dSLR thread

[ddrueding]

I can get by, but for the last 2 weeks we've been averaging 6 miles on foot, 4 subway rides, 2 bus rides, and at least 3 private cars per day. I'm already leaving lenses at home, and looking forward to the 28-135IS that I plan to get in conjunction with the 40D. That and the 10-22 should be all I need for walking around, with the 75-300 (eventually 100-400) added for birding/sports duty.

All I've been doing here is semi-creative happy snaps to document the trip for friends and family, but I really love doing massive landscapes. I've used Photoshop and Canon's PhotoStitch with some success (and not - as seen above). But I've been playing with the trial of PTGui and it seems to take it to another level.

I've ordered pano prints (12" tall), but really like the look of stretched canvas. Has anyone found a place that will print and stretch nonstandard sizes? I have some that I would love to see 18-24" tall and 100+" wide.

 

[Tannin]

Beware of that gap, David. You may be different, but I find the 20-30mm area very, very important, and going from an 18-55 to a 24-105 was a big hurdle: despite having a 10-22 I found I was constantly having to mess around changing lenses - most of my shots, it seemed, were in the 20-30mm area. Now that I carry an extra body, it's no problem, but I'd not cope with a 10-22 & 28-135.

You may be different, of course. Only you can tell.

 

[Tannin]

Of course, one option that might really suit you well as a single-lens system would be a 24-105 and Lunar's IDs II.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm still finding myself in the linear algebra of focal lengths; banging the corners of whatever I have with me. The first day I was here I must have done two dozen lens changes between the 10-22, 18-55, and 75-300. I'm just guessing, but I'd bet 90% of my shots were at 10, 18, and 300mm.

If I had the "ultimate" lens, capable of flawless 10-400/1.2 and weighting nothing, I don't know where the bulk of my shots would be. I tend to frame everything too closely as it is.

 

[ddrueding]

Of course, one option that might really suit you well as a single-lens system would be a 24-105 and Lunar's IDs II.

The thought had occurred to me

 

[LunarMist]

I'm not so happy with the 40D as an improvement on the 30D IQ-wise, though it is more of an overall usability improvement compared to the 20D. I decided not to keep it.

Have you considered the Nikon D300? It has really nice features and is good enough for almost all general use. For better or worse Canon has more specialized bodies and none do it all well, so you will probably want 2-3 differnt types eventually. Ironically the 1Ds MK III is currently the best overall Canon compromise. It has maximum pixels and sensor size for highly detailed work, is fast enough for reasonable action, and files are croppable enough for decent reach given the pixel pitch. The 1Ds MK III is limited primarily by weight/bulk and cost considerations. The mythical 5D2 may slow some of the bleeding from Canon, but it will be feature-crippled in some key areas, no doubt.

 

[Tannin]

Maybe I'm just a bit slow, but I don't get it. What makes hte D300 worth close to twice the price of a 40D? Identical image quality, similar speed and major features ..... where do Nikon get off? There must be some reason why someone would want to pay almost double for the same thing, and pay 10-20% more for every lens as well, but I can't figure it out.

 

[LunarMist]

Perhaps I'll show some stuff from the D300 and 200-400 later on this summer.

 

[Tea]

Awwwaw, not fair!

 

[Tannin]

I think what Tea means is that the Nikon 200-400 f/4 VR would be a damn good reason to buy any camera.

As I may or may not have written somewhere earlier in this stupidly over-long and thus essentially unreadable thread, I was looking quite seriously at buying a 200-400/4 to replace my Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 earlier this year (together with something to attach to it, of course, which would have been a D300). But I went into severe sticker shock when I started shopping round for prices and decided to stick with Canon gear, which is only expensive, not downright evil.

 

[udaman]

As I understand it, Gilbo, the 10-17 fisheye it is actually a Pentax design. Pentax and Tokina, apparently, have an arrangement under which Pentax design a lens and Tokina manufacture it. They make one version with the Pentax badge, and another version in the various other mounts (Canon, Nikon, and so on).

The two versions are not always the same: the Pentax 10-17 fish has different metal parts meaning that it looks a bit different. I had assumed that the optical componens were identical, but I didn't stop to wonder if the coatings were the same or not.

I actually have a little bit of a beef with seeing the terms "distortion" and "fisheye" in the same sentence. (You know all this stuff I'm about to say, but your post makes a convenient point on which to hang a rant, I'll say it here anyway.)

As you know, all wideangle lenses have distortion (so do narrower-angle lenses, but it's too small to notice). It is not possible to design a wide angle lens, or even to sensibly imagine one, that does not have some sort of distortion because, at the end of the day, the scene you are photographing is curved while the film in the camera is flat. The problem here is exactly the same problem map makers face when they have to attempt to make flat maps of a spherical planet.

