sdbardwick
Storage is cool
[h=1]El Niño?[/h]Sorry for your plans, but Calif. is hoping for a strong one.
sdbardwick
Storage is cool
Galápagos?
Stereodude
Not really a
ARkStorm strong I'm sure.
sdbardwick
Storage is cool
Well, I'd settle for 40 days and 40 nights spread out over 4 months...
Seems...
Canon 11-24 > Nikon 14-24
Canon 16-35 > Nikon 16-35
Canon 24-70 > Nikon 24-70
Canon 70-200 > Nikon 70-200
Canon 100-400 > Nikon 80-400
Etc, etc.....is there any Nikon glass that's better than the Canon equivalent? Or is Canon just better with zooms?
Canon 11-24 > Nikon 14-24
Canon 16-35 > Nikon 16-35
Canon 24-70 > Nikon 24-70
Canon 70-200 > Nikon 70-200
Canon 100-400 > Nikon 80-400
Etc, etc.....is there any Nikon glass that's better than the Canon equivalent? Or is Canon just better with zooms?
Canon 200-400 > Nikon 200-400
The built in 1.4x TC help.
Seems bodies are updated on a yearly cycle, while lenses are on 5-10+ year cycles. So it's a bit harder to catch up on lens quality vs body quality. Not that I'm producing anything good enough to matter (Canon Vs Nikon). Just OCD kicking in with my small regret not joining the Canon team.
The Canon 200-400 is just great and does not suffer from the aberrations that the Nikkor has at long distance.
The 24-70/2.8 with VR looks to be the new standard of the range. However, I wish someone would make a better 24-105 or similar.
The current Nikkor is better than the old, but still not so good on FX from cornertocorner. The Canon24-105is really weakon the 5DsR. The lack ofanother Canon zoom lens in the range above 70mm iskilling me.
At least Nikon has it's f/1.8G primes that canon somewhat lacks. Well at least on the short end. It would be nice to see a 17mm and 14mm f/1.8G but those would be expensive.
Nikon 20mm f/1.8G Canon 2.8
Nikon 24mm f/1.8G Canon 2.8 (and expensive 1.4)
Nikon 28mm f/1.8G Canon 1.8 (and 2.8) 1.8 cheaper, older version?
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G Canon 2.0 (and expensive 1.4)
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G Canon 1.8 (and 1.4 and 1.2)
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G Canon 1.8 (and expensive 1.2) no 1.4.
Nikon 20mm f/1.8G Canon 2.8
Nikon 24mm f/1.8G Canon 2.8 (and expensive 1.4)
Nikon 28mm f/1.8G Canon 1.8 (and 2.8) 1.8 cheaper, older version?
Nikon 35mm f/1.8G Canon 2.0 (and expensive 1.4)
Nikon 50mm f/1.8G Canon 1.8 (and 1.4 and 1.2)
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G Canon 1.8 (and expensive 1.2) no 1.4.
Nikon has always had good mid-range products. Back in the day they did not make cheap stuff, but that changed in the 1980s with the EM, E series lenses, etc.
Canon and Nikon both have various cycles for new lenses, so it depends when you are in the market. Currently Nikon is a bit behind with the long teles, but introducing new ones soon.
Many of the Canon primes are older than Nikkors, though the STM primes with IS are interesting if the slower lenses are useful.
It's not even DX, but CX for the ultra-miniature 8.8x13.2mm sensors in the Nikon 1 series. They are the same type of sensors used in the RX-100 series compact P/S cameras.
Basically it's the equivalent of a 35mm lens with DOF more like f/4.9.
The new Canon 35/1.4 II is very interesting.
It looks like they have a new means of reducing LoCA to make fast lenses that are APO.
We'll have to see if they update the old 135/2 , 85.1.2 II, etc.
There is some Japanese info here too.
It looks like they have a new means of reducing LoCA to make fast lenses that are APO.
We'll have to see if they update the old 135/2 , 85.1.2 II, etc.
There is some Japanese info here too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Every time Tannin buys an expensive new lens, bloody Canon obsolete it with a new model. Practically all of his L Series lenses are now officially just old junk. 100-400, 24 TS/E, 500/4 IS, 35/1.4. Pretty soon they will replace the 24-105 and the only L he'll have left that isn't obsolete will be the 100 IS macro.
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
Pretty much any of the mainstream SLRs are good, Clocker. Canon, Nikon, and Pentax make great products. S*ny probably do too, but I'd really struggle to recommend any S*ny product from bootlaces on up. I'd sooner shoot Bambi.
Rather than buy second-hand, I'd look at an entry-level new one. They are very cheap these days, and astonishingly competent. Something like a Canon 700D should set you back maybe $300 US or a bit over (body only), not much more with a cheap general-purpose lens. The Pentax K-50 is similar. Doubtless there is a Nikon one also.
