dSLR thread

[Stereodude]

I'll take one!

 

[ddrueding]

You know you are in trouble when a simple crop command brings up a very slow progress bar (2 minutes?). The image is only about 30MP, I think it's the 32-bit part that is dragging it down...

 

[Handruin]

Nehalem

 

[ddrueding]

Nah, I'm pretty sure it was disk limited. Quad core at 3.6Ghz isn't "slow" yet.

 

[udaman]

2 FF sensor Canon bodies @PK, or later this year? Hmmm,

Canon 6D?
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_5d2_3d_7d.html

How about Canon hit us with a shocker, 15MP FF Rebel 4500D :0, priced below the 50D *wishful thinking*.

Ah yes, Red One's Jim Gannard at it again, yey!

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/30/reds-next-move-monstro-dslrs/

RED plans to place Monstro into, "another camera aimed squarely at the DSLR market." He later adds, "Future cameras will shoot ultra-high resolution stills and motion..."

LOL, I thought these guy's comments on 4kHD were hilarious, apparently they've never seen my sun damaged, multi colored, multi-sized wart face (I need as much makeup at the model in that image ).

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/29/reminder-quad-hd-doesnt-make-everything-look-better/

 

[ddrueding]

If I do end up getting a 5DII, I'll need a new set of lenses to go with it. Looking for a 3-lens set that covers the range and isn't too expensive, I've come up with this:

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

I'm a little concerned about the lack of overlap between the 105mm and the 100mm, but that is a range I don't have anything in at the moment (nothing between 55 and 75 on 1.6x - 88mm and 120mm equivalent).

Thoughts?

 

[LunarMist]

5D MK II?

 

[LunarMist]

You know you are in trouble when a simple crop command brings up a very slow progress bar (2 minutes?). The image is only about 30MP, I think it's the 32-bit part that is dragging it down...

You definitely have a suboptimal system and workflow. I was processing and printing 100-120 megapixel images 6 years ago with XP2200, 1.5GB RAM and 15k drive. Yes it was a struglle, but 30MP is nothing today if you have an efficient workflow. Do you have a file with a dozen image layers or something?

 

[ddrueding]

You definitely have a suboptimal system and workflow. I was processing and printing 100-120 megapixel images 6 years ago with XP2200, 1.5GB RAM and 15k drive. Yes it was a struggle, but 30MP is nothing today if you have an efficient workflow. Do you have a file with a dozen image layers or something?

It had about 4 layers, but the part that really slowed it down was the 32-bit per pixel thing. Once I got it down to 16-bit, it sped up dramatically. I've since altered my workflow to perform the tone mapping earlier in the process; it seems much faster to tone map the whole thing and crop after than to crop first and tone map a smaller image. Go figure.

 

[ddrueding]

5D MK II?

That is the hope. It seems imminent, and I'm hoping to have that be my second body. Having two different crop factors should give a smaller lens collection more variety. At the same time, my EF-S lenses will be less useful, and I'm looking for a new set that will take over where my 10-22 and 18-55 EF-S lenses currently are. From the reviews I've read, the lenses I've picked out will offer higher quality as well.

 

[ddrueding]

Big advantage of a wider lens? It makes the hike look much longer. This was only about 3 miles each way.

 

[LunarMist]

That is the hope. It seems imminent, and I'm hoping to have that be my second body. Having two different crop factors should give a smaller lens collection more variety. At the same time, my EF-S lenses will be less useful, and I'm looking for a new set that will take over where my 10-22 and 18-55 EF-S lenses currently are. From the reviews I've read, the lenses I've picked out will offer higher quality as well.

I never cared so much for the three lenses you mentioned, though they are versatile in some ways. I will be disposing of a 100-400 and 24-105 along with a 1Ds MK II. Assuming that the theoretical new Canon body is around that MP, you may want to consider how the lenses will be used.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm pretty sure I want the 100-400, as it is the longest zoom lens available and is said to perform well along the whole range. I'd imagine that it will be used mostly for wildlife photography. Naturally something faster and even longer would be nice, but everything faster that is even near 400mm is way more expensive and a prime.

The reason I'm leaning for the 24-105 as a general purpose lens is that it manages a decent wide-angle and makes the reach all the way to the 100-400. My current walk-around lens is the 18-55, and the 24-105 has a bit more on either end with a full-frame sensor.

The 17-40 also seemed to make sense for landscapes and indoor casual shots. The 16-35 costs twice as much and weighs more while giving little on the wide end and taking a lot on the long end. I know it is faster, but that isn't as big a deal with wide lenses.

The fact that this set covers every mm of focal length from 17-400 is appealing, but it really isn't necessary. I know I want the 400mm range, so that lens is pretty much a lock. If you know of something else that should be dropped in the other slots, I would be grateful for the advice.

