 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My new camera is here. It seems very ... manual compared to my other
cameras. Why do I need three separate switches to turn on and off autofocus?
Why do you need to be careful to switch off vibration reduction before
turning off the camera?
(Of course, I know the answers. It's rhetorical, see.)
I will say, it seems to take pretty darn nice pictures. :-)
--
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 06/26/09 22:39, Darren New wrote:
> I will say, it seems to take pretty darn nice pictures. :-)
http://web.me.com/aaronandpatty/What_the_Duck/Comic_Strips/Entries/2009/1/6_WTD_95.html
--
How do frogs die? Ker-mit suicide.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> My new camera is here. It seems very ... manual compared to my other
> cameras. Why do I need three separate switches to turn on and off
> autofocus? Why do you need to be careful to switch off vibration
> reduction before turning off the camera?
>
> (Of course, I know the answers. It's rhetorical, see.)
>
> I will say, it seems to take pretty darn nice pictures. :-)
...isn't that... um... absurdly expensive?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> ...isn't that... um... absurdly expensive?
>
In the US? I don't believe so. After all, it's only something like 900€
at Europe.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...isn't that... um... absurdly expensive?
>
> In the US? I don't believe so. After all, it's only something like 900€
> at Europe.
Oh, *only*... :-P
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Oh, *only*... :-P
>
Yes. After all, it's AFAIK the cheapest non-Canon CMOS -based SLR. At
least it's the cheapest CMOS-based Nikon SLR.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh, *only*... :-P
>
> Yes. After all, it's AFAIK the cheapest non-Canon CMOS -based SLR. At
> least it's the cheapest CMOS-based Nikon SLR.
I thought that was the D20...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Oh, *only*... :-P
>>
>> Yes. After all, it's AFAIK the cheapest non-Canon CMOS -based SLR. At
>> least it's the cheapest CMOS-based Nikon SLR.
>
> I thought that was the D20...
>
Can you link specs? I've never heard of such model, Nikon's web-pages
won't show it, neither does Digiwowo.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:39:32 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> My new camera is here. It seems very ... manual compared to my other
> cameras. Why do I need three separate switches to turn on and off
> autofocus? Why do you need to be careful to switch off vibration
> reduction before turning off the camera?
I guess it does not have an "intuitive interface".
http://basicinstructions.net/?p=878
Seriously though, do they actually tell you to disable VR before shutdown?
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:47:09 +0200, Eero Ahonen
<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>> Oh, *only*... :-P
>>>
>>> Yes. After all, it's AFAIK the cheapest non-Canon CMOS -based SLR. At
>>> least it's the cheapest CMOS-based Nikon SLR.
>>
>> I thought that was the D20...
>>
>
> Can you link specs? I've never heard of such model, Nikon's web-pages
> won't show it, neither does Digiwowo.
There were some rumors a few years ago that Nikon would name their coming
model "D20". They did not.
There was a Nikon D200, but that was not a low-end model.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Yes. After all, it's AFAIK the cheapest non-Canon CMOS -based SLR. At
>>> least it's the cheapest CMOS-based Nikon SLR.
>> I thought that was the D20...
>
> Can you link specs? I've never heard of such model, Nikon's web-pages
> won't show it, neither does Digiwowo.
It appears I have my model numbers wrong. It was the D40.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>
> There was a Nikon D200, but that was not a low-end model.
>
It wasn't CMOS either.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> It appears I have my model numbers wrong. It was the D40.
>
D40 is CCD, not CMOS.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> D40 is CCD, not CMOS.
Oh, OK then. Does that make some kind of difference?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> D40 is CCD, not CMOS.
>
> Oh, OK then. Does that make some kind of difference?
>
Yes, it does :). CCD makes more noise in dark.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> ...isn't that... um... absurdly expensive?
$1150 or so, with a nice lens included. I have several lenses left over from
my old film camera, too, which makes it nice.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> ...isn't that... um... absurdly expensive?
>
> $1150 or so, with a nice lens included. I have several lenses left over
> from my old film camera, too, which makes it nice.
Oh, well, if those will work, that's just gravy... ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Can you link specs? I've never heard of such model, Nikon's web-pages
> won't show it, neither does Digiwowo.
Just google
nikon d90
and you come up with reviews, user manuals, everything.
http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D90_ennoprint.pdf
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Seriously though, do they actually tell you to disable VR before shutdown?
