 |
 | 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 2006Specification items that have fallen by the side
When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, predictably, have fallen to the side as the non-issues they always were for most photographers. 1. Startup time. Great debate over camera x being "the best" because it started in 2 seconds v. camera y that took an eternal 3 seconds. 2. Frame rate. Cameras that shot at a mere 3 frames per second and that could only hold this up for a mere 12 frames or so were vilified. "How can I possibly have a camera that won't do 5 frames per second!?!?" 3. Transfer rates. "Oh my, it can only transfer at 1.5 Mbytes per second, what a piece of trash." 4. Plastic Phantastic. Metal framed bodies are heavy and usually feel good to the hand, that is true. "Plastic is crap." Well, of course, that is not true at all. Plastic (high strength polycarbonate, actually) is less expensive to produce, lighter and very robust. Further, in being a little more flexible, it absorbs and dissipates shock better than an all metal camera can, protecting the delicate moving parts of the camera. While some, or even all, of the points above might be important for special uses here and there for a small number of photographers, they remain the non-issues that they were before for most. 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. > When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in > those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > special uses here and there for a small number of photographers, they > remain the non-issues that they were before for most. Interesting observations. One and three have been taken care of (mostly) by the manufacturers producing better specs. Four is a matter of education and acceptance. Only frame rate is of interest to me, even though I use burst mode infrequently. SignatureJohn McWilliams > When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in > those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, predictably, > have fallen to the side as the non-issues they always were for most > photographers. I think this constant "megapixel battle" is the one that annoys me most. I have a 6MP camera that produces a 5MB file, which is fine for me. I just would not want a camera that pumps out 10mb+ size files - total overkill. >>When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in >>those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, predictably, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have a 6MP camera that produces a 5MB file, which is fine for me. I just > would not want a camera that pumps out 10mb+ size files - total overkill. As I print largish images from high MTF lenses, I can't concur with that. Memory is ever cheaper, so give me what my lenses can deliver. It's not about the MB size of the image but about resolvable detail in the image. If I print at 300 dpi (more than adequate), then for a 15x10" image I would need a 4500 x 3000 = 13.5 Mpix camera. On a 1.5X sensor that comes to a pixel pitch of: 4500 / 24mm = 187.5 pix/mm or an MTF of 94 lp/mm Right about about what my better lenses do at a couple stops closed. (They actually do somewhat better than that, but that's a more than reasonable target). The Mpix race won't end very quickly, although, for most uses 6 - 10 Mpix is more than adequate. If you print up to 12x8", 6 Mpix is reasonable; 10 Mpix, desirable. 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. > As I print largish images from high MTF lenses, I can't concur with > that. Memory is ever cheaper, so give me what my lenses can deliver. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Actually the 6mp produces a 5mb jpeg, but beside storing the jpeg the file is actually an 18mb file when opened. The file should be edited in its uncompressed (nonlossy compression like LZW is fine) version. Anyway Alan try the Nikon D200, makes very nice files with good lenses. I'm constantly amazed at the clarity of the 55 micro I just bought for the camera. Not exotic but an extemely sharp optic. Tom > -- > -- 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. >>As I print largish images from high MTF lenses, I can't concur with >>that. Memory is ever cheaper, so give me what my lenses can deliver. >>It's not about the MB size of the image but about resolvable detail in >>the image. <snipped> >>The Mpix race won't end very quickly, although, for most uses 6 - 10 >>Mpix is more than adequate. If you print up to 12x8", 6 Mpix is >>reasonable; 10 Mpix, desirable. > Actually the 6mp produces a 5mb jpeg, but beside storing the jpeg the > file is actually an 18mb file when opened. The file should be edited in > its uncompressed (nonlossy compression like LZW is fine) version. And again the number of Mbytes is irrelevant. It's the output-to-the-printer resolution that, in the end, will make or break the image. > Anyway Alan try the Nikon D200, makes very nice files with good lenses. > I'm constantly amazed at the clarity of the 55 micro I just bought for > the camera. Not exotic but an extemely sharp optic. I'm unlikely to buy a Nikon DSLR. Either Sony does right (and the A100 is many ways short of right) by my lenses, or I jump one day to Canon. 