Woohoo!
Eleven more steps to go and I'm a free man.
]-[
No...losing yourself in the problem, not being free from the problem. If you wanted to avoid spending money and thinking about photography all the time, you have come to the wrong place.
No...losing yourself in the problem, not being free from the problem. If you wanted to avoid spending money and thinking about photography all the time, you have come to the wrong place.
Gilbo
0
Yay! New Pentax!
They say the photosites are as large as their competitor's 12.1 MP sensor photosites. Hopefully this means decent noise performance. I bet the Nikon D300 is cleaner though. 14.7 MP... that's getting pretty close to the Canon 1Ds MkII and the density is much higher. You'll need top of the line Pentax glass to see those resolution gains. I was determined to skip this model, but I find myself sorely tempted...
Samsung is making the sensor. It's good to see more sources for sensors.
They say the photosites are as large as their competitor's 12.1 MP sensor photosites. Hopefully this means decent noise performance. I bet the Nikon D300 is cleaner though. 14.7 MP... that's getting pretty close to the Canon 1Ds MkII and the density is much higher. You'll need top of the line Pentax glass to see those resolution gains. I was determined to skip this model, but I find myself sorely tempted...
Samsung is making the sensor. It's good to see more sources for sensors.
mubs
0
Well, Gilbo, go out and buy one and let us know how good it is. Always good to have a choice. I'm still not sure what I want, when I'll buy it, and if I'll like using it.
Why not just wait for the dpreview review. They'll do a bang-on comparison between the K10 and the K20.
Oh, I know what you think I think you meant, ddrueding.
And I think I know what you thought I thought you thought I meant. So I'm glad we have that squared away.
A pleasure doing business. Now if Tony could only find the time to address my concerns...And I think I know what you thought I thought you thought I meant. So I'm glad we have that squared away.
Fushigi
0
I've not been reading this thread, so pardon me if this has been mentioned. But Fuji apparently wants to dictate what you can and cannot take pictures of with their cameras. See EULA section on this page. Funny, isn't it, how they provide quick-links for every section of the page except that one.
Interesting. Looks like they are covering their asses with their UV/IR cameras.
udaman
0
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Canon sux, Nikon rules...so says Ken 
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/vs-5d-180mm.htm
Almost a guarantee, if the 5D gets updated, it will follow the 40D & new Rebel XSi with silly features and bumped MP 'follow-the-leader' mentality adopted from PnS marketing (or else they foolishly listened to Tannin about his long range tele needs...how much was that new 800/F5.6L--- MSRP $12k USD!).
And as dpreview has said so many times, you can reduce the noise of smaller packed pixels, but with a lost in detail that negates resolution increases.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_xsi_vs_xti_vs_40D.html
take a look at how the D3 crushes the 5D at higher ISO, Canon's 10MP new 1D Mk3 can't compare at ISO6400. Hell I'd even use the 12.8k setting...25.6k is a bit noisy, even with Define 2.0.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/vs-5d-180mm.htm
Crap, I need to get me one of those Nikon adapter thingy's and put that 180mm f2.8 on a Canon, along with the Nikon 85mmPC F2.8 tilt/shift macro lens (for situations where I don't need the less optically sound very wide angle, slow F3.5 24mm TS-E)
If only you could get all the features of the D3, crammed into a thinner, lighter, D80 or smaller like model...that would be perfect (for the cost of an used F4, that is ). Maybe in 5-10yrs 
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm
(waiting for Tannin's latest non-sensical Canon rant against my perfectly logical arguments ). I know, Ken's not the most unbiased, sound methodology test procedure reviewer; but he's not the only one singing the praises for the D3, even if dpreview hasn't weighed in with their Canon v Nikon comparisons.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/vs-5d-180mm.htm
Almost a guarantee, if the 5D gets updated, it will follow the 40D & new Rebel XSi with silly features and bumped MP 'follow-the-leader' mentality adopted from PnS marketing (or else they foolishly listened to Tannin
about his long range tele needs...how much was that new 800/F5.6L--- MSRP $12k USD!).And as dpreview has said so many times, you can reduce the noise of smaller packed pixels, but with a lost in detail that negates resolution increases.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_xsi_vs_xti_vs_40D.html
If only Canon were smarter, less conservative. In camera lens corrections, better dynamic range adjustment, and last but not the least, friggin higher ISO...