 

[udaman]

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/674541

I'd like to have one of these, probably weighs a ton, but still 1/2 what the Canon 50mm F1.0 does.

 

[udaman]

LOL, electronista doesn't comprehend so well...again. They're speculating that based on Red One's billionaire owner's (Jim jannard) thread, Red is interested in developing a dSLR. Nowhere in that thread does Jannard say that.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18278

Mysterium "Monstro" is a sensor program that pushes the envelope past anything on the horizon. It will go into Epic, and another camera aimed squarely at the DSLR market. Epic ships with Mysterium-X and has a free upgrade to Monstro. 4k or so video camcorder aimed squarely at the dSLR market, is what I'm guessing Jannard is alluding to .

Scarlet has been talked about extensively. It is a 3K, 120fps camera with a built-in 8X zoom that starts at 28mm (full frame still 35mm) wide angle. The T-stop will be "at least" as published.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29139579

Production units of the 5D replacement have already been shipped to some long-lead media outlets under an NDA so they can get their reviews lined-up for the day the embargo comes off.
I got this from a pro-photo source friend in central London, the same that told me the D3 was in final testing last June, two months before the unveil....
The source says that there's some speculation the industry that this Beijing Olympics will be the last covered by single-frame photography. By the time of London 2012, the 'photographers' will be shooting HD sequences, from which picture editors will take the best 'grabs'.

Hmm, probably the 5D will get rumored HD video capture capability then. But if the speculators are correct, photo news journalists and sports photogs in the near future will be weilding smaller sized camcorders or 4k res, and using stills from those.

in the dpreview thread linked above, some discuss that possibility of a 4k res camcorder, doing double duty. Still come the 2012 Olympics, I'll bet only the bigger players will be invested in that type of capture, all the smaller outfits will still be using dSLR's. And to my knowledge, there is no camcorder sensor that can come close the the high ISO's we're now seeing in the latest highend dSLR's. Electronic 120fps shutters on camcorders sure are a lot quieter than dSLR's. think Tannin will be using one of them in the next decade as his Birder capture tool of choice, or will he and others hold on to the past , like analog LP vinyl albums?



http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18278


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29148023

Though speculated that future Red One cams will give even better still's than the current 4k Red One, there is one poster who claims to own 2 of those, and submitted this full res 4k shot as an example of usable quality image, in available light.

http://www.visceralpsyche.com/misc/web_images/visceralpsyche_4K_A007_C034_0727AA_0000.png

Even looking at the shot within the post above, we can see the almost no existent DOF, which I hate . So much better is a tilt lens, for that instant, you'd be able to get the bowl of soup in the background sharp, the sliced radish sharp in the foreground. Certainly as good as a PnS digicam, but the Red One won't slip into your pocket. Any decent dSLR, lens combo would get you a better image, IMO. Also note suggest hotel lighting, if you look at the 'shadows' in the image, under the rim of the soup plate, etc, those shadows don't look dark enough, realistic to what you'd see in high contrast, available light hotel lighting. For the wedding they must have had all available room lighting set to maximum....I don't see conclusive evidence of the 'stunning' DR or IQ in that shot.

As you can see, dynamic range and image quality is pretty stunning given that this was shot with no special lighting at 1/50th second exposure in a hotel reception room. Easily printable at A3 size or bigger.
The camera's AA filter is designed with movies in mind, hence it seems less sharp at first glance for a still than say a Canon 40D, but if you put it into Photoshop and apply an Unsharp Mask with 300, 6, 0 as settings you can quickly recover similar sharpness levels. Look at the tablecloth detail for example.

Hmm, a sharp lens on Canon 50D @ISO 6400, and lens aperture closed down enough; would give a tack sharp shot, that no amount of PP with PS could match, least to my eyes

 

[e_dawg]

Just when you thought that dSLR technological improvements were slowing down, out comes HD video capture and sensors that not only have dramatically higher resolution, but perform significantly better at higher ISOs too. And then there's Micro Four-Thirds too.

Now the race at the top has heated up again. Canon got their butts handed to them with the lackluster 40D, and everyone was in awe of Nikon over the past year with a string of blockbusters from the D300 and D3 to the D700 and D90. With the 50D and the 5DII, Canon just landed a couple uppercuts and is back in the game.

Will be interesting to see if the higher res 50D can give ISO12800 or even 6400 with same or lower noise than the D300. All in all, the new 50D seems like a bargain compared to the D300 (which is now street priced @$1600 from reputable dealers).

