dSLR thread

[Tannin]

Mine seems pretty nice. Haven't used it much yet - still trying to get my mind around the 1D III - but so far so good.

Pluses:

* Much quiter shutter - heaps better.
* Dust shaker
* Better viewfinder
* Some further improvement to the control layout
* More ISOs to choose from, finer range of settings generally

Minuses:
* Still got some stupidities in the ergonomic design, such as the ridiculous backwards shutter speed/aperture controls in manual mode.
* a bit cramped by the large screen
* ISO adjustment in a different place (finger wheel, not thumb wheel) to the 1 Series, 20D, 30D, and 400D. Why? That's just dumb!

Picture quality is about the same. Autofocus? How would I know? I mostly use it for landscapes. I might give it a burl on the 500/4 this weekend and see how it goes as a bird camera. That woild be the real test.

 

[Handruin]

The trouble you and I have, Doug, is that our Mark IIIs are the only 1 Series bodies we have owned. Mine clearly has better AF performance than my 20Ds or 400D (the 40D is still too new for me to know how good it is yet - only used it for a handful of frames, and not at all for birds in flight, so I can't compare 1D III and 40D) - but is my 1D III up to the standard expected of a 1 Series body? How would I know?

All I can say is that it's better than a 20D - so I'll just have to wait and see. In a way, I hope mine is faulty, because it's the best focussing camera I've ever owned already, and if it's possible to have even better than that ... well ... I'll be delighted!

I've noticed this to be very true, Tony. I've never used a 1D series in the past and now that I have one, I'm learning what it is capable of. I've found that the 1D Mark III with my 70-200 F/2.8L is a whole new experience. The auto focus really does shine with this lens on it in both single shot and AI Servo. I actually can't believe how fast it is compared to how it was on my 20D. I was actually quite disappointed in the lens because I never felt like the picture quality was that great using it. Now I'm finding I really like the lens on the 1D. I still may have it calibrated to see if it has some issues. It might not have been perfect with the 20D, but it is certainly better on the 1D.

I did some more reading about the 1D III and my serial number is much higher than most of the units where people said the fix "should" be implemented. So far I've not had any AF issues using my 70-200mm lens, so it could be that my 50mm lens just has a slow AF drive motor and I'm expecting too much out of it for a $300 lens on a 1D body.

 

[udaman]

1D series are absolute monsters, way, way too big and heavy. Fine if all you do is shoot with a tripod, but then you could put a 7in Questar on a tripod and have the ultimate birder lens.

I went into a camera store and briefly (10 minutes before closing, will go back over the weekend) and tried the 24mm 3.5 L Tilt/Shit Canon on a 350D, the lens dwarfed the 350D body. Then tried it on the 5D full-frame, which is about the same size as the 20D/30/40 series, supposedly the "world's smallest full frame dSLR". Gawwwwd, it's huge in comparison to the 350D, but better matches the bulky size of the 24mm T/S lens. I have to say that TS-E lens is also too bulky, around 3in in diameter and just not as sexy thin as a standard prime F1.8 lens.

That being said, I *loved* the size of the 5D viewfinder, crop factor viewfinders are too Effin small! Much easier to manual focus, I did not look through the Oly E-410 viewfinder, but considering the 1.6x crop 350D was too small (in addition to making for much more cramped FOV with the 24mm TS-E) I can't imagine I'd like a 4/3rds dSLR.

But the 5D is also way too bulky. All of the smaller dSLR's are fine for tiny little Asian women with tiny short fingers/hands, but they are not ergonomically optimum for two handed shooting. Best possible 'worlds smallest dSLR' would be to have the Olympus OM reincarnated as a dSLR, same body diamensions. The OM body was narrow in depth except for the lens mount protrusion in the front, it was as wide as a 5D, but much shorter (height), therefore you can put your entire right hand around the right side of the body. One finger, the index finger on the shutter release, two middle fingers wrap around the end of the body, while the pinky finger slide underneath the body for an perfect tight grasp on the body. Then you left hand fits right underneath the perfect width body to balance and (manually focus ) the lens. Sheer genius of perfect ergonomics that leave all present day dSLR's in the dust as pure crap. There, I said it, and it's true!