Yes. And it really does have a "manual vs auto" focus button on both the
lens and the body. I don't know yet what happens if you set them
differently. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Oh, well, if those will work, that's just gravy... ;-)
You jest, but they're some additional $500-$800 worth of lenses when I
bought them.
One has the glass flopping around loose inside, so I'm not sure how much
that would cost to fix. :-)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D90_ennoprint.pdf
And if you want more marketing...
http://www.europe-nikon.com/downloads/w==/GNEaxCabQL2I_aRF3JcbZXkMJ5WqvG0E/8mnyVqcn5gAGddWe8sYfG~HIYMqdocLy/TVZHMEDcYbmSqSwCX~xTQ/D90_brochure_en.pdf
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:48:26 -0700 schrieb Darren New:
>
> Yes. And it really does have a "manual vs auto" focus button on both the
> lens and the body. I don't know yet what happens if you set them
> differently. :-)
On some lenses you have an M/A and an M setting allowing in the M/A
setting to use the camera automatic as well as manual. So you can
autofocus and if you don't like it refocus manual without changing the
setting. But why there is then a seperate M setting I don't know... maybe
something to do with beeing able to focus over infinity (this is usually
allowed for the autofocus not to damage the mechanics). (BTW I have the
previous model, the D80).
What kind of lenses do you have? I do some macro photography and just
recently started with birds (I got an old manual 300/4.5 for that - still
a long way to go) but thinking about getting an wideangle lens.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Can you link specs? I've never heard of such model, Nikon's web-pages
>> won't show it, neither does Digiwowo.
>
> Just google
> nikon d90
> and you come up with reviews, user manuals, everything.
>
> http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D90_ennoprint.pdf
>
Yes, D90 I know (and I want one, but right now I'm allocating my money
to paraglider and/or automated lawnmower). I asked for the D20 Andrew
wrote about.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> Seriously though, do they actually tell you to disable VR before
>> shutdown?
>
> Yes. And it really does have a "manual vs auto" focus button on both the
> lens and the body. I don't know yet what happens if you set them
> differently. :-)
>
That's because you have a motor-focusing lens (IIRC AI-S). The switch on
the camera affects on the axle on the bajonet, thus enabling autofocus
also for lenses without motors.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:02:55 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> My new camera is here. It seems very ... manual compared to my other
>> cameras. Why do I need three separate switches to turn on and off
>> autofocus? Why do you need to be careful to switch off vibration
>> reduction before turning off the camera?
>>
>> (Of course, I know the answers. It's rhetorical, see.)
>>
>> I will say, it seems to take pretty darn nice pictures. :-)
>
> ...isn't that... um... absurdly expensive?
Depends on whether you have the money for it or not. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> That's because you have a motor-focusing lens (IIRC AI-S). The switch on
> the camera affects on the axle on the bajonet, thus enabling autofocus
> also for lenses without motors.
Yes, I know why. I just don't know what happens if you set them opposite of
each other. :-) As I said, I understand the restrictions. It's just a much
more manual process than my previous "nice" digital camera. (Sony F707)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> What kind of lenses do you have?
Just normal stuff. A 28-300 zoom, a 50mm, a 28mm, and the one that came with
the camera which is a 18-105 I think.
--
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 Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:48:26 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And it really does have a "manual vs auto" focus button on both the lens
> and the body.
I think the one on the body may be needed for older lenses (AF type).
> I don't know yet what happens if you set them differently. :-)
If you do it with an old lens you might damage the focusing motor/gears
when you try to focus manually.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4a459474$1@news.povray.org...
> My new camera is here....
> I will say, it seems to take pretty darn nice pictures. :-)
That's the important part - taking pretty darn nice pictures, I mean :) The
reviews show it to be a good entry level dSLR and will give you plenty of
room to grow into the hobby. Beware of lens envy though as that can be a
very expensive proposition - speaking from personal experience. I've got one
zoom and two primes in the 400mm+ class and lusting for more....
Ken
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:48:26 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> Seriously though, do they actually tell you to disable VR before
>> shutdown?
>
> Yes.
Actually, I think the text in the manual is supposed to mean that you
should not power down the camera while the VR motor is actually running
(which is good advice), but the wording is admittedly vague.
Apparently, the manual also tells you to wash your hands after handling
the cord, lest your future Californian children become defective.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Actually, I think the text in the manual is supposed to mean that you
> should not power down the camera while the VR motor is actually running
> (which is good advice), but the wording is admittedly vague.