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. > > When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in > > those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, predictably, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have a 6MP camera that produces a 5MB file, which is fine for me. I just > would not want a camera that pumps out 10mb+ size files - total overkill. Raw files from my Pentax *istD (6 MP) are approximately 13.5MB, while TIFF files are 17.5MB. > When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in > those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > shock better than an all metal camera can, protecting the delicate > moving parts of the camera. Cold comfort when you are holding those parts in your hand because the body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, smashed plastic Rebels and D70's, but few if any 20Ds, 1DsMkIIs, etc. Something that heavy is going to have a far greater impact energy than a plastic camera, but they still seem to keep together. > Cold comfort when you are holding those parts in your hand because the > body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, > smashed plastic Rebels and D70's, but few if any 20Ds, 1DsMkIIs, etc. > Something that heavy is going to have a far greater impact energy than > a plastic camera, but they still seem to keep together. Sure you have Rich. What an utter crock. > Cold comfort when you are holding those parts in your hand because the > body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, > smashed plastic Rebels and D70's, but few if any 20Ds, 1DsMkIIs, etc. Oh yeah? Care to share those? Not that I am calling you a liar or anything, but: There are some pictures of broken D70s that I have seen and I have heard a few reports. Invariably what was broken was either the top LCD (the rear one rarely breaks because of the PLASTIC protector) or the built-in flash. I have seen one picture of a D70 that was dropped from a vehicle moving at 60kph in the Sahara desert. The lens is torn off the METAL mount. The flash is broken. It is covered and filled with sand and grit. But the body is intact. So, okay. If you don't come up with the pics, we will all know you are a liar. > > Cold comfort when you are holding those parts in your hand because the > > body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > So, okay. If you don't come up with the pics, we will all know you are > a liar. Old Rich seems to forget that most of the bodies are made fromm polycarbonates, similar if not the same as the plastics used in crash helmets. They do break, but you'd almost have to drive a Bradley fighting vehicle over one to make it do so. >>> Cold comfort when you are holding those parts in your hand because the >>> body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > helmets. They do break, but you'd almost have to drive a Bradley > fighting vehicle over one to make it do so. Haven't you been told a million times not to exaggerate? A Toyota Landcruiser is all that's needed: http://imagebank.digitalartist.com.my/Libya/Broken-Nikon-D70.jpg >>>> Cold comfort when you are holding those parts in your hand because the >>>> body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > A Toyota Landcruiser is all that's needed: > http://imagebank.digitalartist.com.my/Libya/Broken-Nikon-D70.jpg Whoops! I am sure Rich's D1sMk2 would have still been in perfrct condition though. Come on Rich tell us about the time that you dropped one from the Tower of Pizza one time you were testing!! > > > Cold comfort when you are holding those parts in your hand because the > > > body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > helmets. They do break, but you'd almost have to drive a Bradley > fighting vehicle over one to make it do so. He also seems to forget that even the 'metal' bodies are mostly plastic. Still -- has anyone here seen an "exploding" camera? I mean, Rich says it happens all the time. Maybe he thinks that Sony batteries are really cameras. > > Cold comfort when you are holding those parts in your hand because the > > body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, > > smashed plastic Rebels and D70's, but few if any 20Ds, 1DsMkIIs, etc. [snip] > If you don't come up with the pics, we will all know you are > a liar. No, we won't. I have seen a tram being pushed by its passengers. I have seen a woman being attacked as policemen sat idly by. I don't have photographs of these events. Do you know that I am lying? Similarly, just because Rich has seen lots of pictures does not mean that he is in any position to distribute them. Cheers, Luke SignatureLincoln City 0-2 Southend United (AET) Swansea City 2-2 Southend United We went up twice with Tilly and Brush >> When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in >> those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Something that heavy is going to have a far greater impact energy than > a plastic camera, but they still seem to keep together. My experience was one which turned me white with shock when it happened 18 months ago. I had my D70 with attached 80-400 VR in hand as I walked out my front door. The strap caught the door knob and D70 and lens were pulled out of my hand, did a slow motion backward rotation and slammed to the ground. I was shaken. I inspected for visible damage and only found a scuff to the lens hood. I then conducted numerous function tests and was relieved to find both survived and work well to date. I have heard of some D70 case fractures which seem to be determined by the point of impact(corners, etc.) rather than the strength of construction materiels. I can only vouch for the build strength of both My D70 and the 80-400 VR. Regards, Leonard > > 4. Plastic Phantastic. Metal framed bodies are heavy and usually feel > > good to the hand, that is true. "Plastic is crap." Well, of course, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of pictures of cracked, > smashed plastic Rebels and D70's, Sure you have. Greg ||| Alan Browne wrote: |||| [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] ||| because the body exploded on impact. I've seen lots of ||| pictures of cracked, smashed plastic Rebels and D70's, Did the pictures happen to be taken with that same Rebel or D70? Signature-- "The early bird gets the worm, the second mouse gets the cheese." -- Unknown http://www.obsessionthemovie.com http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/isacrime.html http://home.swbell.net/bjtexas/SS/ My two favorite myths: APS sized sensors cannot possibly deliver quality images. Absolute lens quality has the same meaning in digital photography as it does in film based photography. > My two favorite myths: > APS sized sensors cannot possibly deliver quality images. Agree (that it's a myth). But same boat as MF v. 35mm and FF v. cropped ... larger sensor sites do mean less noise and therefore higher contrast. Larger sensors do mean (potentially) higher res up to or bypassing the res of the lens. That's really where it all stops. > Absolute lens quality has the same meaning in digital photography as it does > in film based photography. That would depend on what you mean by "meaning". 