[Matsu]

Just an itty bitty bump. The EOS 50D review is up at Dpreview. Looks like I did drink the cool-aid, the sensor is not substantially better than the 40D at high ISOs; coaxes more detail at lower iso's; is somewhat constrained in DR compared to other 10-12-14MP crop cameras. All-in-all a very slight improvement over the previous generation.

Canon often have very good web images, a bit of a digital video look to them, if that makes any sense, I hate to admit it, but I guess the sheer volume of "digital look" files has attenuated my senses a bit (for the worse) when it comes to picking up tonal properties...

I haven't looked for more real world examples since we last left this thread, the latest tests suggest that the smart money for budget minded canon shooters is on a lightly used 40D or the 12MP EOS rebel...

So here it is, I begin photography study in the new year, to really see/learn how to do this craft right. I'm keeping my day job, however.

Nikon D90, D200, D300, or D700 ??? have a 28mm, 50mm (1.8) and 80-200 push-pull, all manual focus that could be useful in the interim...

I'm intrigued by the D700 because of the sensor's performance and the fact that it's full-frame but still 12MP, so files don't have to be gigantic. My thinking is that because of the flexibility in the files, there's lots of latitude to really play around with highlights and shadows and practice their manipulation, rather than just trying to save them as best as one can...

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu I've read that the new Sigma 50 is also very sharp, and it is also huge compared to the Nikon and Canon 50s. Have you heard anything about it having focus issues?

I haven't, but I saw the lens in person early on, and the sheer volume of the beast put any notion of getting it out of my head, so I haven't been following user reports since.

Originally Posted by Matsu ...the sensor is not substantially better than the 40D at high ISOs; coaxes more detail at lower iso's; is somewhat constrained in DR compared to other 10-12-14MP crop cameras. All-in-all a very slight improvement over the previous generation.

Yes, not terribly impressive when all is said and done. Even the detail that it's able to capture at base ISO is not substantially more than the 10-megapixel 40D, probably because of the lens limitations we discussed earlier in this thread. And that's with an excellent 50 mm prime at f/8, locked down on a tripod, etc.! Add the fairly high cost of the 50D and, like you, I fail to see the attraction over the 40D (which was and is a great performer for the money).

Originally Posted by Matsu So here it is, I begin photography study in the new year, to really see/learn how to do this craft right.

That sounds like a fairly serious plan. Nice one!

Originally Posted by Matsu Nikon D90, D200, D300, or D700 ??? have a 28mm, 50mm (1.8) and 80-200 push-pull, all manual focus that could be useful in the interim...

My thoughts:

D90: nice compact cam with excellent low-light performance, but it's a shame the image quality isn't quite up to the D300 despite using the same chip. There's some speculation that this is down to a cheaper anti-aliasing filter than the D300's. It's also 12-bit only but that's really still irrelevant in practice for these cameras due to noise even at base ISO. One thing to note is that, of the cameras you listed, this is the only one that can't meter with manual-focus lenses.

D200: great camera body, operation, etc., but the CCD is getting a bit long in the tooth, which becomes really quite significant by ISO 400 compared to the competition. Highlight range lags behind the impressive D300 and D90 sensors. Highlight range is more important than shadow range when considering dynamic range, because to avoid blown highlights you have to give less exposure. DPReview says the D200 has 3.2 stops of highlight range, compared to 4.1 stops for the D300 or 3.9 for the D90. So to avoid blown highlights you have to give almost a stop less exposure, which then has to be raised in post with curves. The result is nearly a stop more noise for a given scene, in addition to whatever noise penalty the D200 has at a given ISO to the D90/D300. This doesn't apply in scenes where you can fit the highlights into the 3.2-stop highlight range of the D200, of course. But many, many scenes go more than 3.2 stops above middle-grey. Anything with the sky for a start.

D300: near-perfect crop-sensor camera. Pro-level autofocus, massive speed, robust build, excellent sensor, the works. Still, it's kind of expensive.

D700: the most appealing DSLR on the market at any price, in my opinion. Not utterly enormous like the D3, but just as good at getting results. Much better viewfinder than the above trio, even approaching the size of a $200 all-plastic film SLR from 1995 (seriously). Brilliant sensor. Very expensive, though becoming less so thanks to the 5D Mark II. Which you should also strongly consider, though I'd wait for a definitive evaluation of its sensor characteristics.

