dSLR thread

[Piyono]

Sounds like you need one of these Tannin.

Meh.
That's not a lens.
This is a lens.

 

[paugie]

Meh.
That's not a lens.
This is a lens.

Whatever, I don't like it.

I would never trade my sister for it.

 

[Piyono]

Sorry, Piyono, this isn't making any sense to me.

Goodness, my apologies— I'll type slower next time.

Now you have lost me. What slower glass? f/4 is the fastest glass there is in 500mm, it delivers more light than any other lens of equal length. A 500mm f/2.8 would cost maybe US$20,000 and weigh enough to break your back. No-one makes them.

Ah, see, that explains it: in the narrow corridor of existence that is my reality, anything over f/2 is slow. I like shooting people up close in low light with no flash. What can I say... I dream of 35mm f/1.2 at noiseless high ISOs. I don't shoot birds. Well, not with cameras. And, not, come to think of it, with anything else. Unless, by "bird" you mean "attractive human female", a species whose members at which I will, occasionally, shoot a glance.

In summary, buying a D3 for birding would be like buying the world's best 9 iron - for driving off the tee on long par fives. Great tool, but entirely the wrong job for it.

Hmmm... perhaps it is you who should type slower. I know almost as much about golf as I do about bird photography. I concede defeat and thank you for broadening my island of knowledge / shore of ignorance.

Now looking up "9 iron" and "long par fives"...

 

[Piyono]

How's this for pixel density?

 

[LunarMist]

That sensor uses a typical process size, similar to that of the sensor in the Canon rebel XTi and 40D. Unfortunately the Sony sensor has only 12-bit A/D conversion. Perhaps that is because it is rather noisy, but who knows. It would be nice to see a 14-bit version of the sensor in the upcoming D3X.

 

[Tannin]

Then we are more-or-less oposites, Piyono. Because the bulk of my photography is with the long lenses, I'm used to thinking of f/5.6 as "normal", f/4 as "fast", and f/2.8 as "super-fast". In order of most-used to least-used, my current lenses are:

f/4
f/4
f/3.5-4.5
f/4.5-5.6
f/2.8
f/3.5-5.6
f/1.8

The f/1.8 one is my little plastic 50mm prime, which rarely sees the light of day because the 60mm f/2.8 macro is so sweet. I would like an f/2.8 lens in a birding length very much, but the 300 is not really long enough and the 400, even ignoring the astronomical price, is just too heavy and cumbersome to use more than rarely.

And from time to time I pull out the 50/1.8 if the light is really bad, and once or twice it has delivered stuff I coiuldn't do with other lenses, but the depth of field wide-open isn't really what you mostly want for landscapes (which is about the only thing I do in low light (aside from birds, of course), and of late I've bought a second tripod (well, used my old birding tripod as a hand-me-down) and a 3-way head and started doing them the proper way: tripod and long exposure.

For birds in low light, I use a tripod, the 500/4, crank the ISO way up on the 1D III, and take a lot of shots, on the theory that sooner or later the bird will keep still for the few hundredths of a second that I need.

I'm also experimenting with a little fill flash, but I still need the Better Beamer and a flash bracket to get the full effect with long lenses. I'll have to get around to ordering those before the bad light of winter sets in here.

Which reminds me ... my new head is effective but an absolute PIA to use. I ahould ask what others are using for this sort of task. But I'll start a new thread for that.

 

[Tea]

Tannin never looks at girls. If she hasn't got feathers, he's not interested. Well, except sometimes when she is waving a credit card around and he wants to sell her a new computer. But even then I think he only manages to look interested out of habit.

 

[Tannin]

It's not habit, Tea. It's professionalism.

 

[Tea]

Oh. Is that what it is? I always wondered what a professionalisim was.

From the way you always talk about it and nobody else ever does, I had pretty much decided it must be the thing that makes your hair go grey and your knees all wobbly in the mornings.

 

[Tannin]

And you'd know about mornings, would you?

Ha!

The only time I've ever seen you up before the crack of noon was that time you ran out of gin and sat around singing out-of-key and drinking Irish coffee all night, and couldn't sleep for a week afterwards.

 

[Tea]

Don't remind me, I'm trying to forget it. I'm never, ever, going to put coffee in perfectly good brandy ever again. Not even in bad brandy.

Now, before you go all withdrawn and grumpy on my again, what would you say to a nice glass of hot chocolate before bed? I'll make it.

 

[Tannin]

Thankyou, Tea. That would be nice.

 

[ddrueding]

That Zeiss 1700mm lens doesn't look that big until you realize that it has a 6x6 medium-format camera attached.

 

[LunarMist]

What lens do you use at a funeral?

 

[ddrueding]

What lens do you use at a funeral?

I'd imagine you would want very tight control of the focal plane, so something fast. You will also want to stay out of the way, so something slightly long. A 50/1.2 would be great, but my 50/1.8 could do as well.