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. >When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in >those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >could only hold this up for a mere 12 frames or so were vilified. "How >can I possibly have a camera that won't do 5 frames per second!?!?" I can't agree with that at all. If you're an action shooter, you want 5 frames per second or faster. That's common knowledge. I'm not a big sports shooter, but the times I have shot sports, I would have liked a faster frame rate to make the job easier to get the right shot. If I shot sports or any fast action for a living, I'd definitely have a camera that does at least 5 fps, probably faster. >>When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in >>those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If I shot sports or any fast action for a living, I'd definitely have a > camera that does at least 5 fps, probably faster. That's not sports shooting, that making a slow film. A good sports shooter KNOWS the sport intimately and know when to depress the trigger. There remain, of course, instances where rapid fire shooting is useful in sports, but it is by far the least sure way of assuring a critical instant photo. My assertion that the frame rate issus is not pertinent is essentially proven by the fact that nobody really discusses the merrits of high fps rates. The number that matters, in fact, and that is not published, is the shutter delay, which in the better SLR's is about 50ms or less. Indeed, pro cameras usually shoot at around 5 fps, but that "feature" is rarely used by seasoned sports photogs. The decisive moment requires decisive, not random action. 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. >That's not sports shooting, that making a slow film. A good sports >shooter KNOWS the sport intimately and know when to depress the trigger. > There remain, of course, instances where rapid fire shooting is useful >in sports, but it is by far the least sure way of assuring a critical >instant photo. So when the pitcher winds up and then throws to first base for a tag, I'm supposed to know that's going to happen? Or what about the bird that suddenly takes flight? Or when my nephew is running across the grass chasing the dog and trips? Or the celebrity shooter looking for one good shot on the red carpet? I don't know what or how you shoot, but obviously it's not the same as what many others do. Taking pictures of plants and street signs is different and fast frame rate isn't needed. But that's not the limit of photography. >The number that matters, in fact, and that is not published, is the >shutter delay, which in the better SLR's is about 50ms or less. Where do you get your info? While not all cameras have published specs, many of them do indeed publish shutter lag times. >>That's not sports shooting, that making a slow film. A good sports >>shooter KNOWS the sport intimately and know when to depress the trigger. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So when the pitcher winds up and then throws to first base for a tag, > I'm supposed to know that's going to happen? If there is someone with a good lead on first and the pitcher is facing the choice, yes, you should be ready. Sports shooters will have dozens of shots of the pitcher throwing over the plate, so when there is a lead at first he'll make the choice of framing the pitcher and waiting for the throw to first or framing the first base runner at lead or the first baseman. > Or what about the bird that suddenly takes flight? Be ready. Nature shooters sit for hours waiting for decive moments to shoot. No sports shooter is blasting frames just before the bird suddenly bursts into flight. > Or when my nephew is running across the grass chasing the dog and trips? So, is that what you actually do? > Or the celebrity shooter looking for one good shot on the red carpet? As those are most often flash shots, the shooter shoots one at a time and lets the flash recycle. Even with battery packs the flash takes some time to recharge. > I don't know what or how you shoot, but obviously it's not the same as > what many others do. Taking pictures of plants and street signs is > different and fast frame rate isn't needed. But that's not the limit of > photography. I shoot action including volleyball and soccer. Soccer is not that hard, just anticipation; volleyball is very difficult to get floor saves. I've never, not once, used multiple frame shooting for sports. I sometimes (rarely) volley a bracket of 3 or 5 frames but that's for exposure reasons not trying to luck in to a shot. >>The number that matters, in fact, and that is not published, is the >>shutter delay, which in the better SLR's is about 50ms or less. > > Where do you get your info? While not all cameras have published specs, > many of them do indeed publish shutter lag times. For instance? (references please). The only shutter lag time data I've ever seen are by users using various methods to arrive at the lag time (turntable tests; accoustic). It is not usually part of the maker spec sheet. 