Digitial cameras with f 1.4 or 1.2 lenses?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John A. Stovall, Oct 16, 2004.

  1. I've for years used my Lecia and Nikons with fast lenses and Tri-X
    (pushed to 1600) for shooting with available light in low light
    situations. I don't see any digitals out there which seem to address
    this. It seems that the digital does not do well in this environment.
    Most of the "Prosumer" lenses are in the 2.7/2.9 range and I never see
    any information on how the high end Pro units do for this kind of
    work.

    Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end digitals?


    ********************************************************

    "The fox knows many things, but
    the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    Archilochus
    675 - 635 B.C.
     
    John A. Stovall, Oct 16, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John A. Stovall wrote:
    > I've for years used my Lecia and Nikons with fast lenses and Tri-X
    > (pushed to 1600) for shooting with available light in low light
    > situations. I don't see any digitals out there which seem to address
    > this. It seems that the digital does not do well in this environment.
    > Most of the "Prosumer" lenses are in the 2.7/2.9 range and I never see
    > any information on how the high end Pro units do for this kind of
    > work.


    In the pro-consumer range you are in the dSLR range. You can use
    non-digital lenses on many of these cameras giving you that 1.4 or 1.2 lens.
    You also may have higher speeds than 1600 (like 3200 on my D20) available.

    >
    > Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end digitals?
    >
    >
    > ********************************************************
    >
    > "The fox knows many things, but
    > the hedgehog knows one big thing."
    >
    > Archilochus
    > 675 - 635 B.C.


    --
    Joseph E. Meehan

    26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
     
    Joseph Meehan, Oct 16, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. John A. Stovall

    Charlie Self Guest

    John Stovall asks:

    >I've for years used my Lecia and Nikons with fast lenses and Tri-X
    >(pushed to 1600) for shooting with available light in low light
    >situations. I don't see any digitals out there which seem to address
    >this. It seems that the digital does not do well in this environment.
    >Most of the "Prosumer" lenses are in the 2.7/2.9 range and I never see
    >any information on how the high end Pro units do for this kind of
    >work.
    >
    >Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end digitals?


    There should be about the same results, except that it's easier to get to ISO
    3200. What the results are, I can't imagine. I'm pretty sure my Pentax has an
    extended range that goes to 3200. Yeah, it does. I get excelent results at 800
    but seldom have a reason to use even that. I see no reason the results for the
    *istD and other cameras of similar type wouldn't work just about like film
    cameras.

    Charlie Self
    "There are two ways of exerting one's strength: one is pushing down, the other
    is pulling up." Booker T. Washington
     
    Charlie Self, Oct 16, 2004
    #3
  4. John A. Stovall

    Skip M Guest

    "John A. Stovall" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've for years used my Lecia and Nikons with fast lenses and Tri-X
    > (pushed to 1600) for shooting with available light in low light
    > situations. I don't see any digitals out there which seem to address
    > this. It seems that the digital does not do well in this environment.
    > Most of the "Prosumer" lenses are in the 2.7/2.9 range and I never see
    > any information on how the high end Pro units do for this kind of
    > work.
    >
    > Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end digitals?
    >
    >
    > ********************************************************
    >
    > "The fox knows many things, but
    > the hedgehog knows one big thing."
    >
    > Archilochus
    > 675 - 635 B.C.



    If you don't see any digitals out there that address this, you've been
    looking in the wrong place. The cameras you seem to be using are removable
    lens type cameras, a rangefinder in the case of the Leica, an SLR in the
    case of the Nikon, right? Well, look at the Nikon D70 or D100 for starters.
    Chances are, the f1.4 and 1.2 lenses for your present Nikon SLR will fit
    those cameras, giving you that aperture.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Oct 16, 2004
    #4
  5. John A. Stovall

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    John A. Stovall <> wrote:

    > I've for years used my Lecia and Nikons with fast lenses and Tri-X
    > (pushed to 1600) for shooting with available light in low light
    > situations. I don't see any digitals out there which seem to address
    > this.


    You can use the same lenses and the same ISO on an SLR like the Nikon D70.

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 16, 2004
    #5
  6. John A. Stovall

    zeitgeist Guest


    > I've for years used my Lecia and Nikons with fast lenses and Tri-X
    > (pushed to 1600) for shooting with available light in low light
    > situations. I don't see any digitals out there which seem to address
    > this. It seems that the digital does not do well in this environment.
    > Most of the "Prosumer" lenses are in the 2.7/2.9 range and I never see
    > any information on how the high end Pro units do for this kind of
    > work.
    >
    > Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end digitals?
    >


    you can get a digital back for a Leica, and most lenses work on dslrs they
    are compatible with. IE: early nikon lenses with the AI cam can work on the
    modern digital bods. So you can have your 1.2 50mm or your 1.4 85mm

    some of the advanced P&S have f/2 lenses, f/2-2.4 etc. go to dpreviews.com
     
    zeitgeist, Oct 16, 2004
    #6
  7. John A. Stovall

    Matt Ion Guest

    John A. Stovall wrote:

    > I've for years used my Lecia and Nikons with fast lenses and Tri-X
    > (pushed to 1600) for shooting with available light in low light
    > situations. I don't see any digitals out there which seem to address
    > this.