Not sure if I agree with this statement, as megapixels and high ISOs are not the only important things to consider. The D300 has one of the best AF systems on the market of any body at any price. It has pro level AF performance at a semi-pro price. If you want to shoot sports or birds in flight, the D300 might be the one that's considered the bargain...

 

[Tannin]

Canon got their butts handed to them with the lackluster 40D

Huh? WTF are you talking about here? Makes no sense at all. The 40D has been (and continues to be) an excellent performer, offering easily the best combination of picture quality, cost, and features on the APS-C market today. It has equal picture quality to the D300 (many people say better, but I'll be generous and say equal) at almost half the price, and gives away only a few minor features of no real consequence. It easily outperforms the considerably higher cost D200 (I have no idea why Nikon continue to sell that one, let alone why anyone buys it), which pending the arrival of the D90 leaves the D80 as the only other unit you'd want to compare it to, and there again the 40D is the clear winner. They you have the Pentax range, which is attractive but really in a different class because the range of lenses available is so very, very different, and I suppose you could throw in S*ny if you wanted to, though why anyone would want to is beyond me. You should probably also consider the 400D and the 450D, though these are really in a different market segment and don't attempt to offer the same usability.

In short, you have the best all-round APS-C camera on the market and yet you think it's "lackluster"? Bizarre!

I think the new D90 looks like a very nice unit, something that will at long last give Nikon a non-flawed camera that most people would be pleased to own at a more-or-less reasonable price (D300 costs almost twice what it is worth; D200 is ancient; D80 is so old it doesn't even have a self-cleaning sensor; the lower models are lens-choice crippled .... doesn't leave a lot.) The D90 looks set to change all that, and give Nikon users a pretty fair range of nice cameras to select from, including one (the D90) that is sensibly priced. (The D3 is reasonably priced too, considering what it is, but way up towards the top of the market of course. I haven't quite figured out where the D700 fits into the scheme of things.)

The 50D is an interesting looking unit. I'll presumably get one to try out when it becomes available. Will the very high resolution (for an APS-C unit) provide any real benefit for bird photography? Not as much as the fan boys will claim, I suspect, but it might be handy where I'm focal length limited and the light is very good. And it's cheap enough that I can feel relaxed about buying one without really knowing if it's going to provide any practical benefit over the cameras I already have.

As for the 5D replacement(s) ... wait and see.

 

[Stereodude]

As for the 5D replacement(s) ... wait and see.

It's coming!

Another teaser

 

[e_dawg]

Huh? WTF are you talking about here? Makes no sense at all. The 40D has been (and continues to be) an excellent performer, offering easily the best combination of picture quality, cost, and features on the APS-C market today. It has equal picture quality to the D300 (many people say better, but I'll be generous and say equal) at almost half the price, and gives away only a few minor features of no real consequence. It easily outperforms the considerably higher cost D200 (I have no idea why Nikon continue to sell that one, let alone why anyone buys it), which pending the arrival of the D90 leaves the D80 as the only other unit you'd want to compare it to, and there again the 40D is the clear winner. They you have the Pentax range, which is attractive but really in a different class because the range of lenses available is so very, very different, and I suppose you could throw in S*ny if you wanted to, though why anyone would want to is beyond me. You should probably also consider the 400D and the 450D, though these are really in a different market segment and don't attempt to offer the same usability.

In short, you have the best all-round APS-C camera on the market and yet you think it's "lackluster"? Bizarre!

The 40D is a good all around camera, but it is just an evolution of the 30D while the D300 raised the bar a few notches and caught everyone else off guard. Canon had to scramble when the D300 was launched. They cut prices on the 40D and had promo programs with retailers using rebates and sale prices, which has allowed it to be positioned as a superior value to the D300 (otherwise, it wouldn't sell as well). The prices on the 40D are down almost a quarter from original MSRP with a lower MSRP and periodic promo / sale prices in order to get them off the shelves. The D300, by contrast, has not dropped nearly as much from its original list price.

As for the image quality comment, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the 40D is as good or better than the D300, as the D300 has set the bar in the APS-C class since its introduction, especially for high ISO. So much so that many people remarked that Nikon is now considered the leader when it comes to high ISO since the D300 and the D3. You'll notice that Canon has taken great pains to address this with the 50D, scrambling to take back their crown.

As for the D200, nobody sells or buys it anymore, but it is not considerably more expensive than the 40D. In fact, it is cheaper if you can find it on sale at all.

I think the new D90 looks like a very nice unit, something that will at long last give Nikon a non-flawed camera that most people would be pleased to own at a more-or-less reasonable price (D300 costs almost twice what it is worth; D200 is ancient; D80 is so old it doesn't even have a self-cleaning sensor; the lower models are lens-choice crippled .... doesn't leave a lot.)

