User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » Third-Party Products »

Digital Camera Chat


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Digital Camera Chat
Page 43 of 114 First Previous 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47  Next Last Thread Tools
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-10, 05:11

I have very little knowledge/experience of filters. My dad's old manual focus film lenses had UV filters, none of my lenses have them. Is the circular polarizer preferable to a variable ND for my purposes?

Also, it looks like the D600 news filtering out of the rumor mill points to a D7000 body, minus focus motor, plus full frame sensor, potentially as low as $1500. The giveaways are 5fps, 39 point AF, dual SD, U1 and U2 settings. This will be a very interesting camera...

.........................................
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-05-10, 05:33

If it's really $1500 it will make big waves, regardless of the details. However, even the details look good, e.g. 1/250th sync speed, 5 fps, possibly a built-in GPS receiver, etc.

I wonder if Nikon will really drop the focus motor though? I'd be shocked if the motor costs more than $5 per camera (the motor itself is probably under $1), and it's a particularly useful feature for exactly the people targeted by this camera: those who want great image quality for as few dollars as possible!

However, that might be exactly why Nikon wants to remove it from this camera... Selling people new lenses is obviously the best way to make big profits.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-10, 07:40

Some time ago accepted orthodoxy around the web (which has as good a chance of just being bullshit) was that full frame sensors would always cost about 10X more to make than APSC sensors. They're 2.25X the size, but that increase in fabrication size adds about an order of magnitude to the cost of production. But I have no idea. If various commoditized APSC parts are now available between $50-100, I would assume they have to be in order for $500-600 DSLRs to even exist, then it's possible that the price premium for an FX chip is small enough, $500-1000, to make a $1500 DSLR possible. Sony was at 1999 first, but there just wasn't that much interest in a Minolta-Sony Alpha mount DSLR by the time they did it. Nikon and Canon both danced close to that mark with their end of life D700 and 5D2, so maybe it's just a question of a little repacking and a little rethinking to get us into $1500 territory.

Personally, I think it's the only way for Nikon moving forward - if they want to stick with the F mount, then they have to manage the transition. Step one, offer FX quality at an unbeatable price, but leave reasons for established customers to buy D800 and up. D600 is for new customers. Those customers need lenses. It doesn't help the company one bit if we all take a pass on more expensive models and then raid the bargain bins for vintage screw drivers.

A $1500 FX DSLR is so compelling, IMHO, that people will buy it anyway, and start replacing their lenses if they have to. And it might not be an offering that other manufacturers are ready or willing to match for at least a few quarters. There's talk of a mirrorless Canon system launching - almost certainly somewhere between 4/3 and APSC, but that's a risk. One that, incidentally, I think Nikon chose to mitigate by making the CX format so small - It can sit just above camera phones, which are killing P&S, without antagonizing F mount sales. It gives them a camera to sell in the convergence device era.

A big sensor, cheap, DSLR is the flipside of the same very low risk strategy - it plays to the strengths of a DSLR - the large sensor; promotes sales of system lenses; creates a gateway from which to enhance the cachet of "full frame" by making it just accessible enough.

Then sell sell sell.

The next stage becomes figuring out what to do when two or three things happen:

1.) on-chip PDAF and/or CDAF matures enough (the other reason Nikon 1 exists)
2.) EVFs surpass OVFs.
3.) global electronic shutters

In that order, were much closer in the first instance than the second, the third can live happily under any camera type, but further reduces the need for precise/expensive in-camera mechanisms.

No one has a mirrorless system that can do what DSLRs do, or fit their size of chip. Nikon can get there, with less risk, by working backwards. Dropping the focus motor is a small strategic part of that, and "Cheap DSLRs" buy them about a decade to get it all sorted out.

.........................................

Last edited by Matsu : 2012-05-10 at 08:29.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-10, 13:01

Exactly, the D600 is being made to target D5100, D7000 users who don't have a big bag of AF-D lenses. I only have one non-AF-S lens, and hardly even use it. If the D600 comes in with the rumored 24MP sensor it would be a great camera to have along side my D700 (for landscape shooting). The only downside is the it will likely have the inferior D7000 style control layout and SD cards. Neither of those would be deal breakers mind you, if the camera has decent performance.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-11, 05:56

Leica dropped a ton of stuff yesterday. A monochrome M9 with decent high ISO performance and much higher detail from its 18 million luminance pixels (same as a 36mp bayer); the beautifully crafted X2, and a Hassleblad to S system adaptor that supports AF, but curiously not tilt shift - I have to double check that.

