 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 20055D - raises more questions
We know from past experience that a "Designed for digital" lens is quite a lot different than a normal 35mm lens. Some time ago I bought a Tokina wide zoom "designed for Digital". It was a very poor performer on a (Canon) 35mm film camera but came alive on a 10D. It has been explained to me that a Digital sensor has some quite specific needs in a lens and not many 35mm film lenses are good choices for a DSLR. This might answer why the plastic "Kit" lens is halfway decent when it's specifications indicate it should be awful and the 24~70 "L" series is less than a star performer on a DSLR, producing image errors which only one RAW developer I know about can fix. Anyway... It would seem that the 5D will need some lenses made specifically for digital if it's full frame sensor is to achieve the quality levels of a 35mm camera. Try as I might, I can see no reason other than enlargement size, to need a full frame sensor in a consumer level "Enthusiasts" camera. Certainly there may be purpose in full frame sensor if your work is demanding enough to need photos of poster size and larger. A 12 meg file size is then of questionable value too. So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for "Enthusiasts" actually fit in the scheme of things? Could it be a cheap version of a 1Ds? Maybe Canon's attempt to shut up those whining for a FF sensor? Try as I might, I just can't see where this camera will fit in the market, particularly at the price mark.  SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! > Anyway... It would seem that the 5D will need some lenses made > specifically for digital if it's full frame sensor is to achieve the > quality levels of a 35mm camera. Welcome to the world of creative marketing. Suckers. By this 'sucker' comment you make the assumption of someone that already has a full system with a range of lenses dumping it for a comparible digital camera system with 'digital' lenses. For someone purchasing a system for the first time it makes no difference. But you are so above all this aren't you? Tell me..how do you buy anything? Do you own an ipod? Are you an AMD man? or a Intel? Do wear Nike, Addidas? What about the brand of beer or spirit you prefer, ever think how you got started drinking it? Would you as a man drinking with your mates ever order a pina colada with an umbrella and a straw? Would you ever drive a pink 'ladies' car? Do you still use a first generation mobile phone? If no why not? i'm sure it still functions? Ask yourself honestly...if you where chatting up a lady and she asked you what you drove, would you feel proud to say 'Mercedes' or would you feel just as ok saying 'Skoda'? If you think you are not 'suckered' by marketing to some degree and live in the western world, then you are more full of sh.t than you realise. We all purchase things that we want and not neccessarily what we need, and we make these choices based on how we perceive ourselves and what brand we feel best reflects that or those which we aspire to own. I choose Nikon/Canon because I know they are good cameras with good lenses...but lets face it, in the back of your mind there's a lot of cred that goes with pulling out your Nikon with a nice fat piece of glass like the 80-200 f2.8. Even if you can't take good photos by proxy it associates you with a group of people that can take it. If you think you aren't 'suckered' by marketing over and over and over again...you are the sucker. >> Anyway... It would seem that the 5D will need some lenses made >> specifically for digital if it's full frame sensor is to achieve the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Suckers. > By this 'sucker' comment you make the assumption of someone that already has > a full system with a range of lenses dumping it for a comparible digital > camera system with 'digital' lenses. > > For someone purchasing a system for the first time it makes no difference. Except the camera costs 3k, which is on par with MF cameras for price. Yet the camera does not have quite the resolving ability of MF. Therefore one buying the camera is stuck with yet another camera system sure to be obsolete in a fairly short period. I tend to agree with the sucker comment if one is looking at a pro quality system and thinking the money will be well spent on camera and a whole battery of specific lens for it. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> By this 'sucker' comment you make the assumption of someone that already >> has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > quality system and thinking the money will be well spent on camera > and a whole battery of specific lens for it. Why is the "system" sure to be obsolete in a fairly short period? I have lenses that I bought with my A2 10 years ago that still will work with the 5D, as they do with my 20D and D30, and probably will with any camera that succeeds either the 5D or 20D. If you buy lenses for any of the above, chance are they will work with any subsequent bodies, don't you think? And 3K isn't on par with MF digital, it's about 1/7th the price. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Why is the "system" sure to be obsolete in a fairly short period? Because a newer better camera with higher resolution will certainly be offered until resolution limits are reached within the format. Maybe you want that limit to be less than what MF film cameras are able to equal but I sure would like a smaller camera to lug than my 6x6. And at 3k that would put the basic system around what I paid for my 6x6 MF film camera system. >I have > lenses that I bought with my A2 10 years ago that still will work with the > 5D, as they do with my 20D and D30, and probably will with any camera that > succeeds either the 5D or 20D. If you buy lenses for any of the above, > chance are they will work with any subsequent bodies, don't you think? Oh yes I always think, but how well they work? That is the question. > And 3K isn't on par with MF digital, it's about 1/7th the price. MF Film. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> If you buy lenses for any of the above, >> chance are they will work with any subsequent bodies, don't you think? > > Oh yes I always think, but how well they work? That is the question. Exactly. If you are looking for a solution that exceeds 35mm film (I am, that's why I shoot medium and large format), do you think that ALL of the lenses designed for 35mm are going to exceed this quality level when there was no reason for them to be that good at the time they were made? And this is also ignoring that a digital sensor has different requirements from film. SignatureStacey >>>If you buy lenses for any of the above, >>>chance are they will work with any subsequent bodies, don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is also ignoring that a digital sensor has different requirements from > film. I just read the article about using an Contax to EOS adaptor. It doesn't seem to be too much of a deal. Those are manual fix focal lenses btw. That would clearly be sharper than a zoom wide angle lens with much less corner softness. I don't see that as a deal breaker but instead blessing the EOS mount design that makes such an adaptor a viable solution. Can a D2X use a Contax lens? I like FF. It's a great to be able to use the focal length