 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] san rrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> It means there is a mirror in there.
Fair enough. One has to wonder why there's still a mirror in there. :-)
My Sony lets the light hit the sensor, then puts the display in the
eyepiece. You don't have to screw around with a whole bunch of internal
mechanics, waiting for the mirror to get out of the way, trying to draw
fancy stuff on the viewfinder without having to do things screwy. :-) No
left-overs from mechanical days. Plus, you can do IR.
I'm still not sure how the thing autofocuses without interrupting the light.
I can only guess it's using a half-silvered mirror, and hence the
prohibition against linear polarizers.
--
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 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:05:50 -0700 schrieb Darren New:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> It means there is a mirror in there.
>
> Fair enough. One has to wonder why there's still a mirror in there. :-)
You'll never get the same resolution with a monitor ;). For me for this
reason live view doesn't make much sense with a DSLR - although I have to
admit that beeing able to shoot movies with different lenses with the
Nikon D90 (and some Canon models) is very cool.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:05:50 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> It means there is a mirror in there.
>
> Fair enough. One has to wonder why there's still a mirror in there. :-)
>
> My Sony lets the light hit the sensor, then puts the display in the
> eyepiece.
Your D90 can do this too, though the image is displayed on the back LCD
instead of in the viewfinder.
> You don't have to screw around with a whole bunch of internal mechanics,
> waiting for the mirror to get out of the way, trying to draw fancy stuff
> on the viewfinder without having to do things screwy. :-) No left-overs
> from mechanical days.
The main drawbacks of not having a mirror are that you cannot have a
through-the-lens optical viewfinder or phase-detect autofocus.
> I'm still not sure how the thing autofocuses without interrupting the
> light. I can only guess it's using a half-silvered mirror, and hence the
> prohibition against linear polarizers.
Actually, there are two mirrors. The big one is indeed semi-transparent.
Most of the light is reflected up towards the viewfinder and exposure
meter, and the rest goes to the smaller mirror which reflects the light
down towards the autofocus sensor. Linear polarisers can mess with
exposure because they can alter the proportion of light that reaches the
exposure sensor.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> You'll never get the same resolution with a monitor ;).
True. But then I can zoom in on bits while I'm lining up the shot to see if
it's in focus and such. My eyes aren't good enough to see that difference
anyway.
And, of course, if they splurged on an LCD with the same resolution as the
image sensor, it would be a bogus reason. (Of course, it would be silly to
do that.)
> For me for this
> reason live view doesn't make much sense with a DSLR
It would make a lot more sense if the LCD swiveled. I can't count the number
of pics I took with my Sony by holding it over the heads of the crowd.
> - although I have to
> admit that beeing able to shoot movies with different lenses with the
> Nikon D90 (and some Canon models) is very cool.
Yep. Altho I find I don't watch the movies nearly as often as I watch the
photos, I *have* figured out how to get the D90 movies to play over the XBox
on the big-screen HDTV.
--
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:
> Your D90 can do this too, though the image is displayed on the back LCD
> instead of in the viewfinder.
Yeah. The Sony I have does both, which is nice when it's bright out. And (as
I said) you can tip the LCD on the Sony so you can shoot from other angles.
> The main drawbacks of not having a mirror are that you cannot have a
> through-the-lens optical viewfinder or phase-detect autofocus.
Sure. I'm just not sure what the benefit of an optical viewfinder is over an
LCD viewfinder. The Sony seems to do a better job of autofocus, but then
I've had years to play with it and learn its quirks, so maybe phase-detect
is a better method.
> Actually, there are two mirrors. The big one is indeed semi-transparent.
> Most of the light is reflected up towards the viewfinder and exposure
> meter, and the rest goes to the smaller mirror which reflects the light
> down towards the autofocus sensor. Linear polarisers can mess with
> exposure because they can alter the proportion of light that reaches the
> exposure sensor.
More precisely, they'll screw up your half-silvered mirrors' reflections.
The linear polarizer is exactly messing with reflections off transparent
surfaces (i.e., prisms), which is exactly why you wear them when fishing or
driving in a car with glass windows that have reflections in them otherwise.
I didn't find the circular polarizer to have any noticable effect on my
photos, tho.
--
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 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:39:33 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The main drawbacks of not having a mirror are that you cannot have a
>> through-the-lens optical viewfinder or phase-detect autofocus.