Whose funeral?

 

[ddrueding]

I like squirrels. We have one that hangs out around the complex that is much darker than any I've seen before, almost black. I finally got a picture of him with my new 75-300.

 

[Will Rickards]

Squirrels get in our trash all the time. But ours are all grey.

 

[ddrueding]

Yup. I'm used to the Grey ones as well.

 

[Tannin]

Cute litte thing.

 

[Handruin]

I like the little guys too. There were a bunch running around at the grand canyon while I was there.

 

[LunarMist]

I'd imagine you would want very tight control of the focal plane, so something fast. You will also want to stay out of the way, so something slightly long. A 50/1.2 would be great, but my 50/1.8 could do as well.

I no longer have any fast lenses for digital. Maybe I should just rent a 5D+35/1.4 for a few days. A fast 35 was a lens used frequently in the 70s and 80s.

These are times when I miss the high end compact 135 rangefinders; they have not been equalled in the digital era.

Whose funeral?

Nobody you would know.

 

[LunarMist]

I've seen many types of squirrels around the world and yes some are quite dark. In some locations colors vary widely even in the same species. At the south rim there are a lot of chipmunks as well as squirrels. Unfortunately tourists tend to feed them.

 

[Tannin]

Our "squirrels" ain't squirrels, they are possums.

I didn't feed this one, at least not deliberately, I was just a little slow picking up a banana peel after my evening meal and before I knew it, I had visitors.

I haven't looked the little fella up yet. Normally (i.e., in most of Australia) this would be a Common Brushtail Possum, but if I remember correctly there is a very similar Western Brushtail Possum found in the southwest of WA, so this is probably one of those. If I remember, I'll check the books and amend my post.

 

[ddrueding]

Our possums aren't nearly as cute, and they are quite vicious. I almost lost a pet cat to one.

Attrib. Link

 

[Tannin]

By the way, the main item on the diet of these chaps is eucalyptus leaves, so this must have been a rare and special delicacy. I understand that around 40% of the total energy intake of most possum species is used to detoxify the leaves they eat. For millions of years, eucalypts have been evolving ever worse-tasting, more toxic leaves and possums have been evolving ever more capable, complicated digestive systems to cope with them. No wonder they are quick to take any other tasty morsel that comes their way.

 

[LunarMist]

1D MK III is still not fixed.

 

[Tannin]

I'm comfortable just using the Mark III as-is for the time being. Yes, I don't think it is working as well as a $6500 camera ought to, at least not all the time, but nevertheless it mostly takes better shots than any other camera I own and I would really miss the responsiveness and all round feeling of solidity it has.

I've updated the firmware, which made a significant difference, and was about to start the process of sending it in for the sub-mirror replacemet when this news broke. Now I plan to wait a few months and see what eventuates. I'd rather be without it just once than have to send it in for the sub-mirror and then send it in again for whatever the rumoured long-term fix is.

And, as I said, I really don't like the idea of a weekend without it. As the year rolls on and winter approaches, the thought of weekends at home by the heater instead of pointing the 1D III at wildlife will become more attractive. Rationally, I have three other cameras, any one of them perfectly capable of taking a presentation quality shot if only the monkey holding it can avoid screwing up, so where is the problem?

 

[Tea]

The problem, Tannin, is that you are pushing your luck. What's with the monkey jokes?

 

[LunarMist]

Those are not a "real" lens, in the sense that you can't actually buy one. That is a one-off they made for a trade show. Sigma don't seem to be in any hurry to make them, and at this stage have not committed to ever making them, although they may do at some time in the future.

The weight is phenomenal, of course, and the cost would be staggering.

Now the price is listed at Amazon.

 

[Tannin]

I know, I know. Would you belive it? Eight hours after I posted that "not a real lens" Sigma announced that they were realising it to manufacture.

I mean, I was right when I posted it, but eight hours? Couldn't they have waited a week or two out of courtesy?

Hmmm... $30,000 AU, near enough. That's a crazy price for a few bits of glass in a metal tube. Mind you, initial advertised price for the Canon 800/5.6 I have my eye on is AU $20,000, so I can see I'm going to have to save my pennies.

 

[udaman]

I know, I know. Would you belive it? Eight hours after I posted that "not a real lens" Sigma announced that they were realising it to manufacture.

I mean, I was right when I posted it, but eight hours? Couldn't they have waited a week or two out of courtesy?

Hmmm... $30,000 AU, near enough. That's a crazy price for a few bits of glass in a metal tube. Mind you, initial advertised price for the Canon 800/5.6 I have my eye on is AU $20,000, so I can see I'm going to have to save my pennies.

Whimps:

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/13/carl-zeiss-creates-over-five-foot-long-telephoto-lens/

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7898-8558

somewhere on Miranda's forum, the owner/pricipal of this lens posted a reply to what it's all about...Saudi person allegedly.