take a look at how the D3 crushes the 5D at higher ISO, Canon's 10MP new 1D Mk3 can't compare at ISO6400. Hell I'd even use the 12.8k setting...25.6k is a bit noisy, even with Define 2.0.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/vs-5d-180mm.htm
Crap, I need to get me one of those Nikon adapter thingy's and put that 180mm f2.8 on a Canon, along with the Nikon 85mmPC F2.8 tilt/shift macro lens (for situations where I don't need the less optically sound very wide angle, slow F3.5 24mm TS-E)
If only you could get all the features of the D3, crammed into a thinner, lighter, D80 or smaller like model...that would be perfect (for the cost of an used F4, that is
). Maybe in 5-10yrs http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3.htm
At least Canon came out with a new 55-300mm EF-S lens for XXD & Rebel users...too bad they don't have the compatibility that the Nikon lens group affords for most of their cameras, going back to the 1950's.
(waiting for Tannin's latest non-sensical Canon rant against my perfectly logical arguments
). I know, Ken's not the most unbiased, sound methodology test procedure reviewer; but he's not the only one singing the praises for the D3, even if dpreview hasn't weighed in with their Canon v Nikon comparisons.
The best camera doesn't always take the best picture, the photographer does. Arguing which one is better is futile.
Gilbo
0
Great link & beautiful photos.
There's one piece of gear those photos emphasize you can't dispense with... a tripod.
He uses the DOF advantage of that lens better than just about anyone I've ever seen. Just phenomenal.
Wow!
Tea
0
Well, Tannin?
Tea
0
TANNIN!
Tannin
0
Huh?
Oh, sorry, I must have dozed off.
Hang on a minute, I need a cup of tea for ths
......
Right.
Stop right there.
This is bird photography we are talking about. You aren't filling your D3 viewfinder, not most of the time, and in fact you aren't even filling the viewfinder of a D300 or a 40D.
Most bird photographers, most of the time, are further away than they want to be. Most use cameras with high pixel density The Canon 20D/30D/40D series and the (cheaper) 350D/400D/450D series are most popular, with (on the Nikon side, the D70 family and the D200/D300 being favoured. This is because they are all reaonably affordable, and all have a fairly high pixel density, which in turn means that when your lens is shorter than you really want (which is nearly all the time), you are still getting good detail.
The other camera series that is used a lot for bird work is the very expensive Canon 1Ds family - 1Ds II and the new 1Ds III. This also offers high pixel density (about the same as a Canon 20D) but does so in a professional-grade body with the bonus of full-frame. Using a 1Ds III you get just as much detail as with a D200 or a 40D in a focal-length-challenged situation (i.e., in normal use) because you have similar pixel density, but you also get more context - i.e., you get more of the scene around the bird without a loss of detail. (You also get other benefits such as faster, more accurate exposure and autofocus, but that's not relevant here.)
The least popular cameras for bird work are the ones with low pixel density. The Canon 5D is the best example. Hardly anyone uses one of these for birding, despite it having been around for quite a while, and despite it being a very fine camera which is great for many other tasks.
The D3 has the same low pixel density as the 5D. It does offer the professional-grade body benefits that the 1Ds Series has (again, irrelevant to this discussion), and like the 1Ds it costs an absolute fortune. Unlike the 5D or (to a lesser extent) the 1Ds, it does have very high speed - which is nice to have for birding, but is not generally considered as important as pixel density.
There are times when a D3 would make an excellent birding camera, but they are pretty few and far between for most bird photographers. Very few people .... well, only nut cases really .... would buy one for birding when much better alternatives exist, often at a fraction of the D3 price. (And let's not even talk about the price of Nikon lenses. Nikon's big glass is just crazy dear.)
Oh, sorry, I must have dozed off.
Hang on a minute, I need a cup of tea for ths
......
Right.
Stop right there.
This is bird photography we are talking about. You aren't filling your D3 viewfinder, not most of the time, and in fact you aren't even filling the viewfinder of a D300 or a 40D.