I don't think of Nikons as being flawed cameras... they all have spot metering, unlike the Rebels (except for the 450D), and meter backlit scenes properly (unlike the Rebels that have underexposed until the 450D). Not to mention, there are dedicated AF assist lights on every body so you don't have to startle and irritate your subjects with the pulsing pop-up flash. Also, wireless CLS flash capability is very useful. As for no sensor cleaning on older models, it's not a very effective feature anyways. You still have to wet swab no matter what.

And how many lenses do you think are available for lower end Nikons? Compared to the average 1-2 lenses that most buyers will ever use with them, the lens selection is actually quite good (several dozen already) with more lenses being announced every month it seems. You either do it slowly like Nikon did or you do an abrupt switchover like Canon did when it alienated people who had the older FD mount lenses. Everyone had to start over again with the new EOS mount lenses. There are pros and cons either way.

I haven't quite figured out where the D700 fits into the scheme of things.)

The D700 is following in the footsteps of the 5D. Brining full frame 35 mm sensor IQ to the masses in an APS-C sized body. That's basically all there is to it.

The 50D is an interesting looking unit. I'll presumably get one to try out when it becomes available. Will the very high resolution (for an APS-C unit) provide any real benefit for bird photography? Not as much as the fan boys will claim, I suspect, but it might be handy where I'm focal length limited and the light is very good. And it's cheap enough that I can feel relaxed about buying one without really knowing if it's going to provide any practical benefit over the cameras I already have.

It is much more of an evolution over the 40D than the 40D was over the 30D and brings several new sensor technologies to the forefront that Canon didn't put into the 40D either because it wasn't ready or didn't feel the need at the time. I think you might appreciate its much improved high ISO performance so you can use higher shutter speeds with your long teles than you could with your older APS-C bodies.

As for the 5D replacement(s) ... wait and see.

It will be good. Since Nikon blew them away with the D300, D3, and D700, as with the 50D, Canon is not leaving anything on the table. The sleeping giant has been awakened and is now mustering all of their resources and technology into catching up and leapfrogging Nikon after briefly being caught with their pants down.

 

[e_dawg]

D300 costs almost twice what it is worth

Forgot to comment on this...

Yes, I hear this every now and then from people who don't need the D300's features. If so, the D300 is not for you. It is not expensive for what you get. It gives you access to pro level AF that you find on the 1DIII and D3 professional cameras with up to 8 fps (with battery grip) at a semi-pro price. If you like to shoot sports, you wouldn't find it expensive for what you get.

For people who don't need the pro level AF of the D300, sure, there are other bodies out there for much less $. But except for the D90, few cameras below its price can match its high ISO performance. The 50D should change that, but until it is released, the D90 and D300 still hold the crown.

 

[Tannin]

Ah, nothing like a little controversy to make a thread interesting.

Today's prices: ($AU)

D200: $1410
D300 $1970
40D: $1230

That's a no-brainer. The D200 is a joke. On Nikon's logic, my elderly 20D is probably worth $1550 - it's around the same age as the D200 and takes better quality pictures. As for paying $1970 for a camera that achieves high ISO results by smearing out the detail ... no thanks. I'd love a 200-400/4 VR for bird work, but the idea of paying more than $2000 for a direct equivalent to the 40Ds I already have put me off. (The D300 was around $2200 then, it's dropped a fair way since, though still not nearly enough to make it sensible value.)

Several dozen lenses already? Pentax cameras have several dozen lenses available. Ditto Sony. Ditto Olympus. The majors offer vastly more choice. Well they did until the D40 came out. And yes, it does matter, not just for people like you and me, for two or three lens people as well. Example: my friend who just upgraded from a 35mm film Nikon. He had a couple of pretty decent lenses already, but the D40X (which would have otherwise done him nicely) couldn't use them. Nor could the next model up. (D60? My memory lets me down here.) The D80 doesn't have a self-cleaning sensor. The D200 is an ancient unit priced about double what it's worth. That left him looking at the best part of two grand for a D300 .... at that time, the first and cheapest Nikon in the range that was actually worth having. (Obviously, the excellent D3 was not something he would consider, and the D700 wasn't out then. Still out of his price range in any case.)

Result: well, he didn't have a lot of choice, did he. Canon, Pentax and Sony were the only answers. He bought a 450D and a couple of pretty decent lenses, and he was still financially better off than buying a 300D body only.