I find Leica intriguing - on the one hand they're a bit of an anachronism selling M system wares well past their best before date, and they do it so well that the system remains a small but stable platform. On the other hand, they make two of the only really modern cameras on the market today, the x cameras and S system. Both more streamlined, less cluttered, and better sorted than most of their respective competitors.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-11, 22:23

If Leica made a reasonaibly affordable camera I'd get one, but spending that much on a camera or glass for personal use is crazy. Getting the D700 was a stetch for me, so that is a nither here nor there statement.

The X2 looks like an expensive X100, without a decent LCD and no hybrid viewfinder.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-12, 01:04

Yeah, I can't afford to buy any of their wares either, but they're so interesting. While they sell the ultimate retro system, their more modern fare are completely clean breaks, very pure, uncluttered designs that don't have anything you don't need, modern and functional. I'm very intrigued by Fuji's X hybrid viewfinder, but it's something of a rethink of a rangefinder OVF - it wouldn't be out of place on an autofocus M camera.

Leica's X doesn't even try to go there, it simply surrenders that gestalt in favor of TTL viewing - albeit through an LCD, and now a choice of detachable EVF or OVF. That's a brave decision, and from a design standpoint, the right one. The camera is very clean and functional as well as compact as a result.

Similarly, the S camera goes into territory that no other medium format camera approaches. You could argue it just shrink wrapped a 35mm DLSR format around a medium format mount, but that ignores the deceptive simplicity they've achieved in doing it. Just compare it to Pentax 645D or Hassleblad H system or even a full frame 35mm dslr. It's remarkably clean and uncomplicated. The only things on the outside are things you actually need. Even the menu is set up so that every function is no more than two clicks down, compare this to a Nikon or Canon layout, and see how fast it is compared to the endless scrolling in our cameras:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=pcizg6oz6MI

Is it perfect? No, but it's close. The lenses could be a bit smaller, even compared to medium format wares, but chances are very good little of comparable size comes close to their resolving power. Could it have a few more focus points? Yes, it's almost a little too pared down, but there are a lot of lessons here for Nikon and Canon, or Sony, or Pentax.

A 35mm DSLR with the same level of streamlining would be smaller than any current full frame DSLR. Basically D90-D7000 sized, but significantly more focused than any of them.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-12, 03:54

The controls are simple, would be great for portrait and street shooting, but not much else (typical Leica camera).

A 35mm DSLR in a D90 or D7000 body would have a small viewfinder 92%, coverage at best. Remember that only the larger film SLRs had 100% coverage (F2, F3, F4), while D90 and D7000 sized cameras F90, F80, F70 had 92% finders for that very reason. To me that is almost a deal breaker. The 95% coverage of the D700's finder drives me crazy sometimes, and the 92% coverage on my F90X... that's even worse.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2012-05-12, 07:18

I think that almost every camera enthusiast would have at least one Leica among their cameras, if they could afford it. Like you, though I can't afford it. They are very nice cameras, but I am not sure that the extra price is justified, in Leica's case, by the degree of extra quality or design smarts.

Anyway, I am debating whether to get, sometime in the next year, the X100 from Fuji, but I will also be contemplating sticking with Sigma once I get a chance to check out the substantially new DP1 and DP2 Merrills. These have been announced and soon will be released. One thing I like about the Sigmas is how very small and light they have kept the camera. If I got the Sigma, I would probably get the new DP2 and keep my existing DP1 for wide-angle shooting. I have yet to be convinced though that Sigma's new much higher MP sensor necessarily has the quality of the older Sigma sensor that gave results a special 'oomph'.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-12, 07:27

F3 was pretty amazing - very high eyepoint for the time, and maybe nothing that equals it since, and magnification around 75%. In the film era though, we had coverage from about the low 90's to 100% and magnification from about 75-90%. Today the best full frame dslrs have 100% coverage, but "only" reach about 70-75% magnification.

I used to be a viewfinder nerd, but right now I barely make do with a DX viewfinder. Here's a good article:
http://cameragx.com/2010/03/09/viewf...lief-part-two/

It leaves out some Pentax models that also had very high magification. I think it might be a reasonable compromise to go for higher magnification, into the high 90's, and lose a little bit of coverage, though not to less than 95%. I can confirm that looking through my FE the magnification is incredible compared to a modern DSLR. It proves a camera doesn't have to be big to have a large optical viewfinder. Nikon would have to make the hump bigger, and probably dump the pop up flash, but who cares, the rest of the body can stay small.