They can either:

(a) S-t-r-e-t-c-h stuff out so that it fits on the paper. (Mercator projection, rectilinear lens.)

(b) Keep everything the right size and accept that the shapes will be distorted. (Various different map projections do this, so does a fisheye lens.)

Whether we are talking world maps or camera lenses, there are only three possibilities:

(a) distort the size
(b) distort the shape
(c) do a bit of both.

So when people unthinkingly say "but what abouut that fisheye distortion?" I get a bit dismissive and scornful - this person, obviously, is either too lazy or too stupid to actually look at a picture taken with a rectilinear wideangle lens and recognise the distortion in it.

Me, I mostly use UWAs for landscapes, typically landscapes with interesting vegetation. Rectilinear UWAs are great fun - that goes without saying - but they do horrible things to what should be magnificent trees.I often find that the shape distortion of a fish is non-obvious, where the size distortion of a rectilinear lens looks horrible. And equally often, of course, I find hte reverse - so it's good to have both.

Flare on the Tokina 10-70 fish is well controlled, though not as well controlled as it is with the Canon 10-22, which is regarded as comfortably the best UWA on the market so far as flare control goes. I too will postsome pics when I get a spare minute. One day. (sigh)

You done ranting Tannin?

DxOPro v5

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dxo/optics-pro.htm (review of prior version)

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/dxo_optics_pro4.html


http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/exclusive_features/overview
15 day demo to d/l:

 

[udaman]

I'm still finding myself in the linear algebra of focal lengths; banging the corners of whatever I have with me. The first day I was here I must have done two dozen lens changes between the 10-22, 18-55, and 75-300. I'm just guessing, but I'd bet 90% of my shots were at 10, 18, and 300mm.

If I had the "ultimate" lens, capable of flawless 10-400/1.2 and weighting nothing, I don't know where the bulk of my shots would be. I tend to frame everything too closely as it is.

Yeah, and it would use biometric control, analyse your eye movement when you look through the VF, for auto focus pin-point accuracy, lol. Would be 15mm thick an fit in your pocket, have infinitely adjustable DOF, Do HD video too.

 

[LunarMist]

All the fancy lenses and image degrading software like DXO do not compensate for having a good eye, then properly planning and executing the job with the proper gear.

 

[ddrueding]

All the fancy lenses and image degrading software like DXO do not compensate for having a good eye, then properly planning and executing the job with the proper gear.

Agreed. But a good eye is something that takes time and experience, and planning and executing a job is not something I can do while on the run with friends. All I'm doing now is building a collection of equipment and techniques, and taking a lot of pictures.

Learning what I like/don't and how to fit different elements into the frame are next. Then comes some composition.

 

[Handruin]

Sometimes you have to sacrifice the results from key photographic opportunities while on the run as you learn to you any equipment. For me, it just means I'd like to go back on some future date and time and try different things with the newer knowledge I've gained. I've certainly gone overboard on camera gear for a hobbyist, but that's what I choose to spend my money on vs other things in life.

 

[LunarMist]

If you have gone overboard on equipment as a hobbyist, then I should be committed.

 

[Handruin]

I've always made the assumption (which I know is sometimes bad) that your level of photographic involvement is more for profit, or more in terms of making a living than I do. I don't do it for money at all. Regardless, I'm sure your level of equipment far surpasses me to the point where you might need to be committed.

 

[ddrueding]

I've always made the assumption (which I know is sometimes bad) that your level of photographic involvement is more for profit, or more in terms of making a living than I do. I don't do it for money at all. Regardless, I'm sure your level of equipment far surpasses me to the point where you might need to be committed.

I'm with Handruin on this one. Your attention to maintaining backups and protecting your IP led me to believe that this was your business.

 

[ddrueding]

One hell of a stitch...

Apparently, they actually printed the thing 180 feet long.

 

[ddrueding]

On my 20D the RAW images were 6.5-7.5MB (8.2MP)
On my 450D the RAW images are 15.5-20MB (12MP)

Is there a reason that one third more pixels nearly triples the file size?

 

[LunarMist]

Are the preview images larger as well? The older Canon bodies produce RAW files with 1.5 MP embedded jpegs and the newer ones - at least the 1Ds MK III - have a 4.5 MP preview jpeg. The sensor may also be noisier and the bit depth may be greater. Compression may be less efficient. Any of these differences and combinations thereof can increase file size. Are you using any weird settings that would add anything else to the RAW files?

On my 20D the RAW images were 6.5-7.5MB (8.2MP)
On my 450D the RAW images are 15.5-20MB (12MP)

Is there a reason that one third more pixels nearly triples the file size?