If you are going to go stupid with specialised professional lenses (you aren't) then you have only two choices, Canon and Nikon. No other brand has the range of specialised gear. But for the hobbyist like you, Pentax (and, if you must, S*ony) offer way more choices than you'll ever need. I particularly like Pentax stuff for your sort of use. Great value, well made, excellent lenses, and a good range to choose from too.
I'm not really familiar with the current camera models other than Canon's pro and semi-pro range. Lunar or Dave might be better on the specifics.
Really, your best bet is to decide on your lens FIRST. That's always the hard part, and the easiest part to get wrong. Then buy whichever camera suits your lens.
\
Rather than buy second-hand, I'd look at an entry-level new one. They are very cheap these days, and astonishingly competent. Something like a Canon 700D should set you back maybe $300 US or a bit over (body only), not much more with a cheap general-purpose lens. The Pentax K-50 is similar. Doubtless there is a Nikon one also.
If you are going to go stupid with specialised professional lenses (you aren't) then you have only two choices, Canon and Nikon. No other brand has the range of specialised gear. But for the hobbyist like you, Pentax (and, if you must, S*ony) offer way more choices than you'll ever need. I particularly like Pentax stuff for your sort of use. Great value, well made, excellent lenses, and a good range to choose from too.
I'm not really familiar with the current camera models other than Canon's pro and semi-pro range. Lunar or Dave might be better on the specifics.
Really, your best bet is to decide on your lens FIRST. That's always the hard part, and the easiest part to get wrong. Then buy whichever camera suits your lens.
\
An APS-C crop body of some type would give you a bit more reach than a full-frame body, allowing you to save a bit on tele lens costs. Canon is 1.6x crop and Nikon is 1.5x crop.
I'm sure Lunar will be here soon to give you the info you need.
Amateur and youth sports is difficult even for photographers, much less the soccer moms that have seen a few too many commercials with somebody capturing frame-filling, peak action with a cheapo camera and lens.
For starters, I'd pick the latest Nikon 5xxx series body and a 70-300 lens in addition to the 18-55 kit lens.
You probably won't want low end Canon DSLRs due to the old-fashioned, noisy sensors.
ddrueding
Fixture
I settled on Canon because I bought a 20D from Tannin who knows how many years ago. Used it to shutter failure. By that point I was familiar with Canon's interface and had picked up a couple lenses so "lock-in" had started. By the time my next body (entry level, 350D?) failed I'd picked up even more lenses and had gotten several friends into the hobby. As bad an idea as it may be, I do loan out my lenses to friends as part of lessons or for special events. Now that I'm part of a larger ecosystem I really can't switch.
That said, it seems to be the right place to be as far as lens selection goes. Tannin is absolutely right that even the entry level (three-digit) are amazingly competent compared to older pro bodies, but the new higher-end bodies are even better. The autofocus on my 7DII is telepathic, even shooting video. Not sure what your budget is, but if you think this is something you'll get into quickly spending some more money can get you a better result. The 100-400II is probably too much lens for you, but the 70-200 is likely the right range for what you have in mind.
That said, it seems to be the right place to be as far as lens selection goes. Tannin is absolutely right that even the entry level (three-digit) are amazingly competent compared to older pro bodies, but the new higher-end bodies are even better. The autofocus on my 7DII is telepathic, even shooting video. Not sure what your budget is, but if you think this is something you'll get into quickly spending some more money can get you a better result. The 100-400II is probably too much lens for you, but the 70-200 is likely the right range for what you have in mind.
ddrueding
Fixture
To clarify, I posted before I realized the thread already went onto this page. I don't have the experience Lunar does, nor the access to so much equipment from both manufacturers. At the same time it can't be that bad as I haven't heard about such a gap anywhere but here (I read a little, but not as much as others I'm sure).
I've been using Nikon for 39 years. Although I have purchased less than 10 Nikon DSLR bodies, I do have experience with a number of the Sony sensors both in Nikon and Sony bodies. I have also owned 16+ Canon DLSRs. It may not be what you want to hear, but in the APS-C sensors the noise levels in the Canon cameras are substantially worse than the sensors in the current DX Nikons. The difference is quite obvious when shooting in poor light and/or with slow lenses, which is typically a problem for consumers that do not want to pony up for the fast, big teles. Canon cannot continue to lumber along with minor imaging improvements like it's 2006. There should be some changes in 2016, at least for the FF bodies, since the 1DX and 5D III are becoming rather old.
ddrueding
Fixture
I didn't intend to disagree with your analysis, just point out that Canon still holds a pretty big slice of the market. If their cameras were significantly (15%?) inferior at the same price point, I'd expect to hear outcry and market analysis issues.
Oh, their sales have declined dramatically.
