On 3/02/2016 3:51, clipka wrote:
> Am 03.02.2016 um 00:27 schrieb Zeger Knaepen:
>> Nikon has some weird default settings (like a fixed ISO.. when I use
>> aperture priority, that means I only want to select the aperture, so the
>> default ISO setting should be automatic, in my opinion),
>
> I can't wrap my head around what the ISO setting is for on digital
> cameras anyway. It's not like you can really change the sensor's light
> sensitivity.

it's an amplifier setting. The aperture and shutter time defines how 
much lights enters, which results in a certain voltage in each pixel. 
Changing the ISO changes the amplification of that voltage, so it 
changes the "brightness" of that pixel.
Unfortunately you're also amplifying shot noise.

After that comes the analog to digital conversion (yes, those digital 
camera sensors are analog devices :)), and that's where Canon fails 
miserably: it adds a lot of extra noise, compared to the Sony sensors. 
The result is that with Canon, if you try to brighten the darker parts 
of the image, you're going to see that noise, very soon. With Sony not 
so much, which gives it a far superior dynamic range at lower ISO 
settings (at higher ISOs the shot noise is so high, there's just not 
enough data left for a high dynamic range).

> On a digital camera I'd expect to have a shutter speed setting so I can
> control the movement blur, and an aperture setting so that I can control
> the focal blur, and that's that.

That's possible with so called ISO-less sensors (no sensor is really 
ISO-less yet, but Sony sensors come very close), where it doesn't matter 
if you change the ISO in-camera, or do it digitally afterwards.

There is a good reason why you would do it digitally: with analog 
amplification you risk blowing out the highlights, with digital 
amplification the only problem is you're also amplifying read noise (the 
noise added in the analog-digital conversion, which is very low with 
Sony sensors and relatively high on a Canon sensor).

cu!
-- 
ZK

Post a reply to this message

On 03/02/2016 02:51 AM, clipka wrote:
> I can't wrap my head around what the ISO setting is for on digital
> cameras anyway. It's not like you can really change the sensor's light
> sensitivity.

That's a bit like saying you can't wrap your head around the volume 
setting on your dictaphone - after all, it's not like you can really 
change the microphone's physical response to sound...

Post a reply to this message

On 2-2-2016 15:56, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/2/2016 2:24 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 02.02.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 2/2/2016 1:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>>   >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>>>>> Scott: Canon
>>>>
>>>> Begun, the camera wars have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it is not a pinhole it is not true to the spirit and is a softboy's
>>> cheat. :)
>>
>> Is that why smartphones have such small lenses? ;)
>>
>
> I don't know. Why do smartphones have such small lenses?
>
> ;-)
>

They are smart. :-0

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> I've already got a tripod. It's not especially good though. And
> regardless, you can't use a tripod to hold the camera half an inch away
> from a horizontal surface, while facing at a jaunty angle. :-P

Doesn't surprise me that a Nikon shop would sell you a duff tripod too. :-P

Take it back and get one that can do this:

http://www.johnnyego.com/photography/055PROBX/055PROBX_03.JPG

Post a reply to this message

On 03/02/2016 08:56 AM, scott wrote:
> Doesn't surprise me that a Nikon shop would sell you a duff tripod too. :-P

Nikon shop? No, I bought it from John Lewis. And I've had the tripod for 
years. :-P

> Take it back and get one that can do this:
>
> http://www.johnnyego.com/photography/055PROBX/055PROBX_03.JPG

I think just buying a less cheap tripod is the thing...

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2016 9:46 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Careful. That sounds kind of like socialism. Who are you to infringe
> upon the camera makers' right to differentiate.
>
>
> Mike

This didn't come out as funny and critical of the camera manufacturers 
as I had intended.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 02/02/2016 06:18 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only
> acceptable brand.
>
> I have no idea why.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/

*facepalm*

OK. So apparently I really did buy the wrong camera. The study 
statistically proves that Canon is superior to Nikon. And Pentax. And Sony.

But never mind that. Panasonic is superior to *all* of them. By a large 
margin!

(I didn't even know they *make* cameras...)

Post a reply to this message

On 2/12/2016 2:11 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 06:18 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only
>> acceptable brand.
>>
>> I have no idea why.
>
> http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
>
> *facepalm*
>
> OK. So apparently I really did buy the wrong camera. The study
> statistically proves that Canon is superior to Nikon. And Pentax. And Sony.
>
> But never mind that. Panasonic is superior to *all* of them. By a large
> margin!
>
> (I didn't even know they *make* cameras...)

And iPhone users have more sex!  I've had an iPhone for 6 years, I'm 
still waiting...

Post a reply to this message

On 2/12/2016 7:47 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> And iPhone users have more sex!

Is that because they have one hand free? :-P




-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
>
> *facepalm*
>
> OK. So apparently I really did buy the wrong camera.

The fact is you went an bought a Nikon first though. It correlation, not 
causation - I assume you don't own an Apple device either :-)

Anyway, the overall correlation is obvious, the more geeky/tech-savvy 
you are, the less attractive you appear - with the only consolation that 
geeks are more likely to be able to take their photo using a big 
aperture and no flash.

Post a reply to this message