This is where, again, the S2 teaches us a few things. When you see the mount in relation to the body, especially without a lens mounted, you can see that it's quite low in relation to the body itself, whereas even in a non-vertical grip body, like a D800 or a 5D2, the mount is more centered. It effectively disguises the massive viewfinder hump by making the shoulders of the camera taller. This is good on the S2, it disguises the vertical heft of an already roomy camera layout. It could be even better on a smaller camera base, especially on the right (grip) side where it would makes a narrow camera roomier - like upright seating in a short wheelbase car. A little extra purchase for your pinky and ring fingers, and (better if the back of the camera is uncluttered) a longer, flatter rest for your thumb. Most cameras provide some grip to the thumb at the third knuckle, near the control wheels, better than nothing, but you have tense your grip to move the thumbwheel. However, if your hand weren't cramped into a vertically short space, you could rest the whole thumb, down to the heel, right into the grip, and still manipulate the controls without significantly changing the pressure in your grip.

I believe these are the reasons people with big hands like vertical grips so much, even when they aren't in portrait orientation. Some will say it's to "balance" the camera, but what it's really doing is spreading their grip so the weight goes right into your wrist. When you do that, holding the camera no longer torques your hand, even though the camera is bigger and heavier. You don't actually need a substantially taller camera in order to improve the grip, but you do need to de-clutter the controls a bit in order to re-assign the real-estate for a more ergonomic purpose. Tall cameras like the D3, D4, S2 and have room for both hands and control layout clutter. The S2 pares down the controls anyway, adding to the modern design, but it's also good ergonomically - most of the thumb control is reached by an extended thumb, you don't have to bend it down to reach anything essential because they put so much control into the very simple click-wheel. If they haven't patented it as a control concept for cameras, then they should.

And the last bit involves the top plate. High shoulders afford another opportunity not used in any of the cameras I've talked about. Cover the settings dials. On a Nikon type body, you drop the selection dial below the top plate under a window a small window. Turned by the left thumb, it's now guarded against accidental bumps and setting changes, and moved in exactly the same way as the right hand mode dials.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-12, 09:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
F3 was pretty amazing - very high eyepoint for the time, and maybe nothing that equals it since, and magnification around 75%. In the film era though, we had coverage from about the low 90's to 100% and magnification from about 75-90%. Today the best full frame dslrs have 100% coverage, but "only" reach about 70-75% magnification.

I used to be a viewfinder nerd, but right now I barely make do with a DX viewfinder. Here's a good article:
http://cameragx.com/2010/03/09/viewf...lief-part-two/

It leaves out some Pentax models that also had very high magification. I think it might be a reasonable compromise to go for higher magnification, into the high 90's, and lose a little bit of coverage, though not to less than 95%. I can confirm that looking through my FE the magnification is incredible compared to a modern DSLR. It proves a camera doesn't have to be big to have a large optical viewfinder. Nikon would have to make the hump bigger, and probably dump the pop up flash, but who cares, the rest of the body can stay small.
In order to allow for accurate manual focus higher magnification was required on film bodies, something designers of auto focus bodies are less concerned with. The FE's viewfinder might look bigger, but is also darker than my D700's, thanks to the split prism for focusing. Of the cameras I know the brightest is easily the F90X. I also find the FE's finder to cause more eye strain, maybe the higher magnification is why so many older photographers need the glasses mentioned in the article?

As for the grip, I don't think weight on the wrist is the main issue. The weight of the camera should be on the hand holding the lens, not the grip (me thinks your holding the camera wrong if that is the case).
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-12, 10:11

That's a good reminder, but the more you can spread camera weight the better. It's a bit like gripping a mouse, it's not heavy at all, but they're almost universally badly shaped, and it creates a lot of strain in the hand/wrist, not because you 're supporting it, just because of it's shape and the movement you're making. I also tend to carry the camera at my side, in my right hand, loose or resting on my camera bag, my left hand only touches it when I'm taking a picture or holding the body closer, in a crowd or something. On a D90/D7000 or smaller, my right pinky has no where to go, even my ring finger is a bit crowded. The right hand inevitably carries weight when you grip the camera/squeeze the shutter.

Speaking of Leica, they keep dropping hints about a CSC on some long development timeline, and I'm not sure what they intend. Do they use the M as the basis of modern AF CSC, or do they design from the ground up for EVF?