Sensor cleaning not effective? Since when? I have never had to clean any of my self-cleaning camera sensors: 400D, 1D III, two 40Ds. The 20Ds (non-self-cleaning, used under the exact same conditions) require swabbing all the time. I very much doubt that I will ever buy another camera that doesn't have self-cleaning. Buggerising about with swabs in the field and endlessly cloning out bunnies in Photoslug drives me nuts. I only perservere with the remaining 20D because I've got it down to one lens change every two or three days now and use other cameras for everything else. (I use the wonderful old 20D as a dedicated UWA body now, with either the Canon 10-22 or the Tokina 10-17 fish on it.)

 

[e_dawg]

Controversy? Hardly, but I'm not sure the old, end of life D200 merits that much discussion anyways. I guess the D200 prices are higher in Oz. It's $100-200 cheaper than the 40D in Canada. Similarly, harping on the end of life D80. I guess you need to pick on them as they're old and vulnerable

Your friend is an isolated example, or at least represents a small percentage of the customer base. He is NOT representative of the typical mainstream customer. The vast majority of D40-D60 buyers have no need for an extensive selection of (semi) professionally oriented or prime lenses. The couple dozen zooms and primes are more than enough for most enthusiasts, let alone a typical consumer.

As for the D300, saying it's a poor value repeatedly doesn't make it any more true. It may not be a good value for your needs, but you can't take your priorities and needs as a photographer and consider it as representative for everyone else. It gives you a pro level AF system at a semi-pro body price. If you don't care about the AF system, that's fine, but a lot of people do.

As for sensor cleaning, none of the manufacturers except for Olympus have a truly effective system:

Here is our ranking according to effectiveness:

1. Olympus: good
2. Canon: poor (we are disappointed)
3. Pentax and Sony: useless (we are very disappointed)

If you are looking for a camera, have the dust removal as an expectation only at the end of your list. If sensor cleaning / dust removal is a must, the choices are limited to Olympus and Panasonic cameras.

We guess that theoretically it is possible to get better results with Canon cameras when the CMOS sensor is not charged, but Canon must find a way to discharge the sensor first (if this is really the problem). If the system is so unreliable, the EOS-ICS is not much more than a good marketing name.

In case of Sony, Pentax and Samsung cameras, the dust removal function should be considered as almost non-existent.

Chasseur d'Images s'est lancé dans un test exclusif : LES SYSTEMES ANTIPOUSSIERE au banc d'essai ! Là, c'est sûr, ça va hurler... car la plupart des systèmes antipoussière sont totalement inefficaces ! Zéro pointé pour l'EOS 400D, guère mieux pour le Pentax et le Sony. Seul Olympus s'en sort bien .

 

[Tannin]

As for sensor cleaning, none of the manufacturers except for Olympus have a truly effective system:

Spoken like a man who doiesn't own one.

I am telling you that I own or have owned no less than four cameras with sensor cleaning, three of them different models, use them a great deal, and in the harsh, dusty conditions you may normally expect in the inland of the driest habitable continent on earth. They work. End of story.

Now, who are you going to believe? Some snot-nosed journalist with a deadline to file copy by? Or someone who actually uses the machinery regularly and relies on it, day in and day out? Your call.

 

[Tannin]

D300. Let's get real, hey? Similar picture quality at low ISO, inferior at high ISO, close to twice the price. Who are we kidding here?

No-one that I have heard of suggests that the D300 autofocus is anything in a different league to that of the pro-level Canon cameras, one of which I own and use a lot, as you may recall. In other words, I am familiar with the differences. They are not that great, unless perhaps you are doing birds in flight, and nobody worth talking about uses Nikon cameras for bird work - until just recently they didn't have the lenses, and although they have rectified that lack now, they are still very difficult to get (long supply delays and out of stocks) and absurdly expensive. Apart from the well-respected 200-400/4 VR (something Canon really should produce an answer to) the few Nikon bird photographers get by on small glass or third-party lenses.

That leaves one, and only one, feature of substance offered by the D300 which is not offered by the much cheaper D40: the screen. If you care enough about a 3 inch screen on the back of the camera to pay close to double the price, well good for you. I certainly wouldn't.

So, given that the D300 is priced around 30 or 40% over what itought to be, why do so many people buy it? Simply, because Nikon are smart. Nikon shooters have, until just now with the D90, had no choice. Either they stuck with their old D70s and similar, or else they gritted their teeth and paid the asking price. There was no third option, unless you count switching brands, and nearly everyone who was going to sell off their lenses and go Canon had already done so. Very smart marketing, Nikon. Big extra profit, no real downside. (And let's face it, if I was in the same position as Nikon users and wanting an upgrade from my old bodies in the D70/20D class, then I would have done the same - i.e., spent 30 or 40% too much on a 40D equivalent. So hats off to Nikon's marketing people: they are very, very good at extracting the maximum dollar from the products they make.)

 

[e_dawg]

Spoken like a man who doiesn't own one.