The problem is that Nikon has also lost sales. Although the relatively new class of FF MILC and proliferation of other MILC have increased, the overall sales or interchangeable lens cameras will continue to drop. The unwashed masses just want their cell phones and only need a 2MP crappy image to be happy.
ddrueding
Fixture
Oh, their sales have declined dramatically.
This trend I'm very aware of. My wife would rather use her Galaxy Note Edge even if I'm trying to hand her an S110. Just the fact that the camera pictures will be on dropbox and able to be shared immediately is enough to dissuade her. Any DSLRs with built-in WiFi and some kind of automated cloud integration?
I hope shooting a picture every 6 seconds for nearly 15 hours won't hurt my D610. :crap:
DD got me off my lazy butt and I'm playing with my Nikon's "Time Lapse" feature. It takes a pic every x seconds for x amount of time and converts it into a *.MOV file for you. The MOV file is what you specified in the movie settings. Highest setting is 1080p30 on my D610.
Some observations, aka, what I've learned so far.
1) 1080p movie is 16:9 aspect ratio, while 35mm frame is 15:10. Check your framing. I didn't at first.
2) Camera will auto-focus every shot even if focus is on the sky at infinity. Camera won't fully cycle the lens but will move focus ring a centimeter of so then back. Set focus and turn auto-focus off.
3) Turn off LCD*, as you don't need to review each shot, to save on battery power.
4) My EN-EL15 batteries lasted longer than I thought. Battery in the MB-D14 battery grip took 2853 shots, and was dead, while the camera's EN-EL15 recorded 1190 shots and had juice left.
5) 6h45m Time Lapse = 24,300 seconds. Camera shot every 6 seconds. So 4050 shots should have been taken. 4043 actual shots taken equals pretty accurate camera timing. 99.83% accurate.
6) Nikon's "A"perture priority tries to keep shutter speed @ 1/mm (50mm lens in this case) to prevent image shake while raising ISO to keep exposure accurate as light dims.
Initial exposure** was 1/2000 @ f2.8, ISO 100, but as it got darker shutter speed dropped down to 1/50 sec @ F/2.8. As it got even darker shutter speed remained at 1/50 but ISO went up. Eventually at ISO 6400 the shutter finally slowly dropped down the scale and ended up to 2 sec well after sunset. Aperture locked at F/2.8. I was hoping the ISO would stay at 100 and only go up if shutter speed became TOO slow to maintain the shot-every-6-second time lapse. Guess not.
Setup: I put the camera on a tripod in "A"perture priority, WB to Daylight, AUTO-ISO, set my 50mm lens to F2.8 @ 4:15pm in a west-south-west direction, infinity focus and auto-focus turned off for 6h 45m time lapse with a shot every 6 seconds.
*Leaving the LCD screen on hasn't drained enough power to prevent me from taking a 6h 45m time lapse. I'm trying a 7h 59m (Nikon D610 limit) one now to see if I can go the full 8 hours on two fully charged EN-EL15 batteries.
**I wanted to shoot wide-open at F/1.4 as I would be shooting well after sunset but I don't have that fancy-pants 1/8000s shutter speed and the start of my time lapse was 1.3 stops over-exposed at 1/4000.
DD got me off my lazy butt and I'm playing with my Nikon's "Time Lapse" feature. It takes a pic every x seconds for x amount of time and converts it into a *.MOV file for you. The MOV file is what you specified in the movie settings. Highest setting is 1080p30 on my D610.
Some observations, aka, what I've learned so far.
1) 1080p movie is 16:9 aspect ratio, while 35mm frame is 15:10. Check your framing. I didn't at first.
2) Camera will auto-focus every shot even if focus is on the sky at infinity. Camera won't fully cycle the lens but will move focus ring a centimeter of so then back. Set focus and turn auto-focus off.
3) Turn off LCD*, as you don't need to review each shot, to save on battery power.
4) My EN-EL15 batteries lasted longer than I thought. Battery in the MB-D14 battery grip took 2853 shots, and was dead, while the camera's EN-EL15 recorded 1190 shots and had juice left.
5) 6h45m Time Lapse = 24,300 seconds. Camera shot every 6 seconds. So 4050 shots should have been taken. 4043 actual shots taken equals pretty accurate camera timing. 99.83% accurate.
6) Nikon's "A"perture priority tries to keep shutter speed @ 1/mm (50mm lens in this case) to prevent image shake while raising ISO to keep exposure accurate as light dims.
Initial exposure** was 1/2000 @ f2.8, ISO 100, but as it got darker shutter speed dropped down to 1/50 sec @ F/2.8. As it got even darker shutter speed remained at 1/50 but ISO went up. Eventually at ISO 6400 the shutter finally slowly dropped down the scale and ended up to 2 sec well after sunset. Aperture locked at F/2.8. I was hoping the ISO would stay at 100 and only go up if shutter speed became TOO slow to maintain the shot-every-6-second time lapse. Guess not.