A full-frame OM series dSLR, perfect. Not plastic body, all metal, just like the original, and damn it, no reason it should cost anything near $1,000. That 5D at $2.4k is absurdly overpriced. I haven't seen an old 24mm Oly Shift lens, but I'll bet it's the smallest of the PC lenses.

 

[mubs]

Mine seems pretty nice. Haven't used it much yet - still trying to get my mind around the 1D III - but so far so good.

Pluses:

* Much quiter shutter - heaps better.
* Dust shaker
* Better viewfinder
* Some further improvement to the control layout
* More ISOs to choose from, finer range of settings generally

Minuses:
* Still got some stupidities in the ergonomic design, such as the ridiculous backwards shutter speed/aperture controls in manual mode.
* a bit cramped by the large screen
* ISO adjustment in a different place (finger wheel, not thumb wheel) to the 1 Series, 20D, 30D, and 400D. Why? That's just dumb!

Picture quality is about the same. Autofocus? How would I know? I mostly use it for landscapes. I might give it a burl on the 500/4 this weekend and see how it goes as a bird camera. That woild be the real test.

I'm confused; which camera are you discussing, Tannin, the 40D or the 1D III?

 

[e_dawg]

Let me get this straight, udaman: you want an ultra-compact metal-bodied dSLR with a FF sensor for under $1,000? What year is this, 2015?

 

[Tannin]

Talking about the 40D, Mubs. The 1D III has significantly better ergonomics - for example, the asinine backwards shutter/aperture controls can be easily fixed via a single custom function; ISO is in the normal place (same as 20D, 30D, 5D, and 1Ds III). Also, it's big enough not to be cramped/

Udaman, you would have to be crazy to put a tilt/shift manual focus lens on a 350D. How are you going to focus the dam thing? Voodoo? Sonar? Tape measure and electronic calculator? You certainly won't be able to do it by eye. For the tilt-shift you need a decent viewfinder.

(Mind you, if you are doing landscapes with the 24mm TSE (which is what I use mine for) at (let's say) f/11, you pretty much don't bother focusing it: at that focal length anything remotely in the ballpark will be close enough. But I avoid using the tilt-shifter with my 400D: it's better with a 20D, better again with the 40D, and (of course) better once more with the 1D III. I imagine a 5D would be perfect for it.)

And stop grumbling about the price. Do you know what full size sensors cost to make? It's heaps!

 

[e_dawg]

As a preview to the D300, the Sony A700 may be a good leading indicator, as it uses a similar sensor as the D300, except for some 12-bit A/D conversion instead of 14-bit and fewer readout channels, I believe. It seems to be well liked by reviewers and users for its output quality in RAW mode using Sony's IDC RAW converter with the NR set to low. There have been some grumblings and disappointment about how its RAW files are cooked -- i.e., NR is applied to the RAW files too and there is no option of defeating it, so it's almost like a JPEG in that regard. However, a lot of people are happy with the extra-fine JPEGs and the RAW files with built-in NR.

If the D300 has user-selectable NR and 14-bit A/D conversion, it should be even better.

 

[mubs]

Thanks Tannin.

 

[mubs]

Canon U.K. retailers to send back EOS-1D Mark III cameras

But no recall. Canon nto make an anouncement reg. the AF issue on the USA web site.

 

[Gilbo]

There have been some grumblings and disappointment about how its RAW files are cooked -- i.e., NR is applied to the RAW files too and there is no option of defeating it, so it's almost like a JPEG in that regard.

I am strongly against manufacturers doing any software noise reduction to the RAW file before they present it to me. I have RAW so I can choose what trade-offs I'm willing to make if I have to push something to the point where those trade-offs are noticeable.

NR in the analog pathway I understand. In fact I understand the A700 integrates noise reduction circuitry in the CMOS sensor itself, rather than putting it in the DAC off-chip as most manufacturers do. This I consider useful. They're filtering the signal just like they would have off-chip, but they're doing it in a better way, earlier in the analog pathway. I think that, as sensors progress, we'll see CMOS sensors integrating more & more of this type of on-chip processing.

 

[LunarMist]

Talking about the 40D, Mubs. The 1D III has significantly better ergonomics - for example, the asinine backwards shutter/aperture controls can be easily fixed via a single custom function; ISO is in the normal place (same as 20D, 30D, 5D, and 1Ds III). Also, it's big enough not to be cramped/

Udaman, you would have to be crazy to put a tilt/shift manual focus lens on a 350D. How are you going to focus the dam thing? Voodoo? Sonar? Tape measure and electronic calculator? You certainly won't be able to do it by eye. For the tilt-shift you need a decent viewfinder.