For Barry Lyndon, Kubrick was supposedly given that $100k F0.7 lens

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HRQd

Eric, according to a sidebar in Geoffrey Crawley's recent review of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Kubrick did own the lens, but he never paid for it:
"When movie director Stanley Kubrick insisted that the candle-lit dinner scene in the film Barry Lyndon (1975) should be filmed lit only by candles and with no artificial lighting, I remembered the lens and recommended he try it. Zeiss opticians later told me that I had cost them DM40,000, to adapt it for the Arri movie camera. When I askes why they hadn't sent Kubrick the bill, the reply - typical of Zeiss idealism - was: 'How could we? the guy was creating something with it.'"
Geoffrey Crawley, Amateur Photographer magazine, 24th June 2006.

Think you'd need a decent telescope tripod to suport a 256kilo lens:eek3:

 

[udaman]

Less than a year after the E410, Oly announces the much lower priced, improved E420! $200 dollars less. Would have been nicer if they included sensor stabilization...next year. Wonder if an E520 is soon to follow with equally lower price?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0803/08030501olympuse420.asp

What I really want is a slimmed down, ligher weight, fully sealed, ISO 6400 (same width for better handholding ergo) version of the Canon 5D, a FF '3D' for less than the price of a 40D, lol.

Canon is so slow, I wouldn't expect a 5D update until at least photokinky later this year, but just to piss me off, after I buy a Rebel XSi (450D) in April, Canon will probably release the 5D update a few months later.
I expect Nikon will release such an equivalent like model next year, an FX smaller than the d80, larger than the d60 (size wise, not cost wise).

So who will be the 1st manufacturer to put out a FF digicam for less than $1000. Canon? Not likely, even though Canon was the 1st to release an under $1k crop sensor dSLR, in the form of the Rebel 300d.

 

[Piyono]

I've always liked my dad's oly OM-1 so the name "Olympus" rings through my mind with positive connotations. That said I never really felt any deep love for their D-SLR models. Now for some mystical reason unknown I find myself attracted to the E-420, or at least — as it has yet to come to market — to what stirs inside me when I see its image.

Could be the pancake lens. Could be the 'retro chic'. I don't know... but I like it.

 

[Piyono]

Could be the pancake lens. Could be the 'retro chic'. I don't know... but I like it.

Oh, wait, I know... it's the 420 part. Puff puff give.

 

[e_dawg]

LOL... I thought it was 3:20? Maybe you guys studied too hard

 

[ddrueding]

4:20 here. But as they said back then, "it's always 4:20 somewhere...".

I really like the pancake lens. Is there anything like it that will fit on a Cannon 20D?

 

[e_dawg]

What I really want is a slimmed down, ligher weight, fully sealed, ISO 6400 (same width for better handholding ergo) version of the Canon 5D, a FF '3D' for less than the price of a 40D, lol.

Uh-huh... maybe in 5-7 years...

Canon is so slow, I wouldn't expect a 5D update until at least photokinky later this year, but just to piss me off, after I buy a Rebel XSi (450D) in April, Canon will probably release the 5D update a few months later.

Really? Why would you buy an XSi when you already have a 20D? I think a FF like a heavily discounted 5D or the 6D or whatever its successor is going to be called will be much more satisfying. In fact, I'm tempted by a heavily discounted 5D myself. But it's rather silly to carry 3 systems. I'd have to drop one, and I'd be torn as to which one to keep.

I expect Nikon will release such an equivalent like model next year, an FX smaller than the d80, larger than the d60 (size wise, not cost wise).

I doubt it will be smaller than the D80, let alone smaller than the D300. If they can squeeze it into a D300 chassis, I'll be happy.

So who will be the 1st manufacturer to put out a FF digicam for less than $1000. Canon? Not likely, even though Canon was the 1st to release an under $1k crop sensor dSLR, in the form of the Rebel 300d.

Sony.

 

[Piyono]

The Link

I'm savin' my shekels!

 

[Gilbo]

I think I'm probably going to get that damn K20D.

Reports are consistently indicating that its got an extra stop, stop-and-a-half, in noise performance vs the K10D despite the pixel boost. I don't care about the megapixels but the better noise performance would be really nice. This seems pretty believable considering they make ISO 6400 available on boost now (the K10D packed it in at 1600).

And despite the fact that there are no autofocus improvements, a lot of people are saying SDM lens AF is faster. AF performance is something you get a lot of inconsistent reports on though, so I'm not expecting too much.

 

[e_dawg]

Wow, that sounds like a huge improvement since it's a 14 MP sensor. Who makes the sensor? It isn't Pentax or Samsung's is it? I am going to guess Sony.

Speaking of low noise at high ISO, check out the last few shots from the D300 sample gallery. Not bad:

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond300_samples/