Last edited by Matsu : 2012-05-12 at 15:53.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-19, 04:24

I got an SB-700 this week, to work along side my SB-800, and I have to say that it really is a nice flash. Compared to the SB-900/910 it isn't very big, but it is almost identical to the SB-800, which is nice. Weight wise, no noticeable difference between the two. The SB-800 is more powerful, thus I use it in my umbrella setup, but the SB-700 is close and is much easier to change settings on. Of course for me the best part is that I no longer need to use the built in flash on the D700 as a commander unit, thus no harsh direct light on the subject. The other real plus, and often overlooked, is that the SB-700's AF assist light works with all 51 AF points, vs only 19 points with the SB-800. I will defiantly be using the SB-700 as my on camera flash as a result.
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-05-19, 05:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM View Post
I got an SB-700 this week
That's a coincidence, PB PM. I got an SB-700 this week too!

This weekend I'll explore its features and performance. It looks good at first glance. I chose it over the SB-900/910 mainly because it's much cheaper, much smaller, and it goes down to an even lower minimum power setting: useful for lighting small objects at very close range. However, I did notice the SB-900 felt a little bit better in the shop, in terms of construction quality (it's made in Japan and costs nearly twice as much, so I don't suppose that's a big surprise). The SB-700 doesn't feel bad either, though. I think it will hold up fine to my light but longterm use.

I'd like a PC sync socket, but not at the price Nikon is asking for the SB-900/910. You listening, Nikon? Your upsell tactic didn't work!
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-05-19, 05:42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Speaking of Leica, they keep dropping hints about a CSC on some long development timeline, and I'm not sure what they intend. Do they use the M as the basis of modern AF CSC, or do they design from the ground up for EVF?
I think they'll stall on this CSC for a while, since it's a risk they don't need to take while the M system continues to sell well.

The M will be modernised with video (confirmed by Dr Kaufmann himself to the British Journal of Photography), and live view (presumably, since video and live view are similarly implemented). I don't think many M users are clamouring for video, but some certainly want live view. However, the M cameras will always retain a rangefinder: the M stands for Messsucher (rangefinder).

It wouldn't surprise me if Leica updates the rangefinder mechanism at some point, to reduce costs and improve accuracy/stability. An updated rangefinder might incorporate electromechanical features to allow some degree of "fly-by-wire" operation, thereby enabling precise calibration for each lens across the full focusing range (based off an accurate infinity-focus adjustment).

Do you know Dante Stella? He's a highflying lawyer and photographer, like Chinney, and like Chinney he's good with words and things. He's not a tech head, but that doesn't stop him writing eloquently and provocatively on technical matters. Here's one interesting such piece on the M system.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-19, 06:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Gray View Post
However, I did notice the SB-900 felt a little bit better in the shop, in terms of construction quality (it's made in Japan and costs nearly twice as much, so I don't suppose that's a big surprise). The SB-700 doesn't feel bad either, though. I think it will hold up fine to my light but longterm use.

I'd like a PC sync socket, but not at the price Nikon is asking for the SB-900/910. You listening, Nikon? Your upsell tactic didn't work!
I noticed the build quality as well, definatly a step down from the SB-800 (also made in Japan).

As for PC sync, can you not get a hot shoe adaport to fit on the bottom of the flash. I'm assuming you want to use it with wireless triggers that don't have built in hotshoes or studio lights?
  quote
Dorian Gray
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Paris, France
 
2012-05-19, 06:47

Yes, you can use an adaptor, and that's what I'll do. It's therefore not a big deal, just one of the few things missing on the SB-700 (for my use, at least). I want to occasionally use the SB-700 with my Elinchrom Ranger Quadra RX lights (which I wouldn't have bought for hobby use, but as I keep threatening, I'm trying to start a photography-related business... ).
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-19, 08:59

This is so funny. I had an SB900 - turned out to be a mistake, I think someone in this very thread advised me against it at the time too. I'd send it into thermal cut-out like nobody's business. I disabled the cut out, but I always felt I might be on the verge of cooking it. So, I ate a loss of about a $100 and sold it. What do I have now? An SB700 and SB800 (used). This is my two light kit. The SB800 has about a 1/2-2/3 stops on the SB700, and I use it off camera as a slave, but I really like using the SB700 - its great for all the reasons mentioned.