Setup: I put the camera on a tripod in "A"perture priority, WB to Daylight, AUTO-ISO, set my 50mm lens to F2.8 @ 4:15pm in a west-south-west direction, infinity focus and auto-focus turned off for 6h 45m time lapse with a shot every 6 seconds.
*Leaving the LCD screen on hasn't drained enough power to prevent me from taking a 6h 45m time lapse. I'm trying a 7h 59m (Nikon D610 limit) one now to see if I can go the full 8 hours on two fully charged EN-EL15 batteries.
**I wanted to shoot wide-open at F/1.4 as I would be shooting well after sunset but I don't have that fancy-pants 1/8000s shutter speed and the start of my time lapse was 1.3 stops over-exposed at 1/4000.
8 hour night time time lapse
I started my 8 hour time lapse about 1h 45m ago. Midnight to 8am. Cloudy sky so no stars. I'm west of downtown Phoenix so just getting the city glow on the clouds. The glow is very-very faint orange to the nekkid eye, but in camera it's really dark/deep orange. Should be an interesting time lapse.
Same basic setup. Camera on a tripod facing south, angled up about 45 degrees. Image taken every 6 seconds, or 10 per minute. Three minutes real time equals one second of MOV time lapse time.
Exposure is ISO 6400, 1/8 sec @ F/1.4. The sky is two stops "brighter" at 2am in the south then the west.
Fingers are crossed.
I started my 8 hour time lapse about 1h 45m ago. Midnight to 8am. Cloudy sky so no stars. I'm west of downtown Phoenix so just getting the city glow on the clouds. The glow is very-very faint orange to the nekkid eye, but in camera it's really dark/deep orange. Should be an interesting time lapse.
Same basic setup. Camera on a tripod facing south, angled up about 45 degrees. Image taken every 6 seconds, or 10 per minute. Three minutes real time equals one second of MOV time lapse time.
Exposure is ISO 6400, 1/8 sec @ F/1.4. The sky is two stops "brighter" at 2am in the south then the west.
Fingers are crossed.
The unwashed masses just want their cell phones and only need a 2MP crappy image to be happy.
I can take crappy photographs with the $4500 worth of 24MP equipment I have. But I'm happy and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I look damn cool doing it!!!
/snark
ddrueding
Fixture
The biggest thing to keep in mind is the number of shutter actuations your camera is rated for before a costly repair. This is how my 20D died, and it was better to replace the camera than do the repair on an older unit.
All of my time lapses have been 1 second/shot. I'd imagine I took 15k images on the trip and the 7DII is rated for 200k on the shutter, so a significant chunk of the cameras life was burned through
The biggest thing to keep in mind is the number of shutter actuations your camera is rated for before a costly repair. This is how my 20D died, and it was better to replace the camera than do the repair on an older unit.
All of my time lapses have been 1 second/shot. I'd imagine I took 15k images on the trip and the 7DII is rated for 200k on the shutter, so a significant chunk of the cameras life was burned through
The ratings are not particularly accurate. Most shutters fail far sooner. Some last longer.
ddrueding
Fixture
I'm sure there is some statistical curve that describes it, but the main point is that in an SLR camera physical things move every time you take a picture and moving things have a limited life cycle.
Now that I'm home I'll be comparing the timelapse videos shot with the DSLR, S110, and S5 and compare their quality.
Now that I'm home I'll be comparing the timelapse videos shot with the DSLR, S110, and S5 and compare their quality.
I suggest a rental if a huge number of frames are expected. 15k in 8 days is about normal for still photos in some locations.
Stereodude
Not really a
Don't some of the interchangeable lens cameras lack a mechanical shutter? If so, I would think they would be far more suited to shooting long time lapses since at least in theory there's a lot less to wear out.
DrunkenBastard
Storage is cool
With the 1Ds mk2 we generally got shutter failures at cycles ranging from 300,000 to 500,000. Canon ended up agreeing to replace the first shutter failure under warranty, and then we paid 2-300 for subsequent replacements. Apart from the shutter itself failing we also saw issues with the mirror assembly. Sometimes an increase in debris/dirt to clean off the sensor foretold a failure soon after (they were never exposed to environmental dirt during lens changes). Having a mirrorless/shutterless camera back then would have saved us big bucks in terms of not having to stock spare mk2 bodies to deal with turnaround times to Canon service.
mubs
Storage? I am Storage!
Don't they check shutter actuations before renting out and after the body comes back?
I suppose one should check the policy for frame limits.
I always rent cars with unlimited mileage for example. Earlier this year we put on 2700 miles in 8 days. The guy looked at the odometer and then the paper and his device a couple of times.
What? You had a different username then?