Well, it also says don't disconnect the lens from the powered-off camera
while in VR mode, lest the glass of the lens rattle about.
In any case, it doesn't matter why. The thing has like 30 buttons on the
outside, most of them multi-function, and a menu system so complex that you
can rearrange it to suit your own preferences. Yet some of the stuff is
surprisingly manual and mechanical, still. :-)
> Apparently, the manual also tells you to wash your hands after handling
> the cord, lest your future Californian children become defective.
Yeah, welcome to CA, where every product and building comes with that
warning, but nobody can tell you where or what the bad stuff actually is.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
And I'll probably keep the three digital pocket cameras and two digital big
cameras I own in addition to this one.
--
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 Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:42:29 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, it also says don't disconnect the lens from the powered-off camera
> while in VR mode, lest the glass of the lens rattle about.
Because the VR element is not locked in place while the VR motor is
running. Poor wording on their part I think.
> The thing has like 30 buttons on the outside, most of them
> multi-function, and a menu system so complex that you can rearrange it
> to suit your own preferences.
It is the Nikon way.
> Yet some of the stuff is surprisingly manual and mechanical, still. :-)
I would say that is a good thing.
>> Apparently, the manual also tells you to wash your hands after handling
>> the cord, lest your future Californian children become defective.
>
> Yeah, welcome to CA, where every product and building comes with that
> warning, but nobody can tell you where or what the bad stuff actually is.
Well, lead in this case. Do you actually get health warnings that do not
specify the hazard?
I checked my own camera manual: Californians are informed about
perchlorate material in the battery. No defective babies though.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:42:29 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Well, it also says don't disconnect the lens from the powered-off
>> camera while in VR mode, lest the glass of the lens rattle about.
>
> Because the VR element is not locked in place while the VR motor is
> running. Poor wording on their part I think.
I think it's fine wording. My point is that I'm surprised the camera is as
sophisticated as it is, yet not smart enough to lock the VR element when you
turn off the camera. They have room to put special effects and slide show
playback (along with music) in the firmware, but not enough to say "lock the
element when he turns off the power". :-)
>> Yet some of the stuff is surprisingly manual and mechanical, still. :-)
> I would say that is a good thing.
Ehn. It doesn't really seem to do anything different from my Sony F707,
until you start doing things with remote flashes, double-exposures, and etc.
> Well, lead in this case. Do you actually get health warnings that do not
> specify the hazard?
Pretty much every building here says "this building has things in it that
are bad for you."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Pretty much every building here says "this building has things in it
> that are bad for you."
Do the buildings contain Californians?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:47:16 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I think it's fine wording. My point is that I'm surprised the camera is
> as sophisticated as it is, yet not smart enough to lock the VR element
> when you turn off the camera. They have room to put special effects and
> slide show playback (along with music) in the firmware, but not enough
> to say "lock the element when he turns off the power". :-)
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.
>>> Yet some of the stuff is surprisingly manual and mechanical, still. :-)
>> I would say that is a good thing.
>
> Ehn. It doesn't really seem to do anything different from my Sony F707,
> until you start doing things with remote flashes, double-exposures, and
> etc.
Well, it is a matter of how you use it I suppose.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nawazorg<<<<<<
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Just normal stuff. A 28-300 zoom,
I need a lens like that, ATM I have something like a 17-85 that I use most
of the time, then a 75-300 for telephoto stuff, it's sometimes annoying to
have to keep swapping.
> a 50mm,
I have the Canon 50mm F1.8 and it really is superb value for money,
especially in low light situations or when you need a massive background
blur. You need some ND filters to get the most out of it in bright sunlight
though.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:57:33 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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.
It means there is a mirror in there.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> 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!
>
That's one good reason for me to go for Nikon also. The other one is
ergonomic - most Canon SLR's have the trigger pointed more forward than
most of Nikon SLR's and that makes a whole different position for my
upper body, resulting in steadier position with Nikon than with Canon.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Ah, was about to ask if you considered the Canon before your purchase
We did, actually, but we had to factor in having the lenses. Canon wasn't
*enough* better...
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> most Canon SLR's have the trigger pointed more forward
Oddly, the way the strap is connected to the Nikon, the camera tends to hang
at a 45-degree angle with any lens more than a couple inches long, leaving
the bottom edge to dig into your chest if you let it hang. I guess it's hard
to fix it, at least without putting (say) swivel mounts for the straps or
something.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