(Mind you, if you are doing landscapes with the 24mm TSE (which is what I use mine for) at (let's say) f/11, you pretty much don't bother focusing it: at that focal length anything remotely in the ballpark will be close enough. But I avoid using the tilt-shifter with my 400D: it's better with a 20D, better again with the 40D, and (of course) better once more with the 1D III. I imagine a 5D would be perfect for it.)

And stop grumbling about the price. Do you know what full size sensors cost to make? It's heaps!

The 1D non-S series is not so good for landscapes due to the limited resolution and weird crop factor with no native circle-of-coverage lenses. I've been dissapointed with the 24 TSE. Image quality deteriorated too much when shifted and was not that great even at 0/0. I sometimes use a 35/2.8 PC lens on a 1Ds MK II, though usually for pans.

 

[e_dawg]

Olympus has got some new lense announcements. The ones I think are neat are the 14-35mm f/2 (28-70mm 35mm equivalent)! And the 12-60mm f/2.8-4.0 which would be a phenomenal, fast, extended-range standard zoom.

You know, i can't get these Olympus lenses out of my head. I never paid too much attention to the Zuiko Digital lenses before, but these new additions made me sit up and notice. This is looking more like a killer lens lineup with every lens announcement.

I've been looking at a reasonably fast yet compact tele zoom option with image stabilization for Nikon and there is nothing. Something faster than the f/5.6 mainstream consumer lenses, yet not as massive as the f/2.8 pro style lenses.

Canon has a couple options here: the 70-200/4L IS and the 300/4L IS. Yet, these white lenses seem to have the effect of attracting even more attention. And to get to my desired reach of around 300 mm or 450 mm @ 35 mm equiv, I would have to carry around both lenses or just settle for the single focal length to minimize size/weight.

Enter Olympus. The new 50-200/2.8-3.5 seems to be the answer to all my problems: at f/3.5, it's fast enough for me at the long end, and it reaches to 400 mm @ 35 mm equiv without requiring another big lens. IS is provided by the body. Not quite 450 mm, but 400 is close enough. Also, reasonably compact and light given its reach and its speed at the same time. This is the sports/event lens I have been looking for but haven't found with Nikon or Canon (hoping the AF is good enough).

Olympus also has the 11-22/2.8-3.5 (22-44 equiv or 15-30 APS-C) that is looking like my ideal focal length range for travel / city / indoor social photography as well.

Now, if I can somehow figure out how to get uncooked RAW files out of the E-series, I think we may have a winner here in the E-510 ($720). For only $180 more, the 2 lens kit includes the small and light 14-42/3.5-5.6 and 40-150/4-5.6 ED lenses for when you want to travel light (the 14-42 and 40-150 are $250 and $280, respectively, if you purchase them separately). These are two of the best kit lenses you can get from any mfr. The 40-150 has excellent sharpness at almost every focal length and aperture in preliminary tests by SLRgear.com, and is only 220 g (1/2 lb).

I don't know if I can part with my S5 Pro, but I can see myself replacing the D40, D80, and half my Nikon lenses with the Olympus setup. Call me impressed!

 

[Handruin]

The 1D series is not good for landscapes in comparison to what, the 1Ds series? Or something else?

The 1.3 crop seems to be manageable for now. The two full frame options from Canon really don't make sense for what I want, in both price and functionality so I'm willing to live with a crop camera. Do you have plans to move to the 1Ds Mark III when it becomes available or are you going to wait a while for all the bugs to be fixed?

 

[LunarMist]

The 1D series is not good for landscapes in comparison to what, the 1Ds series? Or something else?

The cropping of the wide end of the 16-35 to an effective 21 mm is unacceptable IMO.

Do you have plans to move to the 1Ds Mark III when it becomes available or are you going to wait a while for all the bugs to be fixed?

I don't feel that it is worth spending $16K on a pair of 1Ds MK IIIs yet. Maybe next spring...

 

[Handruin]

The cropping of the wide end of the 16-35 to an effective 21 mm is unacceptable IMO.