I am telling you that I own or have owned no less than four cameras with sensor cleaning, three of them different models, use them a great deal, and in the harsh, dusty conditions you may normally expect in the inland of the driest habitable continent on earth. They work. End of story.

Now, who are you going to believe? Some snot-nosed journalist with a deadline to file copy by? Or someone who actually uses the machinery regularly and relies on it, day in and day out? Your call.

I respect your opinion and believe you have had success with your cameras sensor cleaners, and so have many others, but I also believe the tests and comments from others I respect who say their sensor clean function isn't that effective.

No, I don't own a Canon, but I know you are well versed in social sciences and stats, so why would you expect me to believe that a sample of one (or four in the case of your four cameras) in the specific conditions in which you shoot is representative of the population shooting in other conditions? Even if I owned one and had positive experiences, wouldn't it be wrong for me to say categorically that it works, knowing that there are many others out there with less positive experiences?

 

[e_dawg]

No-one that I have heard of suggests that the D300 autofocus is anything in a different league to that of the pro-level Canon cameras, one of which I own and use a lot, as you may recall.

I never said the D300's AF was better than or in a different league to Canon's pro cameras. I said you get a pro level AF system for a semi-pro body's price. The 40D has Canon's semi-pro AF system. The 1D series has Canon's pro level AF system, but it is more expensive.

In other words, I am familiar with the differences. They are not that great, unless perhaps you are doing birds in flight, and nobody worth talking about uses Nikon cameras for bird work

What differences are you referring to? Between Canon and Nikon's pro level AF systems, or between pro and semi-pro level AF systems (40D vs D300)?

Birds in flight benefits from good tracking AF, but it's not the only thing. Sports / action photography, event photography, photojournalism, etc. Lots of things can benefit from good tracking AF. Perhaps you take good AF for granted. Since I am also an Olympus user, I do not take it for granted. I have to suffer with crappy AF every time I use my Olympus bodies. There is nothing worse than losing focus on your subject as it moves across the frame (or not even being able to acquire AF lock) just before you are about to take the shot.

The finer points of image quality, high ISO performance, etc. All of that is moot if your subject is a blurry mess. As far as I am concerned the AF system is the most important thing in a digital camera. And every bit of improvement is welcome. Nail the focus. Everything else is secondary. You say it's a waste of money; I think it's money well spent.

So, given that the D300 is priced around 30 or 40% over what itought to be, why do so many people buy it? Simply, because Nikon are smart.

Rather, because customers are smart and recognize the benefits of a pro level AF system in a semi-pro class camera.

 

[LunarMist]

Does anyone have the 800/5.6 EF-L yet (maybe Tony)? Other than the main problem, getting on the airlines, a serious concern would be selling the lens later on, though it should not depreciate too much over time.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't understand the value of LR either. From what I gather it is a software used for photographers to do everything in a workflow. I don't have all the fancy modern software and hardware everyone here has. :wink: I just know about glass, camera bodies, and how to use PS and certain valuable plugins to make nice prints. In general it takes me about 30 minutes to 2 hours of work per simple image, and several times longer for a composite (stitched) image. Much of that time (other than occasional stitching) is human time, so the computer is only killing maybe 20% of the total time. Human time consists of retouching/cloning, multiple masks for local noise reduction, general and/or spot tone and color corrections, masks for add-ins, HL/SH, masks for dodging and burning, asymmetrical radial density correction, asymmetrical/offset lens corrections incl. POV, multiple/partial CA corrections, masks for general and local sharpening, etc.

That is about what I spend per image that I like, though you probably put your time to better use. The second half of your list I don't even understand.

asymmetrical radial density correction?
asymmetrical/offset lens corrections incl. POV?
multiple/partial CA corrections?

Off to the google...

 

[ddrueding]

Does anyone have the 800/5.6 EF-L yet (maybe Tony)? Other than the main problem, getting on the airlines, a serious concern would be selling the lens later on, though it should not depreciate too much over time.

No, but it is on my dream list, and is the only long prime there. It, on an APS-C sensor, would be pretty crazy. Shame it isn't any faster, but I know that wouldn't be possible.

 

[LunarMist]

I'd probably use it once a year, mostly on the 1Ds MK III. 500/4 is a much more useful lens overall for most purposes.

Unfortunately Canon 1.6x bodies don't AF at f/8, so that is only a limited solution. Additionally, the crappy AF pattern of xxD bodies is not good for moving subjects. That is not to mention the mediocre VF and other things I dislike.

 

[LunarMist]

That is about what I spend per image that I like, though you probably put your time to better use. The second half of your list I don't even understand.

asymmetrical radial density correction?
asymmetrical/offset lens corrections incl. POV?
multiple/partial CA corrections?