>
> Sure. I'm just not sure what the benefit of an optical viewfinder is
> over an LCD viewfinder.
Resolution, colour fidelity, response time.
> The Sony seems to do a better job of autofocus, but then I've had years
> to play with it and learn its quirks, so maybe phase-detect is a better
> method.
Phase-detect is generally faster, often much faster. Contrast-detect
autofocus, if implemented well, can be more accurate.
Also, contrast detect AF requires having the sensor powered up.
> I didn't find the circular polarizer to have any noticable effect on my
> photos, tho.
If you are aiming for the "deep-blue sky" look, you will want to point the
lens (with polariser) 90° away from the sun. Of course, you also need to
turn the polariser to match.
If you just want to see the polariser in action, look at an LCD through it
while slowly turning it.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> 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.
>
That is something I have to agree on, but I've learned how to carry the
camera so that that doesn't bother. To be more precise, Nikon is more
ergonomic _for me_ than Canon, everyone has theier own style to shoot,
therefore it ain't The Only Truth :).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
>> It means there is a mirror in there.
>
> Fair enough. One has to wonder why there's still a mirror in there. :-)
>
> My Sony lets the light hit the sensor, then puts the display in the
> eyepiece. You don't have to screw around with a whole bunch of internal
> mechanics, waiting for the mirror to get out of the way, trying to draw
> fancy stuff on the viewfinder without having to do things screwy. :-) No
> left-overs from mechanical days. Plus, you can do IR.
It's possible that I just haven't seen the right one, but every single
LCD-viewfinder I've seen has seriously lagged behind the real world,
hence not getting even near optical viewfinder.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Resolution, colour fidelity, response time.
OK. Resolution on my sony is already better than I can see, and I'm not
going to get faster fidelity or response time out of the camera than it's
giving me on the viewfinder. :-)
> Phase-detect is generally faster, often much faster.
That I noticed, just playing with the live view. Contrast-detect is prett
y
quick on the sony, assuming that's what it's using.
>> I didn't find the circular polarizer to have any noticable effect on
>> my photos, tho.
>
> If you are aiming for the "deep-blue sky" look, you will want to point
> the lens (with polariser) 90° away from the sun. Of course, you al
so
> need to turn the polariser to match.
It's a circular polarizer? I'm pretty sure reflections are linearly
polarized, than that's usually when I want a particular polarizer.
> If you just want to see the polariser in action, look at an LCD through
> it while slowly turning it.
I'll give that a go.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> It's possible that I just haven't seen the right one, but every single
> LCD-viewfinder I've seen has seriously lagged behind the real world,
My Sony lags one picture behind, basically. If you're in the dark and it's
going to take a 1/2 second exposure to get the picture, it lags half a
second. But you see how bright it's going to be (assuming you're not using
the flash and assuming you're not *way* out of line, like into the >2s
exposures), and if things are moving so fast the viewfinder can't keep up,
chances are the rest of the camera won't keep up either. :-)
--
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:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> It's possible that I just haven't seen the right one, but every single
>> LCD-viewfinder I've seen has seriously lagged behind the real world,
>
> My Sony lags one picture behind, basically.
Plus, of course, if you're in the dark, you can line up the shot with
infrared before you take the shot with the flash. :-) Or without the flash,
for that matter.
Definite benefits either way, I suppose.
--
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:
> My Sony lags one picture behind, basically. If you're in the dark and
> it's going to take a 1/2 second exposure to get the picture, it lags
> half a second. But you see how bright it's going to be (assuming you're
> not using the flash and assuming you're not *way* out of line, like into
> the >2s exposures), and if things are moving so fast the viewfinder
> can't keep up, chances are the rest of the camera won't keep up
either. :-)
>
It doubles the delay - when you're aiming for the shot you'll need to
stop for a moment to see what you're shooting. Maybe it's me and my
habit to make fast turns etc, but I've found it annoingly disturbing.
>
> Plus, of course, if you're in the dark, you can line up the shot with
> infrared before you take the shot with the flash. :-) Or without the
> flash, for that matter.
Yes, that's a benefit. But missing that on D90 (does it miss that?) it's
because of software, not because of existence of the optical viewfinder.