I don't feel that it is worth spending $16K on a pair of 1Ds MK IIIs yet. Maybe next spring...

OK, I get what you're saying now. Visually the 1D series might be fine, but from an absolute possible wide angle, it falls short from cropping. I guess there is always the 14mm lens or 15mm fisheye, but it's more of a specialty (and expensive to boot). That still leaves it at 18mm at the widest you could get.

I wasn't too fond of the reviews for the 16-35mm Mark II while looking for a wider angle lens. I ended up with the 24-70mm (arrived today) which seems to be pretty good so far for general walk-around and portrait. Between that and the 70-200 I'm in decent shape for now for what I want.

$16K is a huge drop in the bucket. If you can make-do with a pair of 1Ds MKII's, I guess you'll be just fine for some time to come.

 

[ddrueding]

I had some social situations the other day where it would have been nice to have a wider lens. Unfortunately, there isn't a sample shot of the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, so I'm not sure how wide it really is. I have the 18-55, but the lens is a bit intimidating in social settings.

 

[Handruin]

From everything I've read, the 10-22 is a fantastic lens. Tannin has posted some of his shots with that lens and they look very wide to me. Why was the 18-55 intimidating?

See here:
http://tannin.net.au/2006/060416-074207-3470fp.html
http://tannin.net.au/2006/060415-073719-3451pc.html
http://tannin.net.au/2006/060710-110525-4233pb.html
http://tannin.net.au/2006/061012-142713-4959pc.html

 

[Handruin]

You might also enjoy these:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreas_helke/506804253/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andreas_helke/506528332/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skuper/290937295/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gron/532126429/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/46635784@N00/176398807/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackdevil/649783144/
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Canon 10-22&w=all

 

[ddrueding]

Thanks for the links, Handy. The lens isn't intimidating to me, but it is a largish lens to be pointing at people so close.

Come to think of it, the 10-22 isn't small, either.

 

[Handruin]

I know what you mean about it being intimidating. When I was out in Arizona at the grand canyon park, we walked around and traveled by bus while at the park. I was carrying my 20D with the 70-200 F 2.8L on it and while sitting on the bus, people would stare. Here is that lens on my 1D, and here.

 

[mubs]

e_dawg:

Interesting train of thought. Sadly it seems there's lenses or there's camera bodies, take your pick. Maybe I should wait longer.

 

[paugie]

That's a big lens, Handy. I wouldn't be carrying it around on a bus here. The stares would acquire a new meaning.

 

[LunarMist]

You think that a 70-200/2.8 is a big lens? I would say it is mid sized. I have 8 lenses that large or larger.

 

[Handruin]

It is a big lens when compared to what most people use on a 35mm camera. Everything is relative of course.

 

[ddrueding]

When I think telephoto, large is expected. Focal lengths over 100mm usually mean you subject is some distance away. Focal lengths of 10mm typically mean your subject is really close, so a small lens is more important.

 

[LunarMist]

Canon clusterf*ck finally official.

 

[LunarMist]

Focal lengths over 100mm usually mean you subject is some distance away. Focal lengths of 10mm typically mean your subject is really close, so a small lens is more important.

I don't understand that rationale. It is the opposite of most of my work. Are you always photographing objects of similar size?

 

[udaman]

Thanks for the links, Handy. The lens isn't intimidating to me, but it is a largish lens to be pointing at people so close.

Come to think of it, the 10-22 isn't small, either.

Being of a size much larger than entry level dSLR's the Canon 10/20/30/40D series is possitively huge incomparison, to a diminutive FF 35mm SLR like the Olympus OM1. Those Canon models are basically the size of the Canon 5D, and for me, if I had the extra cash laying around I'd get a 5D for the full flexibility of FF lenses designed for that format.

Which is why the OM1 series, along with Leica rangefinder cameras were so (still are) popular with pro protrait photogs, that and the fact that both of these camera lines had very quiet shutter/mirror mechanisms. Canon 5D mirror 'gear wind' noise is quite noticable in a quiet environment....yet another intimidation factor when you're trying to get photos of Brittany .

So, dd's 20D is really as inimidating as any <50mm prime you could put on it, save the 50mm F1.0.

This lens is a little bit more intimidating, to hand hold that one you'd probably need to use 1/8000th sec. exposure.