Off to the google...

POV is point of view and CA is chromatic aberration.

CA is not necessarily quite symmetric, so it may be desirable to apply different amounts to different parts of the image by using layers and masks. You probably won't see it that much with EF lenses on 1.6x bodies. Many corrections are minor and everyone has to decide how much work is worthwhile. Pros often don't bother with some of these things.

 

[ddrueding]

OK, that is cheating. I can't even Google for "VF"...

 

[ddrueding]

Dupe.

 

[ddrueding]

250MB/sec is so not enough. This stitch is thoroughly disk limited, (CPU is at 5-10%, PS has maxed it's 3.446GB of RAM) and took about 4 hours last time. I think it's time for a new RAID-0 of SSDs...

Why am I doing the stitch a second time? Because Photoshop crashed right at the end of saving it as an .hdr file this afternoon. Bleh.

 

[Tannin]

Does anyone have the 800/5.6 EF-L yet (maybe Tony)? Other than the main problem, getting on the airlines, a serious concern would be selling the lens later on, though it should not depreciate too much over time.

Not yet, Lunar, but certainly on my radar. I'm hoping that it will drop in price a little - say a thousand or so - over the next few months, but I'm thinking that it might be another year before that happens, if it happens at all. In any case, I've spent too much time away from the office lately (just back from another desert trip, which was great) and need to put my head down, my bum up, and earn a bit more, as I don't intend to go too far into hock for yet more glass.

So maybe around May/June next year. Unless I decide to go the other way - a 300/2.8 - first, in which case the 800 will have to wait a bit longer again. Still thinking about that.

 

[Tannin]

Oh, and getting it onto an airline is a non-issue for me: I have neither the desire nor the need to go anywhere I can't drive to.

 

[Gilbo]

250MB/sec is so not enough. This stitch is thoroughly disk limited, (CPU is at 5-10%, PS has maxed it's 3.446GB of RAM) and took about 4 hours last time. I think it's time for a new RAID-0 of SSDs...

Why am I doing the stitch a second time? Because Photoshop crashed right at the end of saving it as an .hdr file this afternoon. Bleh.

Make sure you worry about write performance if you consider any of the MLC drives. I figure scratchdisk writes tend to be more sequential, but you certainly don't want to sacrifice those levels of performance if you can avoid it.

Not yet, Lunar, but certainly on my radar. I'm hoping that it will drop in price a little - say a thousand or so - over the next few months, but I'm thinking that it might be another year before that happens, if it happens at all. In any case, I've spent too much time away from the office lately (just back from another desert trip, which was great) and need to put my head down, my bum up, and earn a bit more, as I don't intend to go too far into hock for yet more glass.

So maybe around May/June next year. Unless I decide to go the other way - a 300/2.8 - first, in which case the 800 will have to wait a bit longer again. Still thinking about that.

Sigma has had, for sometime, a 300-800mm f/5.6 and an 800mm f/5.6, that are both cheaper than the Canon. They may be worth considering. When you get up to those price ranges, every percentage point makes a big difference (i.e. food for a week...).

I'd be surprised if there was a noticeable difference in quality. Sigma's telephotos are very sharp.

 

[Tannin]

Well, first, because I use the cameras under real-world conditions. Maybe some of these other people do too (I don't know, I haven't read the reviews, nor do I intend to waste time doing so - I already know the correct answer, as demonstrated in real life) and maybe they are the usual journalistic wankers. (The amount of ignorance in the trade press of many industries is rivalled only by the truly gross ignorance we see in the specialised columns of the general press from time to time.) Nor is this a matter best resolved by statistical methods (like, e.g., hard drive failure rates), it is best resolved by performance measurement (count the number of dust bunnies produced under identical circumstances by self-cleaning and non-self-cleaning cameras - which of course is exactly what I have done in the course of using them from day to day).

One possibility that occurs to me is that there may be a difference in the quality of the dust experienced by different testers. What I have to deal with is indeed dust in the true sense: dry soil particles suspended in the air. Perhaps people who work in polluted cities or wet climates have trouble not with dust but with stickier, moister soot particles - I can certainly imagine that those would not be much affected by a sensor shaker, or indeed anything short of a wet swab. It might be worth noting that I no longer bother buying Eclipse fluid for cleaning the 20D: a clean, dry swab works just as well. But I do have to clean the remaining 20D frequently, just as I did the other one before I palmed it off on some unsuspecting SF member. And I never have to clean the 1D III, either of the 40Ds, or (when I had it) the 400D. If we want to go all statistical, that adds up to unmistakable evidence: on a good day even a very poor statistician can probably tell the difference between 100% and 0.00%.

