 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 13:44, Darren New wrote:
> Ken wrote:
>> plenty of room to grow into the hobby.
>
> Oh, I've got the hobby plenty. I took some 1400 film photos and 9 hours
> of video in Africa. It's just the first *digital* SLR I've owned.
I'd be curious to hear (now or later) a comparison between the digital
SLR's and the film ones. I'm guessing noise would be a big benefit. But
does it improve workflow, etc?
Do you touch up (lightly or heavily) your photos using some software?
Did this change because of the digital SLR, or did you do that even with
film (darkroom? scan and touch up?).
Just curious.
--
For a while, she had a boyfriend with a wooden leg. Then she broke it off.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>
> I am fairly certain that the VR element is locked in place when the VR
> unit disengages. You can test it yourself: Simply turn off the camera
> while the VR switch is set to "On" (but not while the VR motor is
> running). Does the lens rattle? Mine sure do not, and I would consider
> it a serious defect if they did.
>
Even that should be pretty easy to do in the firmware. I mean, the power
switch probably ain't physical, it's only logical, so it could say
"Drive VR to standby position, shut down the VR, and shut down the camera".
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> I'd be curious to hear (now or later) a comparison between the
> digital SLR's and the film ones.
Sure. I don't imagine there'd be a big difference between a DSLR and a
decent digital camera of non-slr stripe. Of course, a digital camera where
you're viewing what the camera is viewing is a bunch easier to deal with odd
situations like long-term exposures and such.
> I'm guessing noise would be a big benefit.
I don't know what that means. Certainly the non-SLR digital cameras can be
set to be completely silent. I got many a good pictures I wasn't supposed to
be taking that way. ;-)
> But does it improve workflow, etc?
Well, the film camera originally went into books. The digital photos got
composed and then printed out on 8x11 pages. (Sadly, there are really no
decent photo composition programs out there that make putting together such
pages easy and flexible, to the point where I'd begun writing one myself.)
I later scanned and touched up the best of the printed photos, and I select
down the way-too-many digital photos I take and arrange them in directories
and such.
So the flow is utterly different, at least for vacation photos.
> Do you touch up (lightly or heavily) your photos using some
> software?
Pretty much. Mostly just contrast and such.
> Did this change because of the digital SLR, or did you do that
> even with film (darkroom? scan and touch up?).
Scan and retouch. I think film is much more forgiving of color balance and
contrast than digital seems to be.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 19:10, Darren New wrote:
>> I'm guessing noise would be a big benefit.
>
> I don't know what that means. Certainly the non-SLR digital cameras can
> be set to be completely silent. I got many a good pictures I wasn't
> supposed to be taking that way. ;-)
Graininess. As in you can take pictures at ISO 800 or higher and not
worry about too many dots showing up.
--
**FLASH** Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Graininess. As in you can take pictures at ISO 800 or higher and not
> worry about too many dots showing up.
On film, or digital? I think film is much less grainy than digital. It does
much better in low light.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 21:19, Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Graininess. As in you can take pictures at ISO 800 or higher and not
>> worry about too many dots showing up.
>
> On film, or digital? I think film is much less grainy than digital. It
> does much better in low light.
That's not the conventional wisdom. Good DSLR's have very little
graininess at ISO 800. Really good ones have little even at 1600 ISO.
I'm wondering if you're confused with long exposures leading to noise.
CCD's have some "inherent" noise that gets brighter the longer the
exposure (and always on the same spots from photo to photo). This was a
bigger problem for digital non-SLR's. The solution was to take _two_
exposures: One the "actual" exposure, and the other a totally dark one
(shutter doesn't open) of the same time. Then subtract the noise.
Most good digital cameras have a mode where it does all this for you.
--
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> was a bigger problem for digital non-SLR's.
No, it was a problem for cheap digital non-SLRs. For decent digital
non-SLRs, they solve it the same way.
And really, "SLR" is a misnomer at this point. The little cameras with the
LCD on the back and no viewfinder at all are "single-lens". I'm not sure
what the "reflex" part means, but all cameras nowadays have a single lens.
> Most good digital cameras have a mode where it does all this for you.
Yeah, exactly.
In any case, I've noticed more grain in the digital pictures than the film
pictures. Can't say why, other than the film pictures were all printed
before being scanned, so that might have something to do with it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/28/09 21:57, Darren New wrote:
>> was a bigger problem for digital non-SLR's.
>
> No, it was a problem for cheap digital non-SLRs. For decent digital
> non-SLRs, they solve it the same way.
I know. What I meant was that the actual noise was worse in digital
non-SLR's (assuming you don't do frame subtraction on either). With some
good digital SLR's, you don't get too much noise for equivalent
exposures even if you disable dark frame subtraction.
As for higher ISO noise, I don't know from personal experience - I was
just repeating what I've read. I was not into photography when I had a
film camera, and probably all my film was ISO 100.
--
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> a film camera, and probably all my film was ISO 100.
True enough. I don't think I ever shot more than a roll or two of 800.
Usually 200 or 100. Occasionally 25 if I wanted some really long exposures.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> $1150 or so, with a nice lens included. I have several lenses left over
> from my old film camera, too, which makes it nice.
Ah, was about to ask if you considered the Canon before your purchase :-) I
just bought the Canon 450D, and for the same reason didn't need to consider
any comparison with Nikon unless I wanted to also buy a bagful of new
lenses!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