Most bird photographers, most of the time, are further away than they want to be. Most use cameras with high pixel density The Canon 20D/30D/40D series and the (cheaper) 350D/400D/450D series are most popular, with (on the Nikon side, the D70 family and the D200/D300 being favoured. This is because they are all reaonably affordable, and all have a fairly high pixel density, which in turn means that when your lens is shorter than you really want (which is nearly all the time), you are still getting good detail.
The other camera series that is used a lot for bird work is the very expensive Canon 1Ds family - 1Ds II and the new 1Ds III. This also offers high pixel density (about the same as a Canon 20D) but does so in a professional-grade body with the bonus of full-frame. Using a 1Ds III you get just as much detail as with a D200 or a 40D in a focal-length-challenged situation (i.e., in normal use) because you have similar pixel density, but you also get more context - i.e., you get more of the scene around the bird without a loss of detail. (You also get other benefits such as faster, more accurate exposure and autofocus, but that's not relevant here.)
The least popular cameras for bird work are the ones with low pixel density. The Canon 5D is the best example. Hardly anyone uses one of these for birding, despite it having been around for quite a while, and despite it being a very fine camera which is great for many other tasks.
The D3 has the same low pixel density as the 5D. It does offer the professional-grade body benefits that the 1Ds Series has (again, irrelevant to this discussion), and like the 1Ds it costs an absolute fortune. Unlike the 5D or (to a lesser extent) the 1Ds, it does have very high speed - which is nice to have for birding, but is not generally considered as important as pixel density.
There are times when a D3 would make an excellent birding camera, but they are pretty few and far between for most bird photographers. Very few people .... well, only nut cases really .... would buy one for birding when much better alternatives exist, often at a fraction of the D3 price. (And let's not even talk about the price of Nikon lenses. Nikon's big glass is just crazy dear.)
Tannin
0
So, if (for bird photography) a D300 is better than a D3 and a 40D is better than a 5D, why don't we have even higher pixel density for the ultimate birding camera?
Because there is an optimum range. Where the pixel density is too low, you sacrifice detail. Where the pixel density is too high, you stop gaining detail (the extra pixels do no good because of difraction, lens resolution limits, and a host of other factors), and you start gaining unacceptable noise, especially at high ISOs.
This is why I maintain that the old 8MP 20D produces bird pictures every bit as good as the 10MP 400D or 40D. (And I have owned two 20Ds, still have one of them, a 400D (now sold) and two 40Ds, so I've had plenty of opportunity to try this for myself.)
At low ISOs (200, let's say) the 400D was as good or better than the 20Ds. But at realistic ISOs (i.e., 400 and higher) the bigger pixels of the 20D clearly produce a better image.
We can go a bit further again. The 1D III has 10MP in a 1.3 crop sensor - i.e., lower pixel density than the 20D/30D/40D/D200 and so on, but significantly higher than the 12MP full-frame D3 and 5D models. This delivers image detail equivalent to the 20D at 200 ISO, and pulls further and further ahead as you go up to 400, 800, and higher. It also delivers a wider field of view than the crop cameras, though not so wide as the full frame ones (of course). These are moderately popular in the bird photography world. They cost a lot and provide no significant improvement in their ability to deliver detail from a distance over the 40D or the D200 (at low to moderate ISOs), but they are very fast, and offer the same professional build quality and features as the 1Ds III or the D3.
I use a 1D III as my primary birding camera. It means I have to get closer to the bird than I would with a 40D, but I think the trade-off is a worthwhile one most of the time. Where I'm seriously distance-challenged (as with waders) I sometimes use a 40D instead. I'm still undecided whether I'm better off with a 40D and a 1.4 converter or the 1D III and a 2.0X converter on the 500/4 for this ultra-long work. I don't think there is a lot in it, though I tend to lean more towards the 1D III and 2X.
In reality, though, if you are that pushed for focal length you are unlikely to get good shots. One reasonably consistent common factor amongst the really good bird photographers is that they have the ability to get closer to the birds than other photographers do, and quite often use shorter lenses. Shorter lenses offer a number of advantages:
* less air between you and the bird (= higher IQ)
* all else being equal, a shorter lens should be a higher quality lens (particularly if we are talking about taking off a teleconverter)
* shorter lenses are much smaller and lighter, and that gives you far more ability to move quietly and unobtrusively, and also to move quickly when you need to.
I imagine that I'll eventually get a 1Ds as well as the 1D III (it might be the 1Ds IV by the time I can afford one), and live with another reduction in apparent reach - but note well, here we are talking about apparent reach, as the 1Ds III has the same moderately high pixel density as the wonderful old 20D.
Because there is an optimum range. Where the pixel density is too low, you sacrifice detail. Where the pixel density is too high, you stop gaining detail (the extra pixels do no good because of difraction, lens resolution limits, and a host of other factors), and you start gaining unacceptable noise, especially at high ISOs.
This is why I maintain that the old 8MP 20D produces bird pictures every bit as good as the 10MP 400D or 40D. (And I have owned two 20Ds, still have one of them, a 400D (now sold) and two 40Ds, so I've had plenty of opportunity to try this for myself.)
At low ISOs (200, let's say) the 400D was as good or better than the 20Ds. But at realistic ISOs (i.e., 400 and higher) the bigger pixels of the 20D clearly produce a better image.
We can go a bit further again. The 1D III has 10MP in a 1.3 crop sensor - i.e., lower pixel density than the 20D/30D/40D/D200 and so on, but significantly higher than the 12MP full-frame D3 and 5D models. This delivers image detail equivalent to the 20D at 200 ISO, and pulls further and further ahead as you go up to 400, 800, and higher. It also delivers a wider field of view than the crop cameras, though not so wide as the full frame ones (of course). These are moderately popular in the bird photography world. They cost a lot and provide no significant improvement in their ability to deliver detail from a distance over the 40D or the D200 (at low to moderate ISOs), but they are very fast, and offer the same professional build quality and features as the 1Ds III or the D3.
I use a 1D III as my primary birding camera. It means I have to get closer to the bird than I would with a 40D, but I think the trade-off is a worthwhile one most of the time. Where I'm seriously distance-challenged (as with waders) I sometimes use a 40D instead. I'm still undecided whether I'm better off with a 40D and a 1.4 converter or the 1D III and a 2.0X converter on the 500/4 for this ultra-long work. I don't think there is a lot in it, though I tend to lean more towards the 1D III and 2X.
In reality, though, if you are that pushed for focal length you are unlikely to get good shots. One reasonably consistent common factor amongst the really good bird photographers is that they have the ability to get closer to the birds than other photographers do, and quite often use shorter lenses. Shorter lenses offer a number of advantages:
* less air between you and the bird (= higher IQ)
* all else being equal, a shorter lens should be a higher quality lens (particularly if we are talking about taking off a teleconverter)
* shorter lenses are much smaller and lighter, and that gives you far more ability to move quietly and unobtrusively, and also to move quickly when you need to.
I imagine that I'll eventually get a 1Ds as well as the 1D III (it might be the 1Ds IV by the time I can afford one), and live with another reduction in apparent reach - but note well, here we are talking about apparent reach, as the 1Ds III has the same moderately high pixel density as the wonderful old 20D.
Ahhh, well that changes everything, then. In my ignorance I just sort of assumed that the Marquesan Kingfisher of your desires would be occupying prime real-estate in the frame.
Birds fly away when you come close— Who knew?
Sill, like you said, the best birders, with their peaceful auras or whatnot, can mosey right on up to the critters in question and frame even the flightiest fowl with a 50, in which case a D3 would be sa-weet, especially in low-light conditions.
Really? How big? I remember comparing prices on fast, short primes (35's and 50's) and Canon out-deared Nikon by a good margin.
Ah... that kind of big.
Right, but strap one of those 500mm f/4 puppies onto your D3 and you can make up for light lost to slower glass by crankin' the ISO without having to cringe at the results. That way you can fill the frame with tweetie *and* you get to sit put.
A winning combination if ah ever hurda one.
udaman
0
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
Sony's Canon killer FF CMOS
There you go Tannin, more MP's, better DR (oh I'm sure we will see mumbling about it is only 12bits...a truer Canofile there ever was ).