My point about AF was simply this: there is a difference between the Canon semi-pro AF and the Canon pro AF, but it's not by any means massive. (It may be for some uses, not generally so for the things I do.) Even the now-ancient 20D focuses as accurately as I could wish under most circumstances provided that I give it a reasonable point to aim at. The differences as compared with the 1D III are not so much accuracy as speed, and the extraordinary very low-light AF ability of the Mark III - if it's too dark to focus, it's way too dark to take pictures anyway. Comes in handy for flash work though.

I am assuming that the Canon pro/semi-pro AF difference is in the same general ballpark as the Nikon one - no-one outside the usual DPR fanboys seems to claim that there is any vast difference between them.

"I said you get a pro level AF system for a semi-pro body's price." Actually, I didn't claim you did say the other thing. But you are stretching it to call the D300's price "semi-pro" - it does perhaps fit better into that price category than the pro category, but only just. I think I'm safe in saying that it is by far the most expensive APS-C camera sold today.

"Perhaps you take good AF for granted." Well, yes, I do. The 20Ds and 40Ds (and for that matter even the 400D) are good. The 1D III is excellent. People don't seem to complain about their Nikon systems' AF, so I have always assumed that they were pretty good too.

"There is nothing worse than losing focus on your subject as it moves across the frame (or not even being able to acquire AF lock) just before you are about to take the shot." I can imagine. This used to drive me nuts with my old P&S cameras when I was digiscoping, but it only happens with DSLRs when I'm trying to do something silly, like take pictures of very small, fast-moving birds with a 2X teleconverter on. Are the Olys really that bad? I've never used one but I'd have thought they would be OK.

"The finer points of image quality, high ISO performance, etc. All of that is moot if your subject is a blurry mess." Quite so. But as I said, I don't have a problem with the AF system of the 40D (or the 20D). Naturally, I prefer to use the Mark III where possible, but I can get by on one of the others quite happily most of the time. The sense in which I really notice focus is speed, and although swapping to the ID III makes a difference, it doesn't make half so much difference as taking off the 1.4TC does and shooting at f/4 instead of f/5.6. Seems to vary with the lens/body combination too. The 500/4 on a 20D or 40D is streets in front of those same cameras with the 100-400 for AF speed, which suggests that the 100-400 is the culprit, yet I can combine the 100-400 with the Mark III and it's pleasant and responsive. Seems to be only when I combine the slower A/F camera and the slower A/F lens that it gets a bit tedious.

Does the D300 focus as fast as a 1 Series? No-one ever seems to make a lot of fuss about the D300 AF (apart from you, I mean), surely if it was on that level I'd hear more about it? Or maybe it's just too hard to distinguish between the genuine remarks some people make and the fan-boy drivel. (I'm thinking about places like DPR here, obviously - not suggesting it applies here.)

 

[Tannin]

Actually, I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a noticable difference, Gilbo. Astonished, in fact - and that is no disrespect to Sigma's very fine big telephoto lenses. The 800/5.6, if I remember correctly, has been around for a long time now. Nobody much seems to use it, I'm not sure why. Two other things make me reluctant: it has an even longer MFD than the Canon (this matters a lot for small birds because close-up rings are such a pain), and (more importantly) it has no IS. Sure, a lens this size will mostly be used on a tripod, but by no means always (I do a lot of work handheld from a car hide), and in any case, IS is still useful even with a tripod.

Most of the same things apply to the 300-800, and it's also very heavy at around 6kg. On the whole, I'd prefer a prime (I have shorter lenses anyway, if required) as I think you get better image quality - even though good modern zooms are very good indeed. There are certainly times when the 300-800 would be ideal - choice of framing from a hide is the obvious example - and in a perfect world I'd have one of those as well - but in the end, by all reports the Canon 800/5.6 offers even better image quality than the 500/4 and 600/4 do, and that (to me) is worth the extra money. If I'm going to spend the price of a new car on a lens, I want it to be the very best one I can get.

The main reason for an 800/5.6 isn't extra reach - by using a 1.4 converter I already have 700/5.6, which is pretty close - it's being able to avoid the teleconverter on two counts: (a) better image quality (not so much the subject itself as the out-of-focus background, which is always better bare-lens), and (b) AF speed. For traditional bird-on-a-stick pictures, focus speed doesn't matter so much (although more than you'd think), but if you are trying to go a bit beyond that into bird-doing-something-interesting territory, AF speed makes a massive difference. Try here for an example.

BTW, one percentage point off the 800/5.6 ain't a week's food for me, more like a month! (I live very cheaply and seldom eat out.)

 

[ddrueding]

Try here for an example.

Damn, that is an amazing shot.