as designed. Does Nikon offer the equivalent of TS-E 24mm f/3.5 for D2X? >>>>If you buy lenses for any of the above, >>>>chance are they will work with any subsequent bodies, don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I just read the article about using an Contax to EOS adaptor. It doesn't > seem to be too much of a deal. Those are manual fix focal lenses btw. You're now talking about "pentax spotmatic" technology and saying it's OK to accept going 40 years backwards in technology because Canon can't be bothered to make a decent WA lens? > That would clearly be sharper than a zoom wide angle lens with much less > corner softness. Sure but why can't Canon make a decent WA zoom for their own cameras? > I don't see that as a deal breaker but instead blessing > the EOS mount design that makes such an adaptor a viable solution. Can a > D2X use a Contax lens? They don't need to, nikon can make a good WA lens, so does olympus. > I like FF. Why? > It's a great to be able to use the > focal length as designed. Why not think about the designed FOV rather than focal length? > Does Nikon offer the equivalent of TS-E 24mm > f/3.5 for D2X? If you need a lens like this, you should be shooting 4X5. SignatureStacey > You're now talking about "pentax spotmatic" technology and saying it's OK to > accept going 40 years backwards in technology because Canon can't be > bothered to make a decent WA lens? They don't? Look again. >> You're now talking about "pentax spotmatic" technology and saying it's OK >> to accept going 40 years backwards in technology because Canon can't be >> bothered to make a decent WA lens? > > They don't? Look again. Then why are all these people using contax WA lenses on their 1Ds's trying to get decent WA performance? SignatureStacey > Then why are all these people using contax WA lenses on their 1Ds's trying > to get decent WA performance? I've just got a lowly 10D with a couple consumer-grade Canon lenses...and the results are outstanding. But then, there's no magic in the box... >> Then why are all these people using contax WA lenses on their 1Ds's >> trying to get decent WA performance? > > I've just got a lowly 10D with a couple consumer-grade Canon > lenses...and the results are outstanding. Lets see, we're talking about how the canon WA lenses perform on FULL FRAME sensors and you respond about how they seem to work OK on a 10D? > But then, there's no magic in > the box... Exactly.. SignatureStacey >>>>>If you buy lenses for any of the above, >>>>>chance are they will work with any subsequent bodies, don't you think? [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > If you need a lens like this, you should be shooting 4X5. You should tell people what excellent full frame Nikon Wide angle lens is good. As 5D with an adapter can use a Nikon lenses so your discovery can be worthwhile. :) Having a crop factor isn't that convenience. Like the Canon 28-135 was designed to cover the range that's useful for many tourists. When put in a 350D, the range from 44.8 to 216 makes it much less useful for walking around the city. You have to buy all the EF-S/DX lenses and some don't have the EF-S/DX alternative. > Having a crop factor isn't that convenience. Like the Canon 28-135 was > designed to cover the range that's useful for many tourists. When put in > a 350D, the range from 44.8 to 216 makes it much less useful for walking > around the city. And whose fault is that? Sounds like a poorly designed "system" to me.. To come out with a crop sensor body expecting people to use the lenses they already make that are the wrong FOV to be very useful! SignatureStacey >> Does Nikon offer the equivalent of TS-E 24mm >> f/3.5 for D2X? > >If you need a lens like this, you should be shooting 4X5. Why? The 24mm f/2.8 TS-E is a hugely convenient lens to use for buildings and the like. I have a comprehensive 5x4 outfit, and yes, I agree, the quality blows away 35mm or similar in film or digital. However, it is not always realistically possible to use it, especially when travelling, it is also impossible to use hand-held, and per shot is very expensive. Using the TS-E lens on a 35mm body gives photos which are virtually unobtainable in any other way. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>> Does Nikon offer the equivalent of TS-E 24mm >>> f/3.5 for D2X? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why? The 24mm f/2.8 TS-E is a hugely convenient lens to use for > buildings and the like. For most things, there isn't enough shift to be of use. SignatureStacey >>>> Does Nikon offer the equivalent of TS-E 24mm >>>> f/3.5 for D2X? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >For most things, there isn't enough shift to be of use. Then it's funny that I find it one of the most useful of my lenses. It is, I agree, somewhat restricted on a 1.6 crop body, but that is an angle of view issue, not a range of movement issue. In any case, the movement gets to the point where geometric distortion is starting to become obtrusive, so any more would be of marginal value. Have you ever actually ^used^ one of the lenses in question? Or are you just one of those people who disagree with everyone, even in the lack of relevant knowledge, in a (vain) attempt to look superior? David SignatureDavid Littlewood > Have you ever actually ^used^ one of the lenses in question? Or are you > just one of those people who disagree with everyone, even in the lack of > relevant knowledge, in a (vain) attempt to look superior? I've used the olympus version which didn't have tilt, maybe that makes this one more useful? Have you ever used a 4X5 view camera? SignatureStacey >> Have you ever actually ^used^ one of the lenses in question? Or are you >> just one of those people who disagree with everyone, even in the lack of >> relevant knowledge, in a (vain) attempt to look superior? > >I've used the olympus version which didn't have tilt, maybe that makes this >one more useful? Have you ever used a 4X5 view camera? Yes, I have a Linhof Technika. I don't use it as much now as I used to, largely because back problems make it harder for me to carry the outfit. The amount of shift on the Canon TS-E is nearly the same as that on the Linhof, which to be fair is not quite as great as that on studio 5x4 cameras. It is, though, about as much as one would want to use for architectural work. I find the tilt on the TS-E is much less useful than the shift, but that is perhaps more a reflection of the work I do. I certainly would not want to use tilt when hand-holding. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>>> Does Nikon offer the equivalent of TS-E 24mm >>>> f/3.5 for D2X? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >For most things, there isn't enough shift to be of use. I disagree. The 24mm TS-E is a superb lens. Don't forget that it tilts as well as shifts. When the shift runs out there is always tilt. >> Why is the "system" sure to be obsolete in a fairly short period? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that would put the basic system around what I paid for my 6x6 MF film > camera system. The system still isn't obsolete under that scenario. Nor is the camera, just supersceded. 