Cameras & Optics.

Imperial · « **Reply #40 on:** 15 Aug 2007, 10:55 pm »

I've read about the Olympus 510 today online.
Antidust, IS and active view! 1x zoom and loads more!
And you can fit Leica Vario lenses!!! WOW!!!
Apparently a lot of lenses go with this cam too!
It does seem nice!

One of the things I noticed when using my Fuji F31 is that pictures are better the more still you
can hold the cam... er...! But still! It is the crux it seems for those quick shots!

Evidently however, the Leica lens ain't much better than a comparable Olympus lens, the kit lens is pretty good it seems! There also is a Sigma F2.8 lens that is a real killer!
IS built in!!! Wow!!! That was nice!!!

Balls and flipant! Right... I'll live with my Fuji for a while!
This obviously needs to be considered! Hm...

I know... I'll download all of Tone Photo's magazines and start reading up!
I guess I need to know a bit more about cameras to be able to make a decision this time!
The Fuji was the best choice... no contest!
But a DSLR... This is hard to choose!
So many smashing alternatives!!! So much good stuff out there!!!

It is really hard singeling out the ONE!!!

Imperial (Not quite getting the picture...yet..

, but getting there!)

JohnR · « **Reply #41 on:** 15 Aug 2007, 11:01 pm »

Quote from: Imperial on 15 Aug 2007, 10:55 pm

I've read about the Olympus 510 today online.

Just curious... did you read about the 410 also? I'm a bit confused about these two and the difference. The 410 seems very compact and comes with what seems like a very nice twin lens kit. (Not that I need another DSLR, but my sister does...)

Imperial · « **Reply #42 on:** 15 Aug 2007, 11:49 pm »

The 410 does not have an image stabilizer I believe. That is just about the difference of interest.
Its got a slimmer grip too. Hm.. I've just seen pictures of the 410, not read about it, but one test did says something like the above. It's some 20-25% cheaper than its 510 sibling.

Anyway.

Built in image stabilizer!!! That is quite cool! (510)

Imperial

Imperial · « **Reply #43 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 10:27 am »

Uhm... And now Cannon went and introduced the 40D... just some hours ago!
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/Canon_40D.html
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-40D-Digital-28-135mm-Standard/dp/tech-data/B000V5QV4S/ref=de_a_smtd/102-9458235-5427304?ie=UTF8&qid=1187523516&sr=1-4

Priced just on level with Nikon D200, even a little less! Just a little!
Hm... It is getting harder and harder to choose!

The most important spec: 14-bit Analog-to-Digital (A/D) conversion process. (that is 4 times the color gamut of the 12 bit A/D system!)

Imperial

AdamM · « **Reply #44 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 10:53 am »

Go Canon!! You can get adapters to use so many different lenses - including Nikon. I'm running contax, zeiss, pentax and nikon lenses on my 30D - so many cheap and great lenses out there! That aspect alone is a *very* cool bonus.

When Canon went to the EOS mount (from the FD mount) they made the bayonet diameter much larger and moved the mount closer to the film plane. This has very significant advantages:

- Allows for faster lenses. The larger mount simply is a bigger hole for the lens designers to work with. This is why Canon is the leader in sport/news/journalism photography by a vast margin.

- Less compromises with wide angle lens design. Since the mount is closer, the rear element of the lens can be closer to the film plane. This simplifies wide angle lenses significantly, thus improves quality. Since the rear element can now be closer to the film plane, and therefore the point of ray conversion, less optical trickery is involved. This is why rangefinder cameras typically have the best, and smallest, wide lenses - there's no SLR mirror in the way - allowing the rear element to get really close to the film. With the EOS mount, you're closer. This is also why you can use a wide variety of other lenses on your Canon - nobody gets their lenses as close - so the adapters have a few MM's to exist.

The EOS mount is unarguably superior.

Another advantage of EOS is the USM focusing - ALL lenses have the motor in the lens - and all USM motors have the motor build directly right onto the lens element harness. Fast near instant silent focusing! Nikon has the auto focus motor in the camera body, which connects to the lens barrel through a series of linkages. Not ideal.

Canon's also have vastly superior interface design, IMHO

Pro for Nikon? Nice flashes - a very elegant and advanced system. Canon flashes are good, but Nikon wins hands down. This doesn't compensate even slightly for the above points, however.

Regardless, either way you go, it's more the user than the gear. Both SLR's are delightful pieces of equipment.

Cheers
/A

Imperial · « **Reply #45 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 11:11 am »

I found this site here:
http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/
...
I've always had Canons in the past. Lets read this then and see if this stays the same!
...
I've never seen this site before!
...
It has to be the only online total tutorial on cameras/D/SLR's ?
Anybody know of a more comprehensive site on Cameras?

Imperial

JohnR · « **Reply #46 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 11:17 am »

Buy Nikon, buy Nikon, buy Nikon...

Just kidding! I could care less either way. But don't forget to leave enough money for a full-gamut monitor with calibration hardware and a new printer with custom ICC profiles... (dang! this hobby is expensive

)

Imperial · « **Reply #47 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 11:22 am »

Hehe... I have the monitor already.
But.
I guess my budget has to be of say 1500-2000$ now to allow for the purchase.
Yup... it is an expensive hobby... but the purpose of audiocircle has cost me a lot more over the years... so I'm not complaining here... as with all things, it is a matter of choice.
Hey if you smoke (which I don't) you smoke up a decent new DSLR every year anyway...
Or a set of top notch speaker cables, so I guess I'm glad that I don't have other "expenses" besides my vices... that I like..