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013001sony35mmcmossensor.asp
There you go Tannin, more MP's, better DR (oh I'm sure we will see mumbling about it is only 12bits...a truer Canofile there ever was
).http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013001sony35mmcmossensor.asp
Tannin
0
Sorry, Piyono, this isn't making any sense to me. Let's translate it step by step and see where it gets us.
Put a 500/4 (standard big, fast birding lens, indeed the standard birding lens, assuming you can afford one) on a D3 (a camera that, together with the 5D, delivers less pixels on the bird than any other current SLR). OK, so far we have a big fast lens matched with a low pixel-density body. We can still get good shots of medium to large birds, but we have to be quite a bit closer than it is usually possible to be. With small birds, we are completely screwed because we have to be so close that we can't focus on them. (MFD is around 4 metres with a 500mm lens.)
And you can make up for light lost to slower glass. Now you have lost me. What slower glass? f/4 is the fastest glass there is in 500mm, it delivers more light than any other lens of equal length. A 500mm f/2.8 would cost maybe US$20,000 and weigh enough to break your back. No-one makes them. (Though there are 400/2.8 lenses: Nikon and Canon both have them; they weigh twice as much as a 500/4 and cost 50% more. They are seldom used for birding and are primarily designed for sport - stuff like night football games.)
What you could do with a D3 that you couldn't do with most other cameras is use a slower lens: something like the 50-500 Sigma which is f/6.3 at the long end (and only about 465mm, not actually 500mm at all), relying on the excellent high-ISO capabilities of the D3 to deliver good results. The advantage would be that the slower lens is much, much smaller and lighter than a 500/4. The disadvantage is that you have sacrificed a lot of effective focal length - you could just as easily use an equally small and light 400/4 on a D300 or 40D, or possibly even a 300/2.8. (If I get bored I'll do the sums for you a little later on.)
A better solution if you want excellent high-ISO performance without greatly compromising your reach is to use a ID III, which is almost as good at high ISO as the D3, and puts a significantly greater number of pixels on the bird.
Don't get me wrong here: the D3 (at least on paper, I haven't seen one in the flesh) is a superb camera that has a lot of people very excited. But it is not by any stretch of the imagination the camera you would design for bird photography. Of the current Nikon and Canon ranges, it's quite possibly the last camera you would pick for birding. Sorry, make that second-last, I momentarily forgot the Canon 5D.
In summary, buying a D3 for birding would be like buying the world's best 9 iron - for driving off the tee on long par fives. Great tool, but entirely the wrong job for it.
Stereodude
Not really a
Wow that looks good.
Tannin
0
Those are not a "real" lens, in the sense that you can't actually buy one. That is a one-off they made for a trade show. Sigma don't seem to be in any hurry to make them, and at this stage have not committed to ever making them, although they may do at some time in the future.
The weight is phenomenal, of course, and the cost would be staggering.
The weight is phenomenal, of course, and the cost would be staggering.
Tannin
0
Lunar, what are your thoughts on the new Canon 800/5.6?
Maybe the weight/bulk is no problem for you, but add an appropriate backpack, a pair of camera bodies, a couple of other lenses, plus a decent tripod and the total weight would easily be 70lbs.
I'm sure such a lens would be useful in certain situations, but IME a lighter, faster setup is more productive overall. Of course I'm just a weakling, so a 500/4 IS is enough for hiking around with.
Tannin
0
I think you should buy one.
Unfortunately, I agree. Even more unfortunately, I seem to have run out of grandmothers. Would anyone like to buy my sister?
Tannin
0
And, as it turns out, that particular "some time in the future" was roughly 8 hours after I made my post. How's that for a fast response?!
Now, if I can only get the Canon guys to read my posts here at Storage Forum as assiduously as the Sigma people do, I'll get my 200-400/4L IS announced around the time I wake up tomorrow morning.
Tannin
0
By the way, I don't especially want want one of those Sigma monsters. Sure, I wouldn't throw one out of my bed if I found it there one morning, but it's way too heavy to be a practical everyday lens like the 500/4 I already have, or even the 800/5.6 I have my eye (and my sister's virtue) on.
mubs
0
Pretty blatant, aren't we? Wait till she reads this thread some day.