[Matsu]

I'm not even sure that the D200 is still available new in some markets. It likely is in Toronto stores, a cheap used one would be a nice thing to get converted to IR and kept alongside a primary body. I mentioned it as a starting point because its well regarded for it broad backwards compatibility with Nikon's lenses.

The new EOS 5D is also worth looking at, but the 21MP files are a little daunting. I don't want gigantic files especially since I'm a bit of a digital pack rat, I have to learn to purge...

[PB PM]

Its hard to find a new D200 these days, I think only one shop in Vancouver is offering them for example.

If money were no object the D700 would be on my list.

[stevegong]

All you guys who are considering getting a camera should definitely consider the D700. I've owned the Rebel 300D, D70, D80, D200, D300 and now the D700. With all of the other cameras I felt like there was something missing; something not good. I've never been happier with a camera than the D700.

Matsu, you should D700 no questions asked. You'll be set for a while. I guess you could 5D, but it seems to be noisier, less speedy, less good focus system, and as you said you need to deal with those huge file sizes. The video is a nice feature I have to say.

I just bought an 850nm infrared filter and tested it with the D700. It's not all that sensitive to IR compared to the D70. Here's one of my hand just in time for halloween:


iso 6400, many seconds exposure

money in infrared is interesting:
http://gong.smugmug.com/gallery/6401905_JHrvo

[ezkcdude]

Freaky.

[Swox]

That is COOL.

[PB PM]

Interesting effect. It is kind of freaky.

[Matsu]

You must have pretty steady hands, is the full size image blurry?

Or is it that in a long exposure where so little visible light is coming through, that small motions aren't really detected anyway?

I'd love to get one of the 10MP CCD cams converetd to IR, but one thing at a time.

neat shot.

[stevegong]

I do have steady hands but for this pic I had the camera set on a table.

I'm actually going to convert my D70 to IR soon. I am planning to do the conversion myself. I'm really hoping I don't mess up. As much as I'm looking forward to having short exposure times for my infrareds, I'm more than anything looking forward to having a camera that records in UV + Visible + IR.

It seems like the amount of photons of IR is only slightly less than the visible. This means I'll have a camera that will all things equal faster shutter speeds, smaller apertures, or lower isos. I'm also looking forward to taking pics in the dark with an infrared flash. This opens up a whole new world of photography.

I'm kinda surprised that as popular as IR digital photography is these days, I've seen very few good IR pics. Most of them tend to be of landscapes or portraits. I think IR photography has a lot more potential than that.

[Matsu]

The camera is on the table, but the hand in the photo (the subject itself), also pretty still !

IR and UV could help extract more detail in some situations, probably difficult to reassemble into visible colour spectrum information, so most of the photography centres around that otherworldly look for landscapes etc...

BTW, looks according to Nikon Rumors that the Flash mount pin out on the Leica S is the same as Nikon, rumor pegs Nov 20 as the release date for a new larger than 35mm Nikon system...

[PB PM]

Hmm, interesting. I wonder if adding a bigger than 35mm frame sensor will push down 35mm frame camera's price tag?

[stevegong]

Originally Posted by Matsu The camera is on the table, but the hand in the photo (the subject itself), also pretty still ! IR and UV could help extract more detail in some situations, probably difficult to reassemble into visible colour spectrum information, so most of the photography centres around that otherworldly look for landscapes etc... BTW, looks according to Nikon Rumors that the Flash mount pin out on the Leica S is the same as Nikon, rumor pegs Nov 20 as the release date for a new larger than 35mm Nikon system...

Lol, true. I dissected fruit fly brains for a year when I was doing cocaine research. Nowadays, the cocaine is gone, but I can still become as tranquil as a lotus when I think back to those happy days.

These camera forums are teeming with this so called MX format. Normally, I would be very interested, but at this point, I thought I could be set for a while with the D700. Since a better camera makes a better photographer, I think I might have to upgrade yet again.


I have a few shots from North Korea that shows D300 vs D700. A lot of the shots were taken with the D300, and you can REALLY tell the difference: http://gong.smugmug.com/gallery/6525245_uhgwf)

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by stevegong These camera forums are teeming with this so called MX format. Normally, I would be very interested, but at this point, I thought I could be set for a while with the D700. Since a better camera makes a better photographer, I think I might have to upgrade yet again.

You joking right, I know you are. I know some photographers with D70s that put out better photos than D3 users.

I would choose full frame, if money were not an object, rather than some bigger frame, unless there was some huge leap in terms of low light noise.

[stevegong]

Originally Posted by PB PM You joking right. I know some photographers with D70s that put out better photos than D3 users.

