 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 2008One case for camera Image stabilizing
http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm Sigma and other after market lens makers have some exceptional lenses in their ranges. The patented nature of lens based image stabilization means that these smaller makers are at a substancial disadvantage... Until the likes of Pentax and Sony (to name just two) catch up with camera body technology. The latest Pentax K20D is one example of where serious photographers can save thousands of dollars and not sacrifice anything, compared to buying Canon and Nikon kits. In-camera image stabilization saves photographers serious money when buying excellent quality lenses. The Sigma 70 -200 F/2.8 (macro) that took this picture costs less than half of what a VR Nikon equivalent costs. Almost enough price difference to pay for a Pentax K20D body! It's hard to justify the weight and cost of in-lens gyros when cameras with sensor based IS are now every bit as good as their Canon and Nikon rivals. > http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm Nice shot - out of curiosity, how big would the bugsies be? > Sigma and other after market lens makers have some exceptional lenses > in their ranges. The patented nature of lens based image stabilization [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > with sensor based IS are now every bit as good as their Canon and > Nikon rivals. > >http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > with sensor based IS are now every bit as good as their Canon and > > Nikon rivals. Life size shot Doug. > http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm > > Sigma and other after market lens makers have some exceptional lenses > in their ranges. The patented nature of lens based image stabilization <snip> Huh? Isn't this the same poster who roundly criticised macro shots of insects just recently in this very forum? "Has anyone ever made money out of any of these insect macros...?" Make up your mind. Yer either fer it, or ag'in it. If you actually don't like insect macros, then surely you have *something* really tiny at hand which you could photograph. Let's see.... -- Jeff R. (still waiting to see the stitched walking pano, BTW) >> http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Jeff R. > (still waiting to see the stitched walking pano, BTW) Now Jeff you should really be a bit more understanding here, he can't be expected to remember every stupid brainless rant he has ever had now can he? > "Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote in message >> Jeff R. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > expected to remember every stupid brainless rant he has ever had now can > he? True. I just don't want him to forget *this* one. -- Jeff R. >> "Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote in message >>> Jeff R. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Sorry, which one, the one about the pano or the one about the macro shots? ;-) > Sorry, which one, the one about the pano or the one about the macro shots? > ;-) I must learn to be specific. Oh heck! Both! -- Jeff R. >> Sorry, which one, the one about the pano or the one about the macro >> shots? ;-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Yeah, fair enough! > > "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote in message > >> Jeff R. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Jeff R. Well... Unlike you Jeff, I have a life that doesn't let me be a slave to sheep who think because they can't do it it can't be done. When I get around to it you'll get your views. In the mean time have a little patience. March and April are busy times for me. I'd put making money ahead of stimulating the bleating sheep any day. Take a pew mate and show some patience. All you've shown so far is a disgrace to the human race. > When I get around to it you'll get your views. So why doesn't Douglas MacDonald/Cryptopixel *put the page back up* - the one where he lied about taking images from different locations? And why doesn't he explain, and apologise for, his wrongful defamation of AC on that page, and in the original thread? http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/browse_frm/thread/a6d1c0259d43619f I'm sure he has very good reasons... >> When I get around to it you'll get your views. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm sure he has very good reasons... Douggie won't apologise because he is morally and ethically bankrupt, ad this to his pathological inability to admit mistakes and you see why I won't hold my breath waiting for Douggie to step up and be a man and apologise. If Douggie can in fact post a "stepped out panno" of the Marina shot, that meets his claims, showing the pre stitched photos as well as the finished product, I will post my full Name and address so he can then take it to the AFP for his complaint against me, after all I have repeatedly offered to go to them myself if only he would provide the case file number.  Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg >> > "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote in message >> >> Jeff R. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and show some patience. All you've shown so far is a disgrace to the > human race. How do you figure that, Doug? I've been civil - polite - patient so far. I've gently pointed out your mistakes, given you opportunities to graciously retract your egregious errors. The only insults I've directed towards you, Doug, are those which are implicit in my pointing out your errors. You know the images you posted on your now-defunct web page http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html were bogus and misrepresentative. The insults you directed at AC (amongst others) seem to have been predicated on the assumption that your "walking-pano" technique is possible in the way you suggested - which of course it is not. If I were to make an outlandish suggestion, supporting a technically untenable position, then I would expect to be called on to prove that position. You have, and thus we have. Catch is, *you* can't, and you don't have the decency (or the cohones) to admit you were wrong. Being in favour of education, I would prefer in this case to be proven wrong -but- as noted before, I'm not holding my breath. If calling on you to prove your impossible suggestion makes me a sheep, then B-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A ! -- Jeff R. ("disgrace to the human race") > http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm Clicked send on my other reply before I was ready. oops. Anyway, as I said before, nice pic doug. > Sigma and other after market lens makers have some exceptional lenses > in their ranges. The patented nature of lens based image stabilization [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > half of what a VR Nikon equivalent costs. Almost enough price > difference to pay for a Pentax K20D body! Was this shot with a K20D? - I thought you were using S5's and D300s. > It's hard to justify the weight and cost of in-lens gyros when cameras > with sensor based IS are now every bit as good as their Canon and > Nikon rivals. Most tests tend to show that lens based IS is better than body based, and that's probably right. But we survived so long without any IS at all, that surely there are more important things to rate a system on than the performance of IS with one or two particular lenses. Canon & Nikon definitely have a better range of fast telephoto lenses than Pentax do - this makes In-Body or In-Lens IS irrelevant if it is hard to even find a suitable lens for the body. But certainly for someone who mostly needs wide through to moderate-telephoto the Pentax system represents exceptional value. >> http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm > Clicked send on my other reply before I was ready. oops. Anyway, as I said [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > wide through to moderate-telephoto the Pentax system represents > exceptional value. Not sure what lenses you need in Pentax mount but their 200mm F2.8 looks pretty good and their soon to be released 300mm F4 will probably be good as well. If you really need big glass though I would suggest that Pentax is not for you. If you are shooting with a K20D it would seem that faster long lenses while normally desirable may not be quite as needed as they once were because the high ISO performance is getting to be so good. Cheers. Pete >>> http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm >> Clicked send on my other reply before I was ready. oops. Anyway, as I said [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > well. If you really need big glass though I would suggest that Pentax is not > for you. Pentax certainly offers all that I need, and then some! But for some of the sports and wildlife nuts, the lack of fast 300+ glass is a compelling reason not to go pentax. > If you are shooting with a K20D it would seem that faster long lenses while > normally desirable may not be quite as needed as they once were because the > high ISO performance is getting to be so good. True, but regardless of how high you can go in ISO, if you have fast glass you will always have an advantage over slow glass. Yes, the high ISO performance of the K20 will mean a K20 & 5.6 lens will do what would need a 2.8 lens on the K10, but a K20 & 2.8 lens will be better again. Whether that translates into faster shutters for better frozen motion, or whether it translates into lower light shooting is up to the owner, but regardless, they are still better off with the fast glass. > >>>http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm > >> Clicked send on my other reply before I was ready. oops. Anyway, as I said [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > owner, but regardless, they are still better off with the > fast glass. There seems to be a presumption here that having a F2.8 lens you will use the wide aperture for taking photographs. That goes to show me, none of you have a long, fast lens. A telephoto lens with F2.8 gives you brighter images in the viewfinder and more precise auto focus. At 200 mm FL the depth of field is minuscule and unless you have a reason for wanting a face out of focus either side of the point of focus, it has little practical use. The edge of one of the insect's shells is the point of focus. There is more DOF past the focus point than there is in front of it. About 5 mm range before the OOF starts to be obvious. Certainly not enough to photograph a person's face side on and have usable images. The Sigma, 120 - 300 F2.8 I sold before Christmas never took a shot in seriousness at F/2.8 for that very reason. The camera used was a Canon 10D belonging to the buyer of the lens and some other Canon stuff I had left over from the change to Nikon. She wanted to satisfy herself that the lens was indeed a viable rival for Canon's own 70 - 200, F2.8. She used her partner's Canon lens to compare shots with on my computer. My comments were aimed at those people seeking decent glass and not having the means to shell out a few grand to get it. > There seems to be a presumption here that having a F2.8 lens you will > use the wide aperture for taking photographs. That goes to show me, > none of you have a long, fast lens. I don't own anthing longer than 80mm at 2.8, but I do have ready access to long fast glass, and wide open is most definately used for taking photographs. > A telephoto lens with F2.8 gives > you brighter images in the viewfinder and more precise auto focus. yep. >At > 200 mm FL the depth of field is minuscule and unless you have a reason > for wanting a face out of focus either side of the point of focus, it > has little practical use. The DOF is also dependent upon the distance to the subject. With a 200mm lens on a crop sensor body, the subject distance for a portrait is such that at 2.8 you have adequate DOF. For typical sporting shot distances, 2.8 gives more than enough DOF. > The edge of one of the insect's shells is the point of focus. There > is more DOF past the focus point than there is in front of it. About 5 > mm range before the OOF starts to be obvious. Certainly not enough to > photograph a person's face side on and have usable images. I've never done side-on face portraits at macro magnifications. I guess if you want a shot of just the nose, then 2.8 won't be enough DOF. The Sigma, > 120 - 300 F2.8 I sold before Christmas never took a shot in > seriousness at F/2.8 for that very reason. But what were you using it for? Take it to the footy at night, and I can guarantee you'd use it wide open more often than not. > The camera used was a Canon 10D belonging to the buyer of the lens and > some other Canon stuff I had left over from the change to Nikon. She [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people seeking decent glass and not having the means to shell out a > few grand to get it. >>>> http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm >>> Clicked send on my other reply before I was ready. oops. Anyway, as I [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > it translates into lower light shooting is up to the owner, but > regardless, they are still better off with the fast glass. Correct for the "Pro" shooters but for the "average" shooter they will do just fine. >>>>> http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm >>>> Clicked send on my other reply before I was ready. oops. Anyway, as I [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Correct for the "Pro" shooters but for the "average" shooter they will do > just fine. yup, which is why the Pro's tend to mainly use Nikon & Canon, but for the "average" shooter, Pentax will do just fine. Long fast glass is about the only hole in the Pentax line up though. They cover wide-angle through to moderate telephoto better than pretty much any other system. All depends on what you want to do with it. >>>> while normally desirable may not be quite as needed as they once were >>>> because the high ISO performance is getting to be so good. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > moderate telephoto better than pretty much any other system. All depends > on what you want to do with it. And I guess for that reason most Pentax users are not users of long glass although there are quite a number using Bigma and the like to good effect, I do know of a few that have the 600mm F4 though. > http://www.clocksnprints.com/bugsat200mm.htm Oh look, a new identity. I would have commented on the picture (- has no-one noticed anything odd?) But of course Doug told us all that: > It seems to me there's a few cretins wasting an awful lot of time > taking worthless macro photos of common insects and using very > expensive gear to do it... For no purpose other than to waste even > more time and money posting the pics for group comment. (http://groups.google.com.au/group/aus.photo/msg/40350317a2f8f3d6) So I will take his advice and refuse to comment on what must be a troll post. (O: (And I would have commented on the content, but I can't understand wtf point he is trying to make.) But when will he show us that he wasn't lying on the stepped out panorama thread? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.