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. >>>That's not sports shooting, that making a slow film. Fast frame rate exists for a reason. If you don't like it or choose not to use it, that's up to you. Your camera probably has auto focus and auto metering, and you can use them or not as well. I'll continue to take advantage of what my camera has to offer, thank you very much. >> Where do you get your info? While not all cameras have published specs, >> many of them do indeed publish shutter lag times. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(turntable tests; accoustic). It is not usually part of the maker spec >sheet. Go to the Canon or Nikon sites and look at the specs... >>For instance? (references please). The only shutter lag time data I've >>ever seen are by users using various methods to arrive at the lag time >>(turntable tests; accoustic). It is not usually part of the maker spec >>sheet. > > Go to the Canon or Nikon sites and look at the specs... They don't have shutter lag specs in their sheets that I can find, so please, do provide a direct and specific reference. 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. [...] >> Or the celebrity shooter looking for one good shot on the red carpet? > >As those are most often flash shots, the shooter shoots one at a time >and lets the flash recycle. Even with battery packs the flash takes >some time to recharge. Sorry Alan, but I beg to differ. I shoot with a flash (Canon 550-EX loaded with NiMH cells, no external pack) most of the time, & I can typically get 4-5 flash shots in a burst (Canon 1Dmk2, slow cont. mode) before the flash needs to stop for recycling. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > typically get 4-5 flash shots in a burst (Canon 1Dmk2, slow cont. > mode) before the flash needs to stop for recycling. You can disagree all you like until the point where the lighting is such and the film is slow and the aperture is stopped down for DOF and "bang" your pack is discharged in one or two shots. Of course you can always set your ISO to 400 or 800 and shoot at f/2.8 to extend your charge and batteries, but getting good shots while blasting is really a lottery. 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. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to extend your charge and batteries, but getting good shots while >blasting is really a lottery. No, it's not. I do the above quite frequently, & I've only twice *ever* had the 550EX flash run out of grunt during the burst. I also reliably get good shots that way. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > *ever* had the 550EX flash run out of grunt during the burst. I also > reliably get good shots that way. Is this on high speed synch, or with the subject fairly close in? Would Ni-cads work for this? I have both the 550 and 580, and most of the time it's a full discharge, sometimes 80 feet away under poor field lights. Signaturejohn mcwilliams "Andre, a simple peasant, had only one thing on his mind as he crept along the East wall: 'Andre creep ... Andre creep ... Andre creep'." [...] >> No, it's not. I do the above quite frequently, & I've only twice >> *ever* had the 550EX flash run out of grunt during the burst. I also >> reliably get good shots that way. > >Is this on high speed synch, or with the subject fairly close in? No, & yes: Typically 1/25 - 1/60, shutter priority, 2nd curtain flash, 2-6 metres from subject[s], flash dialed down 1/3 - 2/3 of a stop. (Although I've occasionally done the same for sports shooting with more conventional settings.) > Would >Ni-cads work for this? Not as well. NiMHs are better suited to flashguns than NiCads, & single-use batteries are just about worthless in them. >I have both the 550 and 580, and most of the time it's a full discharge, >sometimes 80 feet away under poor field lights. That's pushing your flash & batteries pretty hard. If you are using NiCads, you should start by tossing them & upgrading to modern + cheap (2200mAH or higher) NiMh's. You should probably also consider trying out an external battery pack, if you regularly need to shoot bursts with flash at those sorts of distances. SignatureW . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > [...] >>> No, it's not. I do the above quite frequently, & I've only twice [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > out an external battery pack, if you regularly need to shoot bursts > with flash at those sorts of distances. Thanks. I did borrow a flash pack, an older Quantarray, but it did not seem to improve the recycle time appreciably. I frequently set it to 1/250 and wide open using the 70-200 ƒ8, and let the flash try to handle it, shooting US football and lacrosse at night. Much slower and I get blur. (Using monopod and IS). I know I don't have it right, but that's where I am right now, but I will get a pack or two of the NiMHs' soon. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>That's not sports shooting, that making a slow film. A good sports >>shooter KNOWS the sport intimately and know when to depress the trigger. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So when the pitcher winds up and then throws to first base for a tag, > I'm supposed to know that's going to happen? Yes that is the difference between good and lucky. > When DSLR's began their popular rise, there was much debate (in r.p.d in > those days) about a few specification items. Some of these, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 1. Startup time. Great debate over camera x being "the best" because it > started in 2 seconds v. camera y that took an eternal 3 seconds. Well, I'm very glad we're to sub-second startup times. > 2. Frame rate. Cameras that shot at a mere 3 frames per second and that > could only hold this up for a mere 12 frames or so were vilified. "How > can I possibly have a camera that won't do 5 frames per second!?!?" 3fps if fine for me. > 3. Transfer rates. "Oh my, it can only transfer at 1.5 Mbytes per > second, what a piece of trash." Doesn't mean anything to me. Card reader all the way. Greg |
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.