The difference is closer to 50% more MP.

 

[LunarMist]

.

 

[LunarMist]

.

 

[udaman]

On my 20D the RAW images were 6.5-7.5MB (8.2MP)
On my 450D the RAW images are 15.5-20MB (12MP)

Is there a reason that one third more pixels nearly triples the file size?

You mean you did not read all of the reviews ?

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/canon_rebel_xsi_pg4.html

[FONT=arial,helvetica]When you select the camera icon from the menu and move the 4-way controller down you can access the Shooting menu items: [/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1] Quality:L (12-megapixel ), M (6.3-megapixel) S (3.4-megapixel), RAW+L or RAW (both 12-megapixel)
[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/canon_rebel_xsi.html

Image Format
JPEG, RAW (14-bit Canon original) RAW+JPEG
File Size
(1) Large/Fine : Approx. 4.3MB (4272 x 2848 pixels)
(2) Large/Normal : Approx. 2.2MB (4272 x 2848 pixels)
(3) Medium/Fine : Approx. 2.5MB (3088 x 2056 pixels)
(4) Medium/Normal: Approx. 1.3MB (3088 x 2056 pixels)
(5) Small/Fine : Approx. 1.6MB (2256 x 1504 pixels)
(6) Small/Normal : Approx. 0.8MB (2256 x 1504 pixels)
(7) RAW : Approx. 15.3 MB (4272 x 2848 pixels)
Exact file sizes depend on the subject, ISO speed, Picture Style, etc.

*Edit: 14bit vs. 12bit might also factor in a little.

 

[udaman]

Canon has announced the rumored XSi Lite, ie. really dumbed down version of the XSi/450D....yawn. Now WTF is the 5D replacement/upgrade already, damn it!

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Canon_1000D/page2.asp

 

[ddrueding]

Canon has announced the rumored XSi Lite, ie. really dumbed down version of the XSi/450D....yawn.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/Canon_1000D/page2.asp

After doing my research on the 450D, I was kind of expecting something like this. They seem to have put all the processing intelligence of the 40D in the 450D, making it physically cheaper (body, AF sensors, controls) but still with all the features in there. That is a pretty powerful package, and if all you want to do is take high-quality happy-snaps, it is more than you need.

Besides, sell them a cheap body, and they'll be buying expensive glass for a long, long time. Vendor lock-in is alive and well in dSLRs.

Now WTF is the 5D replacement/upgrade already, damn it!

I hear you

 

[Tea]

Except that 1000D buyers are most likely going to be the same people who buy a kit lens with the body and never take it off. A fairly high proportion of them anyway. But some, of course, will take it further. Looks like a good little camera to me, largely free of gotchas - unlike the Nikon cheapies with their inability to use many lenses.

 

[Tannin]

Lunar, as ever, your posts are models of brevity. I admire concise language, and from that point of view your last two posts were particularly impressive. Jolly well done, old chap!

 

[LunarMist]

No such credit is due. They were simply duplicate posts caused by the horribly slow server at that time.

Notice that I am refraining from making snide remarks about the 1000D.

 

[ddrueding]

Some flower pics for Udaman. The 75-300 @ f5.6 blurs the background much better than the 50/1.8 + f1.8 does. I'm sure someone here knows why?

 

[e_dawg]

It's because DOF varies inversely with focal length. Tannin will tell you that this is not true, and you can search for his posts on the subject explaining why. But for practical purposes, if you want shallow DOF, use a long focal length, larger aperture, and shoot close to your subject. Works every time.

 

[LunarMist]

135/2.8 is fine for artsy fartsy flowers.

 

[ddrueding]

135/2.8 is fine for artsy fartsy flowers.

Sounds like it would do very nicely, so long as it could focus close enough.

 

[LunarMist]

Max mag is 1:8, but you can use tubes. If you want hard/sharp/flat then get 100 macro, but they are overcorrected for SA so you may not like the bokeh much at middle apertures.

 

[e_dawg]

How about the 100/2? It's one of Canon's better "regular" primes when it comes to portraits.

 

[LunarMist]

I don't have much experience with the Canon portrait primes. I'm more of the 85/135 type however.

 

[ddrueding]

Is Canon's SLR site down for anyone else? I can get to this page, but going any deeper brings up an error message.

 

[LunarMist]

I rarely visit, so I don't know how common that is. Have you tried other Canon sites, perhaps EU or Australia?

 

[ddrueding]

This is the first time that I've noticed, but it has been at least 36 hours.

Edit: I'll check the others when I get back from my walk, more mediocre pictures to come.

 

[LunarMist]

Isn't it is too early to be shooting for the most part? Or are you on a road trip?