Imperial

Imperial · « **Reply #48 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 12:51 pm »

Never mind type of camera or maker.
What type of lens filter is the BEST?

Imperial

brj · « **Reply #49 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 04:24 pm »

Quote from: Imperial

What type of lens filter is the BEST?

For what application? Each is different, and only your's matters to you. This is the same for filters as it is for the camera itself as it is for your audio system. A pro sports photographer, a landscape photographer and a portrait photographer will have very different filter requirements just as they will camera requirements. No one filter type or brand works for everyone, just as no one camera model or brand works for everyone.

To address my penchant for shooting outdoor scenery, I recently picked up a UV filter (for lens protection as much as anything), a circular polarizing filter, and a 2 stop graduated neutral density filter. This should address most of my needs, but I can still think of a few other filters I'd like to pick up.

Imperial · « **Reply #50 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 04:27 pm »

Well, I meant what kind of maker is the best?
What is the firm that makes the best lens filters called?

Imperial

brj · « **Reply #51 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 04:38 pm »

There isn't one company whose filters will "win" in all categories for all applications. Application and personal preference matter. Aside from that, many filter manufacturers have several lines that address different markets - I think Hoya is up to 7 different lines now, although not all filter types are offered in all lines.

If you post what type of filter you are looking for, the lens it will be mounted on and any other requirements, people may be able make a recommendation.

AdamM · « **Reply #52 on:** 20 Aug 2007, 09:08 pm »

Filters, in order of quality, generally accepted:

1. Heliopan
2. B+W
3. Nikon
4. Hoya
5. The rest

Best = brass ring, superior antireflective coatings, superior glass. Heliopan filters use Schott glass, which is very optically pure. Zeiss lenses - the real ones - use Schott glass too. (not the 'zeiss' lens in your Sony compact camera....)

Remember, glass filters UV, so your lens itself is a UV filter! They do little but to protect the lens. Even good filters flare out and cause internal reflections. If you do a lot of night photography, or back-lit photography, you might get better results without the filter on.

If you shoot RAW - which you should - the only filter that you can't emulate in Photoshop is a polarizer - This means it's probably the most important filter you can own, and unfortunately the most expensive.

All the other filters you can do a better job of emulating in Photoshop, therefore it might be safer to shoot them WITHOUT the filter, to best maximize your options after the fact.

Imperial · « **Reply #53 on:** 21 Aug 2007, 02:58 am »

So AdamM, if I get the right lens, or better yet shoot in raw, and use a decent lens I don't really need
to get say a 30D or 40D. I can get by with a 400D, that still will be able to mount a Contax?
I basically should go for the cam that will fit the best lenses, and not fuzz about getting the best body, because the software can pretty much take care of the rest (providing I learn to use it correctly?)

Wow, lots of questions here! But still!

Imperial

AdamM · « **Reply #54 on:** 21 Aug 2007, 03:57 am »

Hi Imperial,

Great questions!

- The 400D is a superb camera. Nice and light, and much smaller than the 30/40D. You may really appreciate the size/weight if you plan to cart it around a lot. Some say they feel a bit 'plasticy' - and they definitely are not as sturdy feeling as the 30/40D, but it IS very sturdy and tough - AND light. Go handle one and you may agree that it's much easier to handle than the 30/40D - and the price difference = a nice lens! (or few..)

All Canon DSLR's can mount Leica, Contax, Zeiss, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta - even some medium format lenses like Mamiya ! You just need the right adapter. They're all over ebay, just search 'EOS adapter'

You'll own lenses forever, but bodies come and go. Every 2,3,5 years or so, you may be tempted to upgrade your body, but you'll keep using the same lenses and adding to them. You can think of it something like this: lenses are like family, and bodies are like girlfriends. Maybe not the best metaphor, but you get the idea

Software goes a long way, but it's still really important to learn the foundation and techniques. Such a great hobby!. I suggest looking into something like Adobe Lightroom for managing all your RAW's and organizing and sorting / managing your shots. It makes great websites too. Another cost though...

The Canon and Nikon both have fantastic image quality. It's amazing the resolution and quality of their sensors. That is IF you use nice lenses.

The standard 'kit' lens is better on the Nikon than the Canon. It's not bad for the price, but many people quickly reach the end of it's usefulness and lust after better lenses. You might want to wait and save up for a better starter lens, and avoid spending that money 'in the wrong direction'

I always recommend, if you get the Canon, buy the 50mm f/1.8 right away. It's <$100 and a fantastic portrait, low light, mid telephoto lens. Don't forget that these cameras have smaller sensors than 35mm film (which is 24mmx36mm go figure!) therefore resulting in a 'crop factor' of 1.6x . You'll need to multiply your lens mm by x1.6 to get the real (or equiv) mm. This means your 50mm is actually more telephoto. Great on the long end, but difficult on the wide end, because you'll need a REALLY wide lens to get a WIDE lens after the x1.6 conversion. Canon and Nikon are the same in the department, however they both have 'full frame' cameras with a 1:1 ratio, and they're much more expensive

You may find that you prefer shooting primes after you get into it. They're typically faster (let in more light) have nicer boheh (out of focus areas) and generally make you work for your shot a bit more than just standing there and zooming. That's when the magic happens

Have fun, welcome to a really fun hobby.

/Adam