16mp is close to 645, now, and Canon builds it. >>I have >> lenses that I bought with my A2 10 years ago that still will work with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh yes I always think, but how well they work? That is the question. Probably some better than others, but none to the point of obsolescence. The 24-70, for instance works a champ on the 5D, if you look at the samples. >> And 3K isn't on par with MF digital, it's about 1/7th the price. > > MF Film. Well, I thought we were talking about digital. 22mp digital backs or the Mamiya ZD. Hell, the 5D is 3 time the price of an EOS3, a 1Ds mkII is nearly 7 times the price of a 1v, so, why not stick with film, altogether? SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > The system still isn't obsolete under that scenario. Nor is the camera, > just supersceded. 16mp is close to 645, now, and Canon builds it. Not at near the cost of my bought and paid for MF camera. A 10K or even 5K dslr is not a good alternative to my 6x6 cost or resolution wise. But an interesting side bar: shot an assignment on 120 film a while back and also with a D70 for maybe an error in focus on the 6x6 the shots were less sharp than the D70....its relative. I just want what I know these makers are able to produce at an affordable price, and I want cameras and lenses without issues(thats all) . > Well, I thought we were talking about digital. 22mp digital backs or the > Mamiya ZD. Hell, the 5D is 3 time the price of an EOS3, a 1Ds mkII is > nearly 7 times the price of a 1v, so, why not stick with film, altogether? Part survival, the fast turn around of digital, if it was only my choice in the matter I would only be doing film, but hey I get paid to shoot digital so who am I to complain :-) SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> The system still isn't obsolete under that scenario. Nor is the camera, >> just supersceded. 16mp is close to 645, now, and Canon builds it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > in the matter I would only be doing film, but hey I get paid to shoot > digital so who am I to complain :-) My primary reasons for shooting digital, too. Which is why a $5K DSLR is an alternative to me buying a MF camera. I already have lenses for it, I don't for the MF, film or digital, so the expense is much less. BTW, like your sig para. I've used it in conversations, lately... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > By this 'sucker' comment you make the assumption of someone that already has > a full system with a range of lenses dumping it for a comparible digital > camera system with 'digital' lenses. No. I knew what I meant. > For someone purchasing a system for the first time it makes no difference. Of course it does. They can be the most influenced by marketing. > But you are so above all this aren't you? No. > Tell me..how do you buy anything? > Do you own an ipod? No. > Are you an AMD man? or a Intel? No. > Do wear Nike, Addidas? Nope. > What about the brand of beer or spirit you prefer, ever think how you got > started drinking it? I do not drink alchohol. > Would you as a man drinking with your mates ever order > a pina colada with an umbrella and a straw? Yes. Would you? Would you take off all your clothes and roll naked on your lawn? > Would you ever drive a pink > 'ladies' car? If I needed to I would. >Do you still use a first generation mobile phone? If no why > not? i'm sure it still functions? I do not own a mobile phone. Anyway, it's hard to get an analog signal these days. > Ask yourself honestly...if you where > chatting up a lady and she asked you what you drove, would you feel proud to > say 'Mercedes' or would you feel just as ok saying 'Skoda'? It makes no difference to me. If a girl likes me for my car she is a fool and superficial. (That is a very easy way to get a woman to like you, yes?) Anyway, I own a 1987 Toyota Celica GT that has three colors of faded red, no AC (I live in NC) or heat, and grinds when put it into second and third gear. See, when a woman likes me, she likes ME. Why would a woman like you? I'd rather be honest. > If you think you are not 'suckered' by marketing to some degree and live in > the western world, then you are more full of sh.t than you realise. Oh, I know I get suckered. Most times, however, I see myself and realize how foolish it is. Life is awareness. > We all purchase things that we want and not neccessarily what we need, and > we make these choices based on how we perceive ourselves and what brand we > feel best reflects that or those which we aspire to own. Yes, more on this later. But if you realize that, why do you still do it? ("You" is general.) I buy things when I need them, not when I want them. > I choose Nikon/Canon because I know they are good cameras with good > lenses Nothing wrong with that. That was not my concern. >...but lets face it, in the back of your mind there's a lot of cred > that goes with pulling out your Nikon with a nice fat piece of glass like > the 80-200 f2.8. Nope. Sorry. Really, that does not enter my mind. If it even came up in the back of my head I would have owned one by now. I own three fixed manual focus lenses. But is all this an admission of your own thoughts? Nothing wrong with that. >Even if you can't take good photos by proxy it associates > you with a group of people that can take it. That is sad. If you don't see that you are a sucker. > If you think you aren't 'suckered' by marketing over and over and over > again...you are the sucker. Again, of course. I never implied that I was immune to marketing. But it is the degree and awareness which differentiates me. I have to continue so you know who I am. I usually don't do this on usenet because it is easy to be full of sh.t. But while your thoughts apply to most people I assure you I am different. Note that I did not say "better" I said "different". Just to set the scene: I am 38 years old and I live in Carrboro, NC.. Following is a list to show you how far my life is from your assumptions. Again, it is not better, just different. Also, I live this way not because I can't live better, but because I see there is no "better". *I shoot with a Nikon FE I bought when I was in 11th grade. *I use a 3 year old IBook that I bought refurbrished. *I own a 1987 Toyota Celica that I use about 20 miles a week. Recycled and obtained in 2005. *I share a house with 6 other people. *From 1999 to 2005 I did not own a car and I never bought one new. *The last peice of clothing I bought was a $4 shirt from a thrift store sometime last year. (In fact I am wearing a shirt right now I have owned since 1997 I think) *For two of the last 4 years before 2004 I owned nothing but a 9" b&w TV and a clock radio. *I have worked for what I need, not for what I wanted for at least the last 15 years. *I earn $1200/month and I still save $200 a month. *I got my computer monitor for $25 at a thrift store. *I shower and shave maybe twice a week. *I do not own a DVD/VCR/Stereo and I only own one CD. (Have you ever heard music while just waiting for a bus?) *All my furniture is used but my bed. *I was happy working as a day laborer in Binghamton, NY for $4/hour and I was happy making $60,000 plus stock options as a network engineer at Cisco Sytems. *I have never bought a copy of Shutterbug Magazine. *I have no god. (Religion, very effective marketing, yes?) *I have no counties. Patriotism is for the foolish. *I am not afraid of death. See, if I was effected bt the marketers I would live like the marketing. Life can be easy with all the technology we have and that