightened out the horizon and did very minor exposure tweaks. Have a look and let me know what you think.

Coast and Clouds Take 2

 

[ddrueding]

Wait, did you crop and resize by any chance? This looks like how some of my images look after cropping half the image and blowing it up.

Nope. That is nearly full-size. You can check the "all sizes" button to see what the native res of a picture is, I upload them full-size.

 

[ddrueding]

Holy crap, that exposure is out of control and blur is not likely to be caused by camera shake if handheld. Did you by any chance drop and damage the camera? I've not seen anything like that from a working body/lens.

Sure hope not. The flower picture linked above was taken after this batch, so it's unlikely that it is damaged. The original one does look quite messed up upon further inspection, please let me know what you think of the second.

 

[ddrueding]

There is still haze from the waves, and some glare off the right-side (sun was at about the 2:30 position, low on the horizon). I had the lens hood installed and IIRC my hand was extending it on that side. I don't have any filters, nor do I know how to use them. Looks like I have some more research to do.

 

[Will Rickards]

take 2 is much better

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks. Good to know I'm not completely worthless with this thing. I was honestly considering going back to that location to re-shoot it (~2 hours each way)

 

[e_dawg]

There you go, dd. That's more like it. Play with the levels & curves a bit to lower the mids and shadows and increase the contrast bit and you're there. You'll have a bit of haze from the mist no matter what, but a CPL should reduce it somewhat...

 

[e_dawg]

Here is a test shot from the Olympus E-510 + 40-150/4-5.6 kit lens:

ISO: 400
Exposure: 1/20 sec (can you say in-camera IS?)
Aperture: f/4.6 (wide-open)
Focal Length: 70mm (140 @ 35mm eq)
Flash Used: Yes (pop-up, -0.7 EV FEC)
Picture Settings: Contrast -2, Sharpness -2, NR OFF
PP: RAW > OM2 for ORF to TIFF > Noise Ninja > CNX for levels, curves, and USM

 

[ddrueding]

Nice shot e_dawg. I don't even know what half of that means...

 

[Howell]

Beautiful!

I have this great shot that I'll post sometime. It is a series of shots stitched together. It wasn't until I loaded the pictures into the stitching software that I noticed every frame was rotated about 5 degrees counter-clockwise. I must have been standing on a rock. : D

The originals have become corrupted. This is all I have left.

http://flickr.com/photos/whstrain/2050328810/

 

[Howell]

Well, I looked through all the shots of that subject and picked the best one. I straightened out the horizon and did very minor exposure tweaks. Have a look and let me know what you think.

Coast and Clouds Take 2

I like that. You were right; it was the tilted horizon that was bothering me in the first version. heh, It bothered so much I didn't care that it was so soft.

 

[e_dawg]

Nice shot e_dawg. I don't even know what half of that means...

Neither do I... it's just like a boardroom meeting where you present some complicated charts. Nobody wants to admit that they don't know what the hell you're talking about, so they just go along with it and hope you know what you're doing

 

[udaman]

Neither do I... it's just like a boardroom meeting where you present some complicated charts. Nobody wants to admit that they don't know what the hell you're talking about, so they just go along with it and hope you know what you're doing

Before it gets bloated down with pictures, like modern OS software packages , perhaps ddrueding would like to start a 'something random pic thread'?

Is dust removal sensor tech that effective? You still need to clean the sensor when it gets sticky dust on it, yes...and how does one do that without scratching it?

Seems there are rumors of an Canon 5D update, but it will still be a huge/heavy dSLR, even if they reduce it 10% in size to match the 40D.

I like the 'feature' set on this 1 series of Canon, effective use of all the real-estate on the back, lol.

 

[e_dawg]

Before it gets bloated down with pictures, like modern OS software packages , perhaps ddrueding would like to start a 'something random pic thread'?

That raises a question in my mind which I will put to the group: do you guys think that I should refrain from posting inline images in these threads and just provide a link instead?

Is dust removal sensor tech that effective? You still need to clean the sensor when it gets sticky dust on it, yes...and how does one do that without scratching it?

Dust removal tech is decent if you don't expect it to obviate the need to clean your sensor at all. It only delays the inevitable, but it does buy you more time between cleanings. I figure I can go 2 years b/w cleanings with the E-510 if my other dSLRs are any indication. And Olympus is said to have one of the better dust removal systems out there.

... But I definitely didn't buy the E-510 for its dust removal system. The presence/absence of a dust removal system doesn't factor into my decision to purchase a certain dSLR.

 

[Tannin]

Cleaning frequency:

20D: often: daily in very bad conditions, more typically every couple of weeks
400d: after 10 months, never had to clean it
1D III: after 3 months, never had to clean it
40D: after 2 months, never had to clean it

Short answer: dust shaker technology works. Next question please.


Post away, doggy one. I rarely commont, but I look, and frequently enjoy. But it's crazy to have all the DSLR discussion in this thread - super threads rapidly become unreadable and useless. Start new ones whenever you feel like it!

 

[mubs]

Why so much discrepancy between different models, Tannin? Is it because of different usage patterns - changing the lens on the 20D more frequently, for example?