Funnily enough, come September, we're standardizing our program on 3 pieces of equipment. Every first year student must now buy a D7000, SB910, and PW+3. I can get by without it until September, and really, after intro to lighting, I can skip the 910, but I'll have to buy the Plus3 for the studio sections.

I keep looking for decent used SB600 and SB800s for remote lighting, but people either want too much, or I just miss buying them, and I don't want to pay full price on a 910 or another 700 (which is slightly over-priced in Canada) We haven't seen Nikon's answer to radio-flash yet, so these should only be bought at a good price...

I've been thinking about getting an SB400 though, or a Sunpak RD2000 (they have virtual identical specs). A friend uses the SB400 and it's very good as an on camera fill against outdoor back-light, much much better than the on camera flash, it could be a decent street-flash - flash can never really be inconspicuous, but it;s at least low profile. Every once in an a while I see the Sunpak for $50-70, barely more than a puffer. Just don't know if it integrates as cleanly as the SB400.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-19, 11:38

I got my SB-700 for $334 on sale, still higher than the US price, but close. You could also grab some SB-28's and run the SB-700 in SU-4 mode to trigger them.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-19, 15:00

I want to try and keep it all TTL, even though I'm starting to see that manual is simpler in many ways. We hardly cover any TTL usage at all, but I think it's useful for someone like me, who would basically be working alone (and on the run) most of the time.

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-19, 15:50

I used to think the same thing, before I started shooting flash manually. I found I missed shots due to too little power via iTTL.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-19, 20:39

Did I miss something? Is the SU-4/SU-4 mode TTL compatible?
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-19, 20:51

SU-4 mode runs in auto mode, using the flashes own light meter, it will also work with non-CLS flashes as the commander.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-23, 19:29

Latest D600 rumors look good, no built in GPS, but likely to have built in AF motor.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-24, 04:06

While I think that there's an excellent strategic case for ditching the motor on this model, and there are features I would rather have instead of the focus motor, primarily the D800/D4 level AF, keeping the motor is going to turn this thing into a bargain bin super hero - especially if the body's on the small side - adding one or two of Nikon's outdated but good 2.8 primes could be both affordable and compact (for a full frame.)

I periodically research this stuff, and then forget or lose track, I might be ordering a few things from the US, what's the best (minimal brokerage charge) shipping option? Maybe finally ordering the arca-swiss P0, someone talk me out of it, quick... need more indecision...

.........................................
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-24, 12:29

I am starting to get the feeling that Nikon won't be updating the F2.8 lens lineup. The release of the 28mm F1.8G is what makes me believe that. I think it is more likely that we'll see a 20mm F1.8, and a 35mm F1.8 (great way to confuse people between the FX and DX version and sell more lenses
).

As for ordering from the States, I avoid it at all costs. Duty is a combination of HST, and import prices, and is a percentage of the items cost, not a matter of where you order from. If you opt for higher end shipping the brokerage can be less, but is more than made up for by the shipping price. Duty rates are going up in June, so if you are going to do it, do it now!
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-24, 12:52

Rumor has it that a 35mm f/1.8 II is coming as well as a f/2.8 VR. Talk about confusion, but you can see where they're going, sort of. A 2.8 would probably be at about the limit you'd want for depth of focus anyway, so designing around a smaller aperture probably makes easier to have smaller elements, faster gearing, and faster focus, then throwing in stabilization for action/street work makes sense. There's nothing to stop you from using the 1.4 this way too, but it's a slightly different proposition.

The current 35mm 1.8 is cheap and sharp, and nearly FX coverage, but it has issues too. No focus scale (even if this is somewhat of a token element in the modern AF world) and some often nervous looking bokeh - it lacks the polish of the 28G and 50G 1.8s, and those lenses are full frame. So, they can either re-blend the formula to fix the bokeh and make the lens smaller (100% DX only) or make it bigger to match the other 1.8 G FX lenses? That would leave them with either three 35mm FX lenses, or two FX and on DX.

I'm going to hit the yearly photo show at the international centre this weekend and see what i can scare up in the ball-head dept. Generally these shows are a bit of a disappointment. Henry's hijacks the main area and none of the manufacturers want to deal directly, they just route you to Henry's which is way too busy raping as many show-goers as they can.