Yes, I was joking. But please allow me to say something :


There's a difference when you look at D70 vs. D3 camera results between photographers or within a photographer.

Sure, there are lots of people who own a D3 and don't do anything spectacular with it as there are people still using the D70 and outputting great work.

But as I examine my own path as a photographer, I've noticed that with every camera/lens upgrade, I've improved tremendously. Thinking about it, the reasons fall into two major categories:

1. Equipment upgrades actually allows me to do stuff I couldn't before. i.e. with high iso capabilities of the D700 or say a fast lens, I can shoot in lighting conditions I would never have dreamed of.

2. Psychologically, it puts me on a course of positive feedback and makes me feel completely condemned to be free.

a. I actually feel a close bond with equipment that serves me well. It's like the feeling of having a trustworthy steed or a finely tuned race car. With it, you feel like you're up for anything.

b. Can no longer blame the tools. Most people I know have at some point tried to rationalise their failures. When I know that I have the best possible equipment, I know and truly believe that the reason I fall short is because of my damn incompetent self. This may sound depressing for some people, but I actually find it quite empowering. To me this is analogous to replacing superstition and doubt with science and reason. I feel like I'm in charge of my own destiny.


In a nutshell, you don't want the limiting factor to be the equipment. Having better equipment in my case has unlocked a lot of previously unknown potential. And when an upgrade presents something as revolutionary as say DX vs FX or now MX, that change within itself may revolutionise your shooting. I certainly think about photographs differently with the advent of FX (such a big difference in shooting close with a wide angle lens).

[PB PM]

Oh I understand that, that is why I went for a D80 vs say a D40 or D60. The more controls you have at your finger tips the less you are looking down at the LCD to change settings, which can make the difference between getting the shot or not.

Thats why I said, if money were no object I'd have a D700 rather than the D80, and a boat load of Pro lenses rather than DX and older AI-S lenses.

[stevegong]

Hi friends,

I have this ceremony I'm attending tomorrow morn, where I'm meeting the president of Italy. My father wants me to bring my camera and get a pic taken with him...and I don't really know the answer to this:

I need a versatile zoom lens, and the only one I have access to happens to be my father's DX 18-200VR. Am I better off mounting this on my D700 or my father's D300? I don't think I really mind the 5megapixel D700 idea, but what about in terms of noise and image quality?

God, I feel like a n00b. So be it. Please help.

[PB PM]

Just put the D700 in crop mode and it should be fine.

[Matsu]

Originally Posted by PB PM Hmm, interesting. I wonder if adding a bigger than 35mm frame sensor will push down 35mm frame camera's price tag?

My hope as well, but not likely. Any larger than 35mm format is entering the world of $10-50,000 camera bodies. So, if NIkon is entering with a small medium format, like the S2 size, then maybe they're going to push that market down, but even then, we're optimistically talking sub $15,000, still well clear of $2-3K for entry level 35mm.

That said, I think prices will be falling faster because of Sony, Canon, and Nikon all making 35mm digital bodies now. Some countries are bundling the vertical grip with the D700 free of charge, and there seem to be incentives out there tied to currency shifts, local markets etc... New FX bodies will push prices down on older models.

[PB PM]

Yeah, I was thinking that as well. Heck, even if the price of the D300 and or it's successor comes down in price, I'd be happy.

I say that because I'd love to have the water resistant body. I wanted to go shooting the other day (Remembrance Day), but it was raining and didn't want to risk damaging my D80, even if I used an umbrella over my tripod.

[stevegong]

Originally Posted by PB PM Yeah, I was thinking that as well. Heck, even if the price of the D300 and or it's successor comes down in price, I'd be happy. I say that because I'd love to have the water resistant body. I wanted to go shooting the other day (Remembrance Day), but it was raining and didn't want to risk damaging my D80, even if I used an umbrella over my tripod.

While the D300 and others are weather sealed, I wouldn't just go in the rain with it. You're as strong as your weakest link, and quite a few users in other forums have reported having leaks at the lens mount causing camera shorts. Some of the newer lenses have a rubber thing at the barrel, and people talk about these lens as being "sealed", but take a good look yourself, and it's clearly not a sealing.

I have no idea how much of this is truth and how much is paid marketing:

http://www.jimreedphoto.com/content.html?page=5

[PB PM]

Oh I knew about the weakness of the lens mount. I think I'd just feel more comfortable with a weather sealed body under an umbrella than my D80. Frankly I'll only upgrade from a consumer grad camera to a pro grade one if I get into photography on more pro level. Right now, its a hobby, but I have aspirations of being a pro. At this stage, I realize faster lenses would be more of a jump than changing bodies.

[stevegong]

This might be slightly off topic, but some of you might find it interesting.

As I said I would, I converted my D70 to infrared today. It was pretty hard, and although my biggest fear was touching the flash capacitor, I had to restrain myself from it (for some reason it felt tempting).

Extracted this little thing:




This little thing + benjamin in pure infrared light (notice it's completely black):




A pic taken in Visible + IR + UV. It's at least 3 stops more sensitive:



Oh, and I took the same pic with my hand, this time with an incandescent light shown onto it (much weaker than the original which was in sun) This time, iso 200, 1/250 a second. Quite an improvement.

[iFerret]

Originally Posted by Matsu Other interesting news: some Nikon Documents circulating the web indicate the existence of yet another camera format. DX and FX (the existing APSC crop and 35mm "full-frame") and something called MX? Some think this might be a "rangefinder" design, but it's more likely an EVF based video/still system. I wonder if they'll introduce lenses with less flange back distance to capitalize on an absent mirror box?

I heard that MX was possibly a digital version of medium format.
I'm not sure if we need a sensor that big.
I'm also not sure if that's even right, but I have heard that MX might be medium format sized.

[stevegong]

Well, the D3x is just out... I don't really know why it's any good, but I'm ignorant.

[PB PM]

Any link? I don't see anything on any of Nikon's sites. I read an article that Nikon talked about the D3x and a few of its features in their magazine for Pro photographers, but they did not say that it was released.

[Matsu]

Check Nikon Rumors, they have the advertorial new product lit. 24.5MP and relatively fast shooting speed - 5fps - and all the other focus, metering, processing goodies of the D3. About 2 stops less sensitive too, it seems. ISO100-1600, expandable to 6400, vs 200-6400 expandable to 25600 on the D3.

There's some mention of an optimized Optical Low Pass Filter, maybe just marketing-speak for a weaker AA filter, and 16 bit image processing with very large (75MB) files suitable as a medium format replacement option. New active D-lighting said to better control highlight range gradations, maybe this is what the extra bits of processing are for, I wonder if the sensor actually captures 16bpp ? D-lighting was never really optimised to control highlights so much as boost shadows (noisy...)

So there it is, nice camera...

[PB PM]

Okay, nothing that the article I read, didn't already say. Sounds like a nice cam for studio photographers. I know there were some who were switching to Canon because Nikon didn't have a high enough resolution sensor. I bet they feel silly now!

I don't get what the big deal with D-lighting is, if you shoot RAW it doesn't really do anything does it?

[stevegong]

Originally Posted by PB PM Okay, nothing that the article I read, didn't already say. Sounds like a nice cam for studio photographers. I know there were some who were switching to Canon because Nikon didn't have a high enough resolution sensor. I bet they feel silly now! I don't get what the big deal with D-lighting is, if you shoot RAW it doesn't really do anything does it?

It does if you use Nikon's NX2 software. Sometimes when I shoot pics where there are huge discrepancies in dynamic range, I'll turn it on, and then process them using NX2. It's basically me being lazy, as a lot of the time the D-lighting works pretty well (at low ISO) and doesn't need a lot of post processing if you use it.

I don't use it for the more serious shoots because it can make un-uniform noise in an image.

[Dorian Gray]

Originally Posted by Matsu ...maybe this is what the extra bits of processing are for, I wonder if the sensor actually captures 16bpp ?

My guess: not even close! From the analysis I've seen by people who seem to understand mathematics, it's doubtful whether even 14 bits is a significant improvement over 12 for the signal-to-noise ratio of today's DSLR sensors. And the D3x will obviously have a lower S/N ratio per pixel than the D3/D700. This may be for marketing reasons (to compete with 16-bit medium-format sensors) or due to the availability of DSP components that can handle 24-megapixel images at high speed. At 5 fps, the image processing pipeline of the D3x will have to deal with more data throughput than any other camera except the Sony A900.

Originally Posted by PB PM I don't get what the big deal with D-lighting is, if you shoot RAW it doesn't really do anything does it?

Don't quote me on this, but I think it reduces exposure a tad in some cases. I'm pretty sure it doesn't do anything that preserving highlights at exposure and adjusting curves in post can't do equally well or better, with a bit more effort. I use it very rarely on my D60.