As you know, with D90 you can shoot video and AFAIK you see the video on
the LCD at the same time, which proves that it's technically perfectly
possible to turn the mirror, catch the light to the sensor and show it
on screen. Nothing (except filtering optics) prevents from using the IR.
Also nothing (except price) prevents from making the LCD turnable so
that you could use it as a viewfinder while shooting over crowd.
> Definite benefits either way, I suppose.
>
Yep, except nothing stops camera makers from implementing the SLR LCD to
work as a viewfinder and getting those benefits. They just haven't done
it, at least not yet.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:23:39 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Phase-detect is generally faster, often much faster.
>
> That I noticed, just playing with the live view. Contrast-detect is
> pretty quick on the sony, assuming that's what it's using.
It is, but the large depth of field (because of the much smaller sensor)
means that the AF need not be as accurate. The smaller camera also has
much smaller pieces of glass to move when focusing.
>>> I didn't find the circular polarizer to have any noticable effect on
>>> my photos, tho.
>> If you are aiming for the "deep-blue sky" look, you will want to point
>> the lens (with polariser) 90° away from the sun. Of course, you also
>> need to turn the polariser to match.
>
> It's a circular polarizer? I'm pretty sure reflections are linearly
> polarized, than that's usually when I want a particular polarizer.
That is not what "circular polariser" means. A CPL is basically just a
regular linear polariser with a quarter-wave plate on the inside surface.
The effect on the resulting image is the same.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:35:34 +0200, Eero Ahonen
<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Yep, except nothing stops camera makers from implementing the SLR LCD to
> work as a viewfinder and getting those benefits. They just haven't done
> it, at least not yet.
They have. It is called "Live view" and is pretty much standard on recent
SLRs.
Another feature that has been standard for years (with both SLRs and
smaller cameras) is that you can hook up the camera to a computer and use
the computer screen as a viewfinder and/or review screen.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> It is, but the large depth of field (because of the much smaller sensor)
> means that the AF need not be as accurate.
True. The sensor is both smaller and has fewer pixels on the sony.
> The smaller camera also has
> much smaller pieces of glass to move when focusing.
It's not *that* much smaller. I'm not talking about a point-and-shoot here
as such. :-)
> That is not what "circular polariser" means. A CPL is basically just a
> regular linear polariser with a quarter-wave plate on the inside
> surface. The effect on the resulting image is the same.
Oh! Well, I thought it selected out the circularly polarized light, but a
quick wikipedia check explains it. Very cool. I'll definitely try it again.
I had tried it before and not gotten a noticable result, but I must have
messed it up.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> It doubles the delay - when you're aiming for the shot you'll need to
> stop for a moment to see what you're shooting.
If the lens is big enough, the delay becomes trivial. I don't notice a 1/10"
delay, myself, and almost all my daytime shots are faster than that. YMMV.
It certainly takes longer to focus than to get the image from the lens to
the LCD. :-)
>> Plus, of course, if you're in the dark, you can line up the shot with
>> infrared before you take the shot with the flash. :-) Or without the
>> flash, for that matter.
>
> Yes, that's a benefit. But missing that on D90 (does it miss that?)
As far as I know, yes.
> it's because of software, not because of existence of the optical viewfinder.
Well, no, it's because the D90 doesn't have an infrared filter that drops
down over the lens when you say "use infrared." :-)
If you had an optical filter and you're trying to line things up with
infrared, you *eye* would have to be seeing the infrared.
> As you know, with D90 you can shoot video and AFAIK you see the video on
> the LCD at the same time, which proves that it's technically perfectly
> possible to turn the mirror, catch the light to the sensor and show it
> on screen. Nothing (except filtering optics) prevents from using the IR.
Sure. I was just discussing some of the benefits of LCD viewfinder over
optical viewfinder.
> Also nothing (except price) prevents from making the LCD turnable so
> that you could use it as a viewfinder while shooting over crowd.
Indeed.
>> Definite benefits either way, I suppose.
>
> Yep, except nothing stops camera makers from implementing the SLR LCD to
> work as a viewfinder and getting those benefits. They just haven't done
> it, at least not yet.
Sure they have. That's exactly what I'm talking about hte Sony F707 doing,
aren't I? That's basically just what the Sony does, except it has an LCD in
the back and another behind the viewfinder.
--
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:
> Another feature that has been standard for years (with both SLRs and
> smaller cameras) is that you can hook up the camera to a computer and
> use the computer screen as a viewfinder and/or review screen.
See webcam timershot:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Works good, altho I haven't tried it with the D90 yet.
--
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:
>
> They have. It is called "Live view" and is pretty much standard on
> recent SLRs.
Also for IR? And the tilting LCD AFAIK is still unseen on SLR.
> Another feature that has been standard for years (with both SLRs and
> smaller cameras) is that you can hook up the camera to a computer and
> use the computer screen as a viewfinder and/or review screen.
Yes, but laptop is a bit.. problematic on crowd :).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> It certainly takes longer to focus than to get the image from the lens
> to the LCD. :-)
You clearly use AF :-).
>> it's because of software, not because of existence of the optical
>> viewfinder.
>
> Well, no, it's because the D90 doesn't have an infrared filter that
> drops down over the lens when you say "use infrared." :-)
Is that actually needed? I think the image could be manipulated
automatically by the software when you say "use infrared".
> If you had an optical filter and you're trying to line things up with
> infrared, you *eye* would have to be seeing the infrared.
Ehm... What's a filter dropping in front of the lens if not optical? :-)
Yes, if you want to see the IR at the optical viewfinder, you surely
need to see IR. But IMO it should be able to be done by the software (at
least well enough for lining up the image - you don't actually need a
HQ-image for that, at least at dark when you're using exposure times of
multiple seconds anyway).
> Sure. I was just discussing some of the benefits of LCD viewfinder over
> optical viewfinder.
You were also wondering why SLR still needs the R :-).
>> Yep, except nothing stops camera makers from implementing the SLR LCD to
>> work as a viewfinder and getting those benefits. They just haven't done
>> it, at least not yet.
>
> Sure they have. That's exactly what I'm talking about hte Sony F707
> doing, aren't I? That's basically just what the Sony does, except it
> has an LCD in the back and another behind the viewfinder.
>
F707 is a SLR? I thought it's a pocket camera (no, I didn't check) or a
"half-SLR (SL?)"
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:42:01 +0200, Eero Ahonen
<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>> They have. It is called "Live view" and is pretty much standard on
>> recent SLRs.
>
> Also for IR?
That is a matter of optics and filtering. Most cameras have an IR-blocking
filter mounted over the sensor.
> And the tilting LCD AFAIK is still unseen on SLR.
Not unseen, just uncommon.
> Yes, but laptop is a bit.. problematic on crowd :).
http://laptop.istheshit.net
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> That is a matter of optics and filtering. Most cameras have an
> IR-blocking filter mounted over the sensor.
Yes. But you have to also block the optical wavelengths, so it's not
something you can install and have work. You actually have to change things
inside the camera. (Or, on a SLR, I guess you could get a specifically IR
lens 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Is that actually needed? I think the image could be manipulated
> automatically by the software when you say "use infrared".
I would have thought they wouldn't put in moving parts and extra filters if
it wasn't actually needed. For one thing, you have to block the visible
light from getting to the sensor, yes?
>> If you had an optical filter and you're trying to line things up with
>> infrared, you *eye* would have to be seeing the infrared.
>
> Ehm... What's a filter dropping in front of the lens if not optical? :-)
> Yes, if you want to see the IR at the optical viewfinder, you surely
> need to see IR.
That's my point. If you're not looking at an LCD, but instead you're looking
out the lens, you won't be able to see the IR that you're photographing.
> But IMO it should be able to be done by the software (at
> least well enough for lining up the image - you don't actually need a
> HQ-image for that, at least at dark when you're using exposure times of
> multiple seconds anyway).
With the Sony, you can either take the picture in IR (which is quick,
espeically if you put on an IR flash), or you can line up the photo using IR
and then take a flash photo. I don't think it takes that long an exposure,
as I have a movie camera that will also film in IR that I can point out the
window at night and catch wildlife.
>> Sure. I was just discussing some of the benefits of LCD viewfinder over
>> optical viewfinder.
>
> You were also wondering why SLR still needs the R :-).
Yes.
> F707 is a SLR? I thought it's a pocket camera (no, I didn't check) or a
> "half-SLR (SL?)"
It has a decent lens. 67mm or something. White balance, manual
focus/aperature/exposure, flash shoe, etc etc. Basically most of the
features of an SLR except for changing the lens and actually being an SLR.
Very robust, too. I've been using it for years, and the first thing to wear
out was the springs where you push the memory chips in and such.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/
--
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:
>
> I would have thought they wouldn't put in moving parts and extra filters
> if it wasn't actually needed.
That certainly sounds true. OTOH eg. I have a cheap video camera module,
which shows infrared visibly on the screen it's connected to (not too
clear, though). And you know Sony's Nightshot -feature on videocameras?
If there are moving parts for it to work, they certainly are really
quiet - I've used the feature couple of times, never heard anything from
the camera.
> For one thing, you have to block the
> visible light from getting to the sensor, yes?
I dunno, the sensor can pick up the whole visible spectrum and I believe
the software can just pick eg. blue colors from there. Why would IR be
diffent? I'm sure blocking the visible light enhances the quality of
photos, I was thinking aligning the photo.
> That's my point. If you're not looking at an LCD, but instead you're
> looking out the lens, you won't be able to see the IR that you're
> photographing.
Yes. Somehow I guided to thinking that having the optical vf doesn't
prevent you having the LCD vf.
> With the Sony, you can either take the picture in IR (which is quick,
> espeically if you put on an IR flash), or you can line up the photo
> using IR and then take a flash photo. I don't think it takes that long
> an exposure, as I have a movie camera that will also film in IR that I
> can point out the window at night and catch wildlife.
Ah yes, I got stuck with aligning the image, not shooting IR. Yes, I'm
fairly certain that blocking the visible light enhances the quality of
IR-photo.
> It has a decent lens. 67mm or something. White balance, manual
> focus/aperature/exposure, flash shoe, etc etc. Basically most of the
> features of an SLR except for changing the lens and actually being an
> SLR. Very robust, too. I've been using it for years, and the first thing
> to wear out was the springs where you push the memory chips in and such.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf707/
>
Yes, half-SLR=SL. Seems that the biggest fault is unchangeable optics.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> And you know Sony's Nightshot -feature on videocameras?
That's a good point; you're right. I wonder how they're working it.
> I dunno, the sensor can pick up the whole visible spectrum and I believe
> the software can just pick eg. blue colors from there. Why would IR be
> diffent?
Dunno. The same reason red and blue and green get different pixels.
Otherwise you'd wind up with white. Maybe the video camera just doesn't
filter out IR when normally photographing? I dunno.
> Yes. Somehow I guided to thinking that having the optical vf doesn't
> prevent you having the LCD vf.
I think you can't have both at once, no. :-)
> Ah yes, I got stuck with aligning the image, not shooting IR. Yes, I'm
> fairly certain that blocking the visible light enhances the quality of
> IR-photo.
It has both modes. Basically, take the IR picture, or take a flash picture.
I've used both, but neither frequently of course.
> Yes, half-SLR=SL. Seems that the biggest fault is unchangeable optics.
Basically, yes. For vacation photos instead of pro photos, it works nicely.
The bottom isn't quite flat, which makes it a little annoying to try to take
impromptu tripod pictures, but otherwise it's really nice.
Well, we have a couple of trips coming up. I can put up pictures with the
Sony, the D90, and scanned from the Nikon N60 film camera we used to use, if
people want to compare.
--
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:
>
> Dunno. The same reason red and blue and green get different pixels.
> Otherwise you'd wind up with white. Maybe the video camera just doesn't
> filter out IR when normally photographing? I dunno.
Possibly. My head doesn't work right now, I'm too exhausted to think :-).
> I think you can't have both at once, no. :-)
On that I think we agree :-).
> It has both modes. Basically, take the IR picture, or take a flash
> picture. I've used both, but neither frequently of course.
I figured that out, yes. I ment that the IR-part for aligning the photo
doesn't need to be HQ, but when shooting IR-photo, it at least certainly
pumps the quality up, compared to software filtering (if it even works:).
> Well, we have a couple of trips coming up. I can put up pictures with
> the Sony, the D90, and scanned from the Nikon N60 film camera we used to
> use, if people want to compare.
Naah, at least I don't need them, but out of curiosity, if you could
deliver one IR-shot from Sony to be seen, I'd appreciate.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I will say, it seems to take pretty darn nice pictures. :-)
I will have to try this...
http://zuzutop.com/2009/06/bursting-soap-bubbles-amazing-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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