Still, there aren't too many chances to see Arca Swiss heads on display. I'd just order the P0 sight unseen, but the slidefix clamps give me a bit of pause. I do like the way it's designed not to interrupt my flow, and I know there's a dual channel clamp that takes both the tradtional Arca clamps and the new slidefix units, but I'm not sure it's available on the P0 which comes in both 1/4 and 3/8 studs depending on whether you get the panning (slidefix) version or the non panning version, which is also devoid of markings...

.........................................

Last edited by Matsu : 2012-05-24 at 13:34.
  quote
Mugge
Thunderbolt, fuck yeah!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Denmark
 
2012-05-24, 13:46

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Leica dropped a ton of stuff yesterday. A monochrome M9 with decent high ISO performance and much higher detail from its 18 million luminance pixels (same as a 36mp bayer); the beautifully crafted X2, and a Hassleblad to S system adaptor that supports AF, but curiously not tilt shift - I have to double check that.

I find Leica intriguing - on the one hand they're a bit of an anachronism selling M system wares well past their best before date, and they do it so well that the system remains a small but stable platform. On the other hand, they make two of the only really modern cameras on the market today, the x cameras and S system. Both more streamlined, less cluttered, and better sorted than most of their respective competitors.
There's an article on the Babbage blog about the Leica. Those pictures are so good that I almost want Apple to put such a camera on the next iPhone. Think about it, the number one cause for crappy iPhone pictures is poor lighting and this sensor can help Apple fix that. Also, getting rid of colour photography would help assure the world at large that Tim Cook isn't too much of a sane guy to run things at Apple.

I'm currently using the bridge photo as my iMac's wallpaper. It's really awesome.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2012-05-24, 15:43

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matsu View Post
Rumor has it that a 35mm f/1.8 II is coming as well as a f/2.8 VR. Talk about confusion, but you can see where they're going, sort of. A 2.8 would probably be at about the limit you'd want for depth of focus anyway, so designing around a smaller aperture probably makes easier to have smaller elements, faster gearing, and faster focus, then throwing in stabilization for action/street work makes sense. There's nothing to stop you from using the 1.4 this way too, but it's a slightly different proposition.
Interesting, I haven't seen any rumors to that effect on the net yet. I suspect that if Nikon does release a 35mm F1.8G for FX, the DX model would be dropped for practical production reasons. All they have to do is keep the price the same and nobody will say boo about it. A for a 35mm F2.8G VR, the lens would have to be huge to fit the VR elements and motor, not to mention weigh more, honestly negating the desire behind a prime in the first place. I could see video users wanting it, but beyond that, I don't see the need.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2012-05-25, 06:49

idunno, the 18-55VR is pretty small, and a slow, variable aperture design, but it's sharp and cheap, a decent kit lens for $100. 2.8 apertures are likewise on the relatively small cheap side as far as wide-normal primes go, it doesn't look like VR would add much weight there.

I'd hope they would re-design the 35 f/1.8 into a true FX lens, and do a 24 and a 20 to round out the kit,

However, the 28 might just be their best 35 right now. See Fro's usual silly review: here

Backgrounds are very smooth, no sacrifice of sharpness. Like a 35, it's equally serviceable as either an FX wide or a DX normal, a slightly wider one, and if you're in need of the 35mm perspective, the 1.2X crop on Nikon's full frame cameras just about puts your there. Think of it as a triple use lense, 28FX-35(slight crop)-42DX. Polin's conclusions I think are slightly wrong. The 35DX is smaller and cheaper, but if you don't already own it, this lens might be the better choice - buy it once - long term choice. It's a slightly different framing on a crop body, but it's an overall better performer. Sigma's 30mm DX just became irrelevant.

That 1.8 through f/16 progression he does at the end is just another example of why affordable primes are so good to full frame, and why we need a small full frame body. To get the same light into the frame, you'd need about f/1.2 on DX, which is starting to get exotic, and there's nothing to equal it on 4/3, where you must be getting close to some optical limits to even play in the sub f/1 territory that format would need, like f/0.75 or something. FX does it all with relatively cheap f/1.8 glass, and it's not that big, so lets have a body to match!

.........................................

Last edited by Matsu : 2012-05-25 at 13:20.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 43 of 114 First Previous 39 40 41 42 [43] 44 45 46 47  Next Last

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad's lack of built-in camera, video chat rdlomas Apple Products 47 2010-02-04 09:37
Good Digital Camera for First Time Digital kieran Purchasing Advice 3 2005-11-18 18:20
New Digital Camera! PowermacG5newbie Genius Bar 2 2005-05-17 23:07


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:40.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova