[Matsu]

Yeah, got to have the long lens for a trip of a lifetime. A nice little two lens kit should drop into a small bag easily.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray I don't know how the in-camera HDR feature of the Nikon D5100 works, but the sensor in the D5100 (made by Sony) has phenomenal dynamic range even in single captures. See the second video here for an example.

If I understand what has been said, you take two images and the camera processes them. Most likely only works when shooting jpegs. I didn't read Dpreview's full review of the D5100, so I cannot be sure about that last point though.

[Matsu]

I'd consider building a two lens travel kit out of a non-canon-nikon system as well. Pentax and Sony will give you access to small bodies as well, and some other features like in body stabilization and video. I would even consider an m43 kit from Panasonic. Ok everybody has video actually, stabilization in body is a nice bonus.

[PB PM]

So here is an interesting question for my fellow digital photographers, what is more important to you: a) The technical abilities of your camera or b) A photography centric design?

Let me expand on those two points.

a) Do more technical aspects of the camera push you towards a camera purchase? Do movie modes, art filters, in camera HDR, faster frame rates, larger buffers, more megapixels etc drive your desire for a given camera?

b) Photography centric aspects. Do things like external control for aperture, shutter speed, ISO performance, viewfinder, determine what camera you consider when purchasing?

I ask because there has been a lot of talk about this in some circles, such as about the Fuji X100. That camera is a great example, it doesn't have the greatest performance or technical features, but it seems to grab the attention of many "purist" photographers due to the control layout (direct aperture and shutter speed controls like on older manual cameras).

When I think about why I bought the last two major camera purchases that I have made (D300, D700), the photography centric aspects were the real driving force. The ISO performance and ability to control aspects of the camera without diving into menus, and having a better viewfinder experience were top priority. So what do you guys think about this?

[Mac+]

This is an interesting question that I've also been pondering for ages. Looking forward to the discussion and will contribute when not posting from the iPhone.

[Chinney]

Interesting question. I am not sure where my response on it would fit in. Mind you, I do not own a DSLR, just a compact (DP1), though it is one that I chose after some consideration. I was looking for a small camera, but one capable of taking shots that had some interest beyond just snapshots. The particular (sometimes even peculiar) quality of the pictures was the ultimate determining point for me, because certainly from a technical and photography-centric perspective the camera has its drawbacks even compared with other quality compacts.

[Matsu]

I think my short and answer to this either or question is, yes.

Both technological (digital) and ergonomic advances are welcome. There are some opportunities for the former to assist the later. Eventually, for example we will have complete freedom to place the viewfinder on or off the camera.

Not as interested in gimmicky features that can be recreated later in software, though some level of automatic distortion correction, CA correction, and vignette control is very convenient. Noise appears almost entirely better handled in post.

[GSpotter]

Originally Posted by PB PM So here is an interesting question for my fellow digital photographers, what is more important to you: a) The technical abilities of your camera or b) A photography centric design?

Do you read Thom Hogan's site?

For me, b) is more important, as long as a) is "good enough", so I can the pictures I want. I'm still have not bought a compact 'walkaround' camera as an addition to my D700, because the current compact cameras are not enough photographer centric for my taste...

[Brave Ulysses]

Thank you for the tips and advice. I am going to take advantage of the holiday weekend and check out the two cameras this weekend and hopefully there may be some good memorial day bundle sales as well.

Amazon right now has $100 off a second Nikon lens with purchase of the D5100 Kit... so, that with Amazon's low prices and no tax is a pretty tempting deal.

The other thing is... I unexpectedly purchased this 27" iMac so.... funds are not what they use to be... but like some of you have pointed out... I don't get to go to Iceland all that often.

The more I have looked into the cameras, the more I read that makes me lean towards the Nikon but I really don't know. Based off of specs it is incredibly difficult to decide between the two.

Is there any benefit to the slightly larger sensor in the Canon?

[PB PM]

Actually the Canons have a slightly smaller sensor (1.6x the size of a 35mm frame) than the Nikon's (1.5x the size of a 35mm frame). In reality they are so close in size that it has no barring on final image quality.

[Matsu]

For now, for nature subjects (Iceland) in a crop sensor camera, in order to extract the last bit of flexibility from the file, you probably want the Sony 16MP sensor - so Nikon, Sony, and/or Pentax...

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by GSpotter Do you read Thom Hogan's site? For me, b) is more important, as long as a) is "good enough", so I can the pictures I want. I'm still have not bought a compact 'walkaround' camera as an addition to my D700, because the current compact cameras are not enough photographer centric for my taste...

Yes, I did happen to read that article, which did prompt these questions. Of course I've felt that way for some time, as I'd be more than happy with a digital FM2 (with AF) or something of that nature for 90% of my shooting.

[Mac+]

Originally Posted by PB PM Actually the Canons have a slightly smaller sensor (1.6x the size of a 35mm frame) than the Nikon's (1.5x the size of a 35mm frame). In reality they are so close in size that it has no barring on final image quality.

I keep reading this and find it confusing. Isn't 1.something x (times) always going to be > 1? (assuming positive size to begin with)

The other thing is - and apologies for nitpicking - I don't think you meant barring. Perhaps bearing.

[PB PM]

Yes, I did mean bearing.

As to the other point, look at a chart for sensor sizes, it makes more sense. The blue crop factor is Nikon, the red Canon.

[Dorian Gray]

But it still doesn't make sense, PB PM. Instead of "1.6x the size of a 35mm frame", you should have written "1/1.6x the size". Or you could have written that full-frame sensors are "1.6x the size" of Canon's entry-level SLR sensors. And if you want to be more precise, replace size with diagonal, to avoid people thinking size refers to area here.

When described as 1/1.5x (for Nikon) and 1/1.6x (for Canon), it becomes clear that the Nikon sensor is slightly bigger. (Though as PB PM noted, the difference is too small to have much of an effect. And in fact, these are nominal values which vary a bit depending on the specific sensor in question. Film frames weren't always precisely 36 x 24 mm either!)

[kieran]

The gf just bought a "waterproof" camera.

We're going down to the beach this weekend.

Time to find out just how "waterproof" this thing is.

[Mac+]

Yes, thanks DG. I understand crop factor PB PM - was more commenting on the explanation. All good.

[PB PM]

Ah, yes poor wording on my part in that post.

[Matsu]

Not entirely your fault. The industry has adopted slightly misleading phrases here. We used to talk about a focal length multiplier effect on the lenses, then we started saying "crop factor" but kept the 1.5 and 1.6X "multiplier" numbers, and further shortened it to " 1.x crop". Mathematically speaking these are more like half frame crops, or about 2/3rds the linear diagonal...

Expresing the "crop factor" as a focal length multiplier is an interestig way of telling the reader what to expect in terms of field of view coverage, especially when the majority were peope who grew up with 35mm film cameras.

That's less the case now, and it actually leads to a little confusion going the otherway. At least one poster thought 1.6X was 'bigger" than 1.5X before reading PM's wording.

Only in the digital world can we have, from smallest to largest

4/3rds, 2X crop (about 25% 35mm frame size)

EF-S and DX, 1.6 and 1.5X crop (slightly < 50% 35mm frame size)

35mm, 1x (no crop)

Small medium format like Pentax 645 and Leica S1, 0.7x "crop" see where the nomenclature breaks down? this is actually about 70% larger than 35mm

Digital 645 (not actual 635 film sized, but rather 48x36) like Hassleblad 645, a 0.5x "crop", that again makes no sense, because this is 100% larger than 35mm.

[Dorian Gray]

I agree that the industry has distorted terminology to the point of nonsense, and most of us say things like 1.6x crop camera without a lot of thought. But in a discussion where the exact size of various sensors is considered, it's best to be precise.

To that end, I should have said (1/1.6)x, or perhaps 1/1.6 times, rather than 1/1.6x, since the latter might also be seen as ambiguous!

More interestingly, Photozone has tested the new Nikon 50 mm f/1.8 AF-S lens, here. It looks very good indeed, as predicted by Nikon's MTF curves.

[PB PM]

Looks good. The strange thing to me is that the lens is shipping in some areas but not others. I guess Nikon is aiming for a staggered launch to keep supply in check?

[Dorian Gray]

Yeah, might be that. More often North America gets the first batch in staggered launches, but this time Europe does.

Have you got an estimated delivery date for your order, PB PM?

[PB PM]

Not yet, and Nikon Canada has been mum on the issue. My guess is that NA won't see them till June 19 has per the announced release date.

[Matsu]

I wonder if this lens could be pressed into macro service with the appropriate extension tubes? Not that it would be my primary use, but it could work for the odd product shot.

Looks good, I'm buying one, now come on Nikon, say it with us, 35mm f/2 AFS...

[PB PM]

I don't see why you couldn't, considering that many people use the current 50mm f1.8 in that very manner.

[drewprops]

Any rumors yet about Canon's followup to the S95?


...

[PB PM]

Nope, way to soon. You might start to hear something in August, as Canon usually updates the higher end compacts in September.

[Matsu]

I recently discovered that switching the D300 to 14bit RAW improves the high ISO files. Some say this shouldn't do anything but record more noise, but it helps in underexposure considerably - so there may be something of a low light work around here. The downside is that it slows the camera down - a lot.

I'm trying to divy up the resources for camera related work here, and maybe Nikon's inadvertently helping (with nothing new in sight.) I have a stash set aside for a D700 successor, and still get reasonable offers on the D300, so between the two that's a camera if/when we ever see a new FX body.

Going to need a new computer too. ACR is crushing my MBP to a pulp. Would a new iMac do the trick?

Meh, maybe I'll just buy a prime lens or two.

[PB PM]

The current gen iMacs will crush anything ACR will throw at it, period. My 13" MBP would get really bogged down CPU wise processing 14bit files from the D700, or 12bit files from the D3100, but the base 27" iMac doesn't even max out one core.

Re 14bit RAW on the D300. Yup, I started doing the same thing at the end of my D300's life with me. It did improve noise at high ISO, and gave more dynamic range at low ISO for shadow recovery.

[Matsu]

I'm anticipating working with 14 bit files somewhere north of 20MP, worth upgrading to a i7 mac, or just drop in an SSD and be done?