 

[LunarMist]

I know quite a few smaller photogs, usually women in the sub 5'6" range, that handle Canon 1D series or Nikon D series bodies and lenses up to 500 mm without difficulty.

 

[ddrueding]

The size of the body on the 20D is really nice. I have large hands (an octave and 2-3 keys) and my hands wrap around it quite nicely. Mainly it's just the length of the lens that is intimidating.

 

[ddrueding]

I don't understand that rationale. It is the opposite of most of my work. Are you always photographing objects of similar size?

You are right, of course. But specifically when shooting people, who are all about the same size, shooting with a wide lens means you can be very close.

 

[Handruin]

Canon clusterf*ck finally official.

I guess I just missed the cutoff line. They claim the potentially affected units go to "546561" and mine is 541799. I was close. I'll likely send mine in for the new sub mirror.

 

[Handruin]

I don't understand that rationale. It is the opposite of most of my work. Are you always photographing objects of similar size?

I agree with Lunar. I've used my 70-200mm with subjects fairly close to me. It gives an incredible amount of bokeh and can be useful depending on what you are trying to do. Here is and example of using my 70-200 @ 153mm against a subject that was very close in front of me. The red in the background is a barn...but you'd never know (which was my intention).

 

[Handruin]

You are right, of course. But specifically when shooting people, who are all about the same size, shooting with a wide lens means you can be very close.

My 70-200mm has a minimum focal depth of 4.6 feet. My 24-70 is a little over a foot (1.3). It makes for some nice and tight portraits if you want to get that close.

24-70 @ 70mm at <2ft
(click to enlarge if you desire)

24-70 @68mm at 1.5 ft


24-70 @ 68mm at ~1.3 ft

 

[ddrueding]

4+ feet away is plenty to avoid intimidating subjects. When it is <3ft a lens >6" long could be intimidating

 

[LunarMist]

I guess I just missed the cutoff line. They claim the potentially affected units go to "546561" and mine is 541799. I was close. I'll likely send mine in for the new sub mirror.

I suspect that all produced until ~October are possibly defective and that Canon cannot differentiate by S/N. Fortunately Canon will further lose market share from this debacle.

 

[e_dawg]

If there is one thing that should not be taken lightly, it's AF! If you don't have proper focus, you have nothing. I can't believe Canon is not bending over backwards to rectify the situation quickly and thoroughly.

 

[e_dawg]

So I got the Olympus E-510 2-lens kit on sale ($100 off) for $800 USD at B&H Photo. It's usually $1,200-1,300 CAD + tax in Canada, so it's basically a $500 savings, or 40% off. Is that a ridiculous disparity between Canadian and US retail pricing or what? I wanted to get the 12-60/2.8-3.5 SWD and 50-200/2.8-3.5 as well, but found out that the Olympus lens rebates were valid for US residents only

The time was right, as the USD tanked and the CAD shot up both on the same day due to a confluence of economic data (oil hit $97/bbl, October Ivey PMI data for Canada was as strong as expected, US expected to decrease rates at the Dec 11 FOMC meeting). The rate in after-hours trading last night was $1.099 USD : $1 CAD, generally considered to be the target peak for the USD/CAD pair for the short/med term.

 

[LunarMist]

That Olympus seems rather inexpensive, so is the cost really a major issue? I'm curious what the market niche of the Olympus and miniature sensor are compared to a body with a larger small sensor, such as a D80 or similar?

 

[e_dawg]

Well it's not that expensive, but I can only justify spending so much on photo equipment seeing as I don't make any money from this stuff... it's just a hobby. And I can't stand the thought of paying $1,300 for it in Canada when I can get it for $800 in the US.

I'm pretty sure Olympus' market share is tiny compared with Canon and Nikon. Here are some stats from flickr (total # of photos by camera in thousands):

E1 477
E10 467
e20 383
E300 1,131
E400 110
E410 85
E500 2,589
E510 162
All E-system 5,404

D80 8,747
D50 15,721
D70 15,039
D70s 8,628
D40 4,033
D40x 1,362
D100 3,488
D200 7,921
D2x 1,563

Rebel 14,665
Rebel XT 31,513
Rebel XTi 13,776
20D 14,624
30D 7,644
10D 4,726
1D/II 1,327
1Ds/II 758