is tempting for most people, like all these throw away cleaning product that have been coming out and Wal Mart selling you on the idea of cheap goods. There have been plenty of people who have thought I was weird and did not want to hang around me. That's fine. But most do not realize is how easy life becomes when you live without effort, without desire. I don't care how anyone lives, but I will comment on it. I just do not take part in the circus of man's struggle. Peace. > >> Anyway... It would seem that the 5D will need some lenses made > >> specifically for digital if it's full frame sensor is to achieve the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > Suckers. You may have known what you meant but you neglected to elaborate in your reply. Think about this. The only reason you are able to contribute to a group like this is due to rampant consumerism. Nikon, Canon et al can't rest on their laurels or they'll go out of business. If camera sales of even the professional type were sold only to people that used them professionally they'd probably cost you about $80,000 a piece! Marketing the product, creating the desire to own such equipment is what makes these camera's affordable. As someone that seems to be against consumerism in all it's forms I thought you would be all for people purchasing a full frame Canon. After all MOST but not all the lenses already out there in the market will work perfectly well, which means that people who already own legacy glass do not need to go purchase more glass, resources are saved and mother earth breathes a little easier. Just because you choose to buy second hand and choose not to earn a large salary doesn't make you any less a consumer. Your lifestyle choices have defined that for you anyway. Making $120,000 a year does not preclude you from rolling naked anywhere, show me the correlation between wealth and inhibition. Wealth if anything gives you more choice not less. I agree with you completely in principal with most things - I hate labels with a passion and I'm sure you'll agree that it's bloody difficult to find clothing that isn't a walking billboard. HOWEVER you can't you dismiss people as 'suckers' just because they want to have the latest and greatest camera gear any more than I can dismiss you as a 38 year old tree hugging hippie. Marketing works on all kinds of levels. Most times marketing is just a fairly innocuous way of a manufacturer notifying you of their wares, of it's features and presenting it in the best possible light. The other more subtle part is getting you to become a staunch advocate of their product someone that will stick with the product and become a Nikon or a Canon man/woman for life (and by the people on this site, haven't they done a good job) Most of us are adults, accutely aware of the marketing aimed at us and able to distinguish between the bullshit and the reality buying the latest offering from Canon does not automatically make one a 'sucker' just because it's not the road you would take. Peace out man. Tiger Moon Water Lilly. >> By this 'sucker' comment you make the assumption of someone that already >> has [quoted text clipped - 164 lines] >> > >> > Suckers. > You may have known what you meant but you neglected to elaborate in your > reply. Agreed. Further conversation gets to things more deeply. > Think about this. The only reason you are able to contribute to a group like > this is due to rampant consumerism. > Nikon, Canon et al can't rest on their > laurels or they'll go out of business. That's it. It is not about product, it is about business. > If camera sales of even the > professional type were sold only to people that used them professionally > they'd probably cost you about $80,000 a piece! And this is bad because...? > Marketing the product, creating the desire to own such equipment is what > makes these camera's affordable. As someone that seems to be against > consumerism in all it's forms I am not against anything. > I thought you would be all for people > purchasing a full frame Canon. After all MOST but not all the lenses already [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > salary doesn't make you any less a consumer. Your lifestyle choices have > defined that for you anyway. At least it isn't defined by someone else. > Making $120,000 a year does not preclude you from rolling naked anywhere, > show me the correlation between wealth and inhibition. Sorry if you thought I implied that. > Wealth if anything > gives you more choice not less. Just because you have choice does not mean you are free. All I can tell you is to think about that. > I agree with you completely in principal > with most things - I hate labels with a passion and I'm sure you'll agree [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have the latest and greatest camera gear any more than I can dismiss you as > a 38 year old tree hugging hippie. A 38 year old tree hugging hippie? HE HE! I don't hug trees, I hump 'em. I have not implied I am not a sucker. I was just calling whoever started all this that they were part of a group of suckers. I am well aware of it when I see it in myself most times. There is a tremendous amount of artificially created need and people like to disguise "want" as "need" to justify their greed and susceptibility. > Marketing works on all kinds of levels. > Most times marketing is just a fairly innocuous way of a manufacturer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and become a Nikon or a Canon man/woman for life (and by the people on this > site, haven't they done a good job) Yeah, there's a bunch of suckers here. :^P > Most > of us are adults, accutely aware of the marketing aimed at us and able > to distinguish between the bullshit and the reality buying the latest > offering from Canon does not automatically make one a 'sucker' just because > it's not the road you would take. Not automatically. Agreed. Any way, I was just showing them the road, I did not say they should take it. That's idiotic and would make me no different from the marketers. I am not out to change anyone's mind. I am just a finger pointing at the moon. I don't care if you believe me and I am not out to change your mind. If you took what I said as truth without examining for yourself you are a fool. > Peace out man. (takes lollipop out of his mouth) Who love's ya baby. > Tiger Moon Water Lilly. :^) > >> >> Anyway... It would seem that the 5D will need some lenses made > >> >> specifically for digital if it's full frame sensor is to achieve the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> > > >> > Suckers. > I am not out to change anyone's mind. I am just a finger pointing at the > moon. I don't care if you believe me and I am not out to change your > mind. If you took what I said as truth without examining for yourself > you are a fool. Thank you Morpheus, thank you. :-D <snip> I only own one CD. Man this is driving me nuts. What CD would a man who only owns one cd own? Well..you'd be fine on desert island discs I guess. Come on then....what is it? > <snip> I only own one CD. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Come on then....what is it? "Truth is a Pathless Land" Talks with Jiddu Krishnamurti There are billions of people in the world who own no cd's. It is less odd then you think. I don't think it is a big deal. It's just how I live. >> <snip> I only own one CD. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > odd then you think. I don't think it is a big deal. It's just how I > live. No CDs would be less odd than only one. Having none means not having the means to play them, too. Having one means having the means (and undertaking the expense) to play them. A means (and expense) that would be the same whether you owned one or hundreds. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Also, I live this > way not because I can't live better, but because I see there is no > "better". Well stated! SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com >Even if you can't take good photos by proxy it associates > you with a group of people that can take it. That's one of the saddest things I've read on a while. Turns a camera into "jewelry" rather than a photographic tool. SignatureStacey >>Even if you can't take good photos by proxy it associates >> you with a group of people that can take it. > > That's one of the saddest things I've read on a while. Turns a camera into > "jewelry" rather than a photographic tool. Sadly, that's what a great many camera owners think, and the way they feel about their cameras. SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com I was talking about it from a marketing point of view. The idea is to associate canon & nikon with professional. The marketing sells the dream that 'if you own a lens that xxx sports photographer uses, you can take photos just like this" It's not a lie, it's the truth. They are selling inspiration. Some take this as inspiration, others will probably hardly use it. Either way..so what..it's their money. It's not just camera's it's everything, haven't you noticed how over the last 10 years that almost everything you would use as in a professional field has made it's way into the home. E.g $2000 coffee machines making cafe quality coffee. Gigantic industrial stainless steel cookers Home printers that can produce amazing results and photoshop mean you have a lab in your home. Home theatre equipment of astounding quality The guys wearing photographers vests with 'Canon' blasted all over the back, Personally...I LOVE big Canon/Nikon lenses for the quality of the glass, the engineering, what they look like when you look through them. I kind of like your concept of camera as jewellery Stacey! Why not. It's not a camera, it's jewellery that takes photographs. Why not? >>Even if you can't take good photos by proxy it associates >> you with a group of people that can take it. > > That's one of the saddest things I've read on a while. Turns a camera into > "jewelry" rather than a photographic tool. >We know from past experience that a "Designed for digital" lens is >quite a lot different than a normal 35mm lens. Some time ago I bought a [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >FF sensor? Try as I might, I just can't see where this camera will fit >in the market, particularly at the price mark. Then just don't buy one. Really no need to keep whinging on about it. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > It has been explained to me that a Digital sensor has some quite > specific needs in a lens and not many 35mm film lenses are good choices > for a DSLR. References? The only areas which seem to need some control are in infrared. Most digital cameras seem to have an IR filter over the CCD. They are, I believe, less sensitive to ultraviolet, so the only concession there is to remove (or not) the ubiquitous UV filter. > This might answer why the plastic "Kit" lens is halfway > decent when it's specifications indicate it should be awful and the > 24~70 "L" series is less than a star performer on a DSLR, producing > image errors which only one RAW developer I know about can fix. Just the lower resolution of the sensor fitting well within the resolution of the 'cheap' lens, esp. stopped down, will do a lot. Matching lenses to sensor is a worthwhile effort as Chasseur D'Images have illustrated in many tests. A given lens may be mediocre on one DSLR and very well on an other model from the same company. > Anyway... It would seem that the 5D will need some lenses made > specifically for digital if it's full frame sensor is to achieve the > quality levels of a 35mm camera. Try as I might, I can see no reason > other than enlargement size, to need a full frame sensor in a consumer > level "Enthusiasts" camera. The existing Canon lineup of non EF-S lenses will do fine ... as they do for the 1Dxx line. > So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for "Enthusiasts" That's US$3,300 actually. Well within the budget of well to do photographers amateur and pro alike ... in North America, anyway. And you can be sure that, like the 20D, a lot of pros will adopt it quickly. I could see it, for example, being a darling of the 'middle' wedding market. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Anyway... It would seem that the 5D will need some lenses made >> specifically for digital if it's full frame sensor is to achieve the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The existing Canon lineup of non EF-S lenses will do fine ... as they do > for the 1Dxx line. But Alan the WA lenses -don't- do fine. That's what's being questioned. The guys using the 1Ds line have been forced to using other makers lenses on adapters to get good/decent image quality, do you think the 5D is going to be any better? On the tele end, it's not a problem. I know you too are wishing and hopeing that ALL of your old minolta lenses will work excelent on a FF body, the WA ones probably won't. > And you can be sure that, like the 20D, a lot of pros will adopt it > quickly. Because the 20D with it's WA EFs lens works better than the FF ones with the old skool optics? SignatureStacey >>>Anyway... It would seem that the 5D will need some lenses made >>>specifically for digital if it's full frame sensor is to achieve the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > adapters to get good/decent image quality, do you think the 5D is going to > be any better? On the tele end, it's not a problem. A very good point. I did neglect to think about WA on FF sensors. OTOH, the "limit" is not "tele" (above 50mm for FF), the limit is lower than 50. (where exactly it is ...) > I know you too are wishing and hopeing that ALL of your old minolta > lenses will work excelent on a FF body, the WA ones probably won't. I agree it's the same problem. My Minolta lenses, BTW, are not "old". Let's see, I would bet my 20mm suffers (on a FF), and that my 28-70 f/2.8 does not. Hmmm. Not so bad. I don't use the 20mm that much in any case ... it's best use is with Velvia and E100GX anyway. >>And you can be sure that, like the 20D, a lot of pros will adopt it >>quickly. > > Because the 20D with it's WA EFs lens works better than the FF ones with the > old skool optics? This may be a shock to you, but a lot of people bottom out at about 28mm or so (FF), and wide angle beyond there is not of great interest to those shooters. A typical wedding photog will rarely, if ever, use anything wider that that. A portraitist never. The WA EF-S lenses *do not* do better... they don't have to reach into the corners, they're not challenged to do better; they're limited to use with the cropped sensors. The Zuiko 7-14mm tells the story in part: it is quite deep for it's FL range. Dimensions: 3.4" D x 4.7" L (86.5 mm x 119.5 mm). which is close to a FF 17mm-35mm in dimensions. All that to get more perpendicular ray arrival towards the edges/corners. Canon, who are not shy at all when it comes to new lens designs will likely offer the right product eventually. That they haven't yet probably speaks of a lack of keen interest from the user side. (Or to fear of the price that would be needed). Minolta, to all indications, is not coming out with a FF (rumors aside). I would like a FF, but WA will not be a big consideration for me. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>On the tele end, it's not a problem. > > A very good point. I did neglect to think about WA on FF sensors. > > OTOH, the "limit" is not "tele" (above 50mm for FF), the limit is lower > than 50. (where exactly it is ...) It isn't just "over 50mm", it's probably more like the over 100mm ones that aren't going to be any issue. > > I know you too are wishing and hopeing that ALL of your old minolta > > lenses will work excelent on a FF body, the WA ones probably won't. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Let's see, I would bet my 20mm suffers (on a FF), and that my 28-70 > f/2.8 does not. Hmmm. Not so bad. Why would you guess that? >>>And you can be sure that, like the 20D, a lot of pros will adopt it >>>quickly. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > or so (FF), and wide angle beyond there is not of great interest to > those shooters. I'm not convinced the 28mm to 100mm lenses are going to fare much better. The exit pupils are in ~the same place as the wider ones are. The 10-22 EFS covers these angles and shouldn't suffer from these problems since it was designed for this application. > The WA EF-S lenses *do not* do better... Sure they do, look at the results from them. > they don't have to reach into > the corners, they're not challenged to do better; they're limited to use > with the cropped sensors. The WA's that have the same FOV and are designed for APS sized sensors aren't "cropped" as they are designed for the format. It's no different than someone saying a full frame lens is "cropped" because it doesn't cover medium format. > The Zuiko 7-14mm tells the story in part: it is quite deep for it's FL > range. Dimensions: 3.4" D x 4.7" L (86.5 mm x 119.5 mm). which is close [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Canon, who are not shy at all when it comes to new lens designs will > likely offer the right product eventually. And when they do, then they will have a "system" that performs well. Can you imagine if olympus,nikon,minolta sold a camera that required you to buy manual focus lenses from another manufacturer and use them on an adapter to get decent performance and think that was an acceptable solution? Of course when it's Canon, these guys accept this as normal and nothing to complain about? SignatureStacey >And when they do, then they will have a "system" that performs well. Can you >imagine if olympus,nikon,minolta sold a camera that required you to buy >manual focus lenses from another manufacturer and use them on an adapter to >get decent performance and think that was an acceptable solution? Of course >when it's Canon, these guys accept this as normal and nothing to complain >about? Truth be told, I find myself using AF less and less, all the time. It is almost always slower than me, doesn't know what I want to focus on, and gets lost far too frequently, losing too many spontaneous shots. A skilled manual focuser (which I am on my way to becoming) will get a lot more spontaneous shots than someone who relies on AF. The last few times I used AF, I was cursing it. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Truth be told, I find myself using AF less and less, all the time. It > is almost always slower than me, doesn't know what I want to focus on, > and gets lost far too frequently, losing too many spontaneous shots. A > skilled manual focuser (which I am on my way to becoming) will get a lot > more spontaneous shots than someone who relies on AF. The last few > times I used AF, I was cursing it. Then your not using it right! I have always been a Manual focuser,...for 24 years of photography. I find myself enjoying the AFS of the Nikon for the most part. The thing to remember (as stated in the camera's manual) is that continuous tone things like walls clothing and stuff cannot be relied upon for AFS, therefore pick an edge of what you shooting (Works wonders) You just anticipate and move the camera back to position with your finger on the button. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >>>On the tele end, it's not a problem. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It isn't just "over 50mm", it's probably more like the over 100mm ones that > aren't going to be any issue. I would bet it begins well below 50. Again, not sure where. 28, 35 <ish>. >> > I know you too are wishing and hopeing that ALL of your old minolta >> > lenses will work excelent on a FF body, the WA ones probably won't. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why would you guess that? See below. > I'm not convinced the 28mm to 100mm lenses are going to fare much better. > The exit pupils are in ~the same place as the wider ones are. The 10-22 EFS > covers these angles and shouldn't suffer from these problems since it was > designed for this application. There are so many people shooting the "standard middle pro zoom" (28-80 f/2.8) on FF sensored cameras who are not complaining about it. >>The WA EF-S lenses *do not* do better... > > Sure they do, look at the results from them. On a FF sensor, how do they do? Worse than the other lenses. See my prior para below. >>they don't have to reach into >>the corners, they're not challenged to do better; they're limited to use [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than someone saying a full frame lens is "cropped" because it doesn't cover > medium format. You're side stepping. See your EF-S argument above. >>The Zuiko 7-14mm tells the story in part: it is quite deep for it's FL >>range. Dimensions: 3.4" D x 4.7" L (86.5 mm x 119.5 mm). which is close [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > when it's Canon, these guys accept this as normal and nothing to complain > about? You're stretching the reality. Oh, it's Stacey. Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. SNIP > It has been explained to me that a Digital sensor has some quite > specific needs in a lens and not many 35mm film lenses are good > choices for a DSLR. I'd rather describe it as; a lens design for digital imaging could be optimized in a different way than it should for analog imaging. It refers to the fact that analog/film images can exhibit very high resolution, but at low contrast (or rather modulation in MTF measurements). Digital images are resolution limited by the sampling density, and some sensors are small enough to require a smaller image circle. That in fact means that lens design optimization has different goals between lenses for analog and/or digital use (relatively high MTF for also higher spatial frequencies for analog, and high MTF below but zero MTF beyond Nyquist for digital). > This might answer why the plastic "Kit" lens is halfway decent when > it's specifications indicate it should be awful and the 24~70 "L" > series is less than a star performer on a DSLR, producing image > errors which only one RAW developer I know about can fix. C1 / Rawshooter (same programmer) by default extracts more detail (and potentially noise, if not attenuated) than other converters. DxO also uses postprocessing to enhance the image information that lurks in the data. It would be even better if the lens design was optimized for the intended capture medium, but sensible postprocessing can recover some of the potential losses (lens optimization/aberration correction and Bayer CFA reconstruction at limited bit depth). An example of recovering some potential: <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Batavia_Crop.jpg> by using a restoration method frequently used in astro-photography. By the way, the lens used was an EF 24-70mm f/2.8 at f/8, the crops are at 100% zoom. Bart Seems there are some closed-minded opinions out there who question your naivete, rather than answering questions with factual answers! (immature and childish reactions!) Consider this... 1. Wide angle lenses near the edges of frames appear to have more CA that normal/tele lenses. This is, accoring to some articles, due to simple laws of optics, that have light rays striking the sensor frame edges more at a more oblique angle and the different wavelengths of light impinging differently on the same pixel. 2. Due to above, camera manufacturers have designed 'digital' lenses to make the light rays fall not so obliquely, and 3. Due to Item 1, digital editing software writers have designed in CA correction features into their software. One can deduce, therefore, that the CA issue is REAL, but is accentuated for very very wide angle lenses, which are not needed so much by the FF cameras. 20-24mm for FF requires 12-15mm in a 1.6 crop DSLR...so you can see the even shorter focal lengths of 1.6 crop would fall more obliquely on the sensor than the lense for FF DSLR. But should the lenses be redesigned 'for digital'?...<shrug> I don't think the question has been truly addresses! There are many people out their with vast inventories of lenses, who want FF so that they can use that arsenal with out reinvestment, so it is in their best interests to *not* have to reinvest. On the other hand, if you seek the unattainble 'perfection', you might have to belly up to the bar and admit that some of those lenses *just might* need replacement for the DSLR realm, even if FF! > 1. Wide angle lenses near the edges of frames appear to have more CA > that normal/tele lenses. This is, accoring to some articles, due to > simple laws of optics, that have light rays striking the sensor frame > edges more at a more oblique angle and the different wavelengths of > light impinging differently on the same pixel. I know your statement above is widely believed. However, it is untrue. First of all, lets forget about this "CA" thing, and call it what it really is: lateral chromatic aberration. People in the optics industry call it lateral color. Yes, lateral color tends to be worse with wide angle lenses than with normal or tele lenses. However, its root cause is the asymmetry of the reversed-telephoto wide angle design required for all SLR cameras, and has nothing to do with the angle of the light rays. It is visible on both digital and film, as well as on a test bench looking directly at the aerial image. The "simple laws of optics" that you mention don't exist. Consider the fact that some normal lenses have identical exit pupil distances to certain wide angle lenses. A very good example is the 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor and the 24/2.0 Nikkor. Both have an exit pupil distance of 57mm, which means that the corner ray strikes the sensor at an angle of about 21 degrees. Many people would automatically assume that both lenses would have the same "CA" since both have identical ray angles. But this is not the case: the 55 has virtually no lateral color but the 24 has a large amount of it. Brian >> 1. Wide angle lenses near the edges of frames appear to have more CA >> that normal/tele lenses. This is, accoring to some articles, due to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > angles. But this is not the case: the 55 has virtually no lateral > color but the 24 has a large amount of it. Perhaps I missed something here, but you are basically confirming the fact that the wider angle the lens, the more issues of [lateral] chromatic aberation must be dealt with. Since, to get the same wide angle view on a APS-C camera as a 35mm camera, we need wider lenses by a factor of 2/3 (assuming a 1.5x crop factor), then the OP is correct, in spite of the semantics presented here. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. > Perhaps I missed something here, but you are basically confirming the > fact that the wider angle the lens, the more issues of [lateral] > chromatic aberation must be dealt with. Since, to get the same wide > angle view on a APS-C camera as a 35mm camera, we need wider lenses by a > factor of 2/3 (assuming a 1.5x crop factor), then the OP is correct, in > spite of the semantics presented here. Thomas: I certainly would agree that lateral color is something you have to deal with in wide angle SLR lenses. If you want to get really technical, its the secondary lateral color that is the real problem, and this can only be addressed in a reversed telephoto design by skillful use of glasses having abnormal partial dispersion. What I object to is that many people automatically assume that wide angle lenses have trouble with digital cameras because the exit pupil distance is too short, or, in other words, the ray incidence angles at the sensor are too steep. However, its a fact that many under-performing wide and superwide lenses have *less* steep ray incidence angles than certain normal or even short telephoto lenses that perform extremely well. Obviously, the popular conception about why wide angle lenses don't always work well on digital is seriously flawed. Does it really matter? Probably not. After all, none of the people posting incorrect explanations on news groups will ever have to actually fix the underlying optical problems. And its undoubtedly a good thing that so many people are dissatisfied, since that will spur the lens makers to get their acts together faster than anything else. Brian > So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for "Enthusiasts" > actually fit in the scheme of things? ~ $3300 not $5000 SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com >>So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for "Enthusiasts" >>actually fit in the scheme of things? > > ~ $3300 not $5000 Where I live, the world does not stop at the boarder patrol of Homeland security. $3300 US is $5k AUD. I'm always curious when Americans presume they are the only race in the world. The only currency in the world and in control of the world! SignatureDouglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! >>>So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for "Enthusiasts" >>>actually fit in the scheme of things? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >they are the only race in the world. The only currency in the world and >in control of the world! Where I live, failure to qualify the "$" means you are talking about USD's by default. Have you absolutely no brain whatsoever? pixby <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in news:43135538$1 @dnews.tpgi.com.au: >>>So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for "Enthusiasts" >>>actually fit in the scheme of things? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they are the only race in the world. The only currency in the world and > in control of the world! Where I live we think of the Aussies as our stupid cousins (we once had a Prime Minister that refered to NZers emigrating to Australia as raising the average IQ of both countries). I tend to refer to the price of things as $ when I mean US$ on any international newsgroup or forum. If I wish to refer to our local currency I would put NZ$ to make it clear. On a .nz group then $ would mean NZ$, a similar thing would work for you where $ could mean AU$ on a .au group. This is about the ability to make oneself understood, which you lack! I don't know if it is deliberate or simple ignorance, but nothing in your post indicates that you are referring to anything other than US$. Mark Heyes (New Zealand) See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05) "There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't" > Mark Heyes (New Zealand) > See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05) > "There are 10 types of people, those that > understand binary and those that don't" Hey Mark, is this where you live or work? http://www.gigatech.co.nz/People/Lan1.htm SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com "Beach Bum" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in news:5gPQe.67286$Yx1.20979 @tornado.tampabay.rr.com: >> Mark Heyes (New Zealand) >> See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.gigatech.co.nz/People/Lan1.htm I have move houses since, but that is where I lived. I work from home, so that is also where I worked as well. SignatureMark Heyes (New Zealand) See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 16-August-05) "The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken for a young man in any language, especially Braille." Maskerade > > Hey Mark, is this where you live or work? > > > > http://www.gigatech.co.nz/People/Lan1.htm > > I have move houses since, but that is where I lived. I work from home, so > that is also where I worked as well. Cool. It looks like it would be a blast. :) SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > >>So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for "Enthusiasts" > >>actually fit in the scheme of things? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they are the only race in the world. The only currency in the world and > in control of the world! It's customary in international circles to use a national designator for monetary units. USD is assumed unless otherwise noted. Sorry if you don't like that - it's not my fault the USA is the most powerful economy on the planet and the standard by which all things are measured. <g> IOW, take a chill pill and get a life. SignatureMark Photos, Ideas & Opinions http://www.marklauter.com > Where I live, the world does not stop at the boarder patrol of Homeland > security. $3300 US is $5k AUD. I'm always curious when Americans presume > they are the only race in the world. The only currency in the world and > in control of the world! Don't piss _US_ off; /You'll/ be next. -- Slack >>> So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for >>> "Enthusiasts" actually fit in the scheme of things? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Americans presume they are the only race in the world. The only > currency in the world and in control of the world! Then say AUD$5000. Whether you like it or not, US dollars are presumed unless stated otherwise around here. BTW, US$3300 is about AUD$4385, these days. So if you're paying more, then Canon are screwing you in Aussieland. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>>> So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for >>>> "Enthusiasts" actually fit in the scheme of things? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Odd presumption for a mere mortal Canuk. Around here originates in the UK, I believe, despite you trying to claim the Presidency. Actually the Canon Australia web site lists the EOS 5D at AUD$5499. You are about a grand shy of the mark Alan... Lots of screwing going on down here to be sure! Check out some Testerone injections Alan. They'll get rid of that male menopausal attitude of yours real quick mate! SignatureDouglas >>>So where exactly does a $5000 consumer camera intended for "Enthusiasts" >>>actually fit in the scheme of things? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they are the only race in the world. The only currency in the world and in > control of the world! No, we just forget that others call their currency "dollars," but have little relation to what we call "dollars." SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > Where I live, the world does not stop at the boarder patrol of Homeland > security. $3300 US is $5k AUD. I'm always curious when Americans presume > they are the only race in the world. The only currency in the world and > in control of the world! American's aren't a race, Home Sapien Sapien is a race, and all humans on this planet are part of it ... wait, that is the species, a race designation is really non-existant. OK, as far as dollars go, I think the US had dollars before the Aussies and even the Canucks. World curreny trade values are most often compared to the American Dollar, so unless you deviate from "normal", a dollar can be inferred to be American in any general conversation. Isn't USENET 90% American? For that fact, isn't the Internet 90% American? Wasn't the Internet and USENET an American creation? Sheesh! SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. > Certainly there may be purpose in full frame sensor if your work is > demanding enough to need photos of poster size and larger. A 12 meg file > size is then of questionable value too. You forget one of the most obvious effects of a larger [full-size] sensor. Wide angle photography. The ability to use existing lenses for wide-angle shots is a plus. The effectiveness of the APS-C designed wide-angle lenses has still to catch up [I haven't seen a single prime lens]. SignatureThomas T. Veldhouse Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 Spammers please contact me at renegade@veldy.net. > You forget one of the most obvious effects of a larger [full-size] > sensor. Wide angle photography. The ability to use existing lenses for > wide-angle shots is a plus. The effectiveness of the APS-C designed > wide-angle lenses has still to catch up [I haven't seen a single prime > lens]. No, but from the reviews, the EF-S 10-22 seems to have better quality than the EF 14mm f/2.8L and perhaps about even quality to the EF 20mm f/2.8. I had no complaints with it when I borrowed it some months ago, as well. I'm not sure a prime in that range would really be much better. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > I'm not sure a prime in that range would really be much better. Threre is no advantage for primes in this range. Check the # of lenses and the # of groups for a super-ww prime and compare against a zoom. With the extreme retrofocus design needed for WW there is no disadvante for zooms (given the mftr know how to make good ones) Benedikt |
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
|
©2009 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.