    Standard "pocket" digitals typically won't because a) they're more
    hobbyist-oriented, b) the lens diameter becomes overly large with the
    wider apertures, and c) the faster lenses get proprotionately more
    expensive. 'b' and 'c' are not generally compatible with 'a'.

    Digital SLRs are another matter; using Canon as an example, their full
    EF lens line for their EOS film cameras will work on their EOS digital
    cameras as well; this includes lenses up to f/1 or faster. However, as
    with film cameras, the faster the lens, again, the more expensive it
    becomes, which is why most "bundled" lenses will probably be around f/4.

    > It seems that the digital does not do well in this environment.


    Nonsense. As noted, digital SLRs are on par with their film
    counterparts for availability of fast lenses. "Pocket" digital cameras
    are probably far ahead of their film cousins in this area (when's the
    last time you saw a point'n'shoot film camera with 10X optical zoom?)

    > Most of the "Prosumer" lenses are in the 2.7/2.9 range and I never see
    > any information on how the high end Pro units do for this kind of
    > work.


    That's because f/2.7 IS about the limit of the "prosumer" price range.
    Faster than that and you start getting into "full-time professional"
    pricing (or "prosumer with more money than brains"). That doesn't mean
    the pro lenses aren't out there, you just aren't shopping in the right
    places.

    Try looking up any fast Canon EF-series lens: again, it will work with a
    Canon EOS digital SLR the same as it will with an EOS film body. Same
    goes for Nikon, and probably for Minolta as well.

    > Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end digitals?


    Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end film bodies?
    Standard differences aside (film vs. digital quality debates, cropping
    factor, etc.), there's no difference in "lens speed".
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 16, 2004
    #7
  8. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that John A. Stovall <> stated
    that:

    >I've for years used my Lecia and Nikons with fast lenses and Tri-X
    >(pushed to 1600) for shooting with available light in low light
    >situations. I don't see any digitals out there which seem to address
    >this. It seems that the digital does not do well in this environment.


    You haven't been looking hard enough. Any of the pro-sumer or better
    Canon DSLRs handle that sort of photography superlatively.

    >Most of the "Prosumer" lenses are in the 2.7/2.9 range and I never see
    >any information on how the high end Pro units do for this kind of
    >work.
    >
    >Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end digitals?


    Yes. I do a lot of available light shooting with an EOS 10D at ISO 800
    or 1600, using F1.8 or better primes exclusively. The 10D handles it
    very well.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #8
  9. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >Yes. I do a lot of available light shooting with an EOS 10D at ISO 800
    >or 1600


    Do you actually set the camera to 1600? I haven't found much of a use
    for 1600 at all. 1600 is just 800 underexposed by one stop and the RAW
    numbers 0-2047 are doubled. The differences are that the flash
    compensation is obviously different for each, the exposure compensation
    range changes from -2 to +2 to -1 to +3, and 800 @ -1 has a stop more
    highlights than 1600. 3200 has twice the D2A gain as 1600, so I will
    use that sometimes. 3200 @ +1 is like a true 1600, but at only 11 bits
    RAW (and a stop less highlights than usual for RAW).
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 17, 2004
    #9
  10. John A. Stovall

    Mark Roberts Guest

    John A. Stovall <> wrote:

    >Anyone with experience using fast lenses with high end digitals?


    I use the Pentax FA-50mm f/1.4 with my ist-D frequently. Great
    combination.

    Others have gone to great lengths to get their preferred fast lenses to
    work with their digital cameras:
    http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html

    --
    Mark Roberts
    Photography and writing
    www.robertstech.com
     
    Mark Roberts, Oct 17, 2004
    #10
  11. John A. Stovall

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    If you have a camera with image stabilization you can use a slower lens for
    picture taking in available light.
    Canon, Minolta A2, Panasonic fz20, etc
    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Oct 18, 2004
    #11
  12. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    Kibo informs me that stated that:

    >In message <>,
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Yes. I do a lot of available light shooting with an EOS 10D at ISO 800
    >>or 1600

    >
    >Do you actually set the camera to 1600?


    Yep, fairly regularly.

    > I haven't found much of a use
    >for 1600 at all. 1600 is just 800 underexposed by one stop and the RAW
    >numbers 0-2047 are doubled.


    Dunno. I've seen the data you've posted on this before, but I'm not 100%
    convinced. (This is not intended as a slap at you, it's just that
    reverse-engineering a closed design is a very tricky thing to get
    right.) Have you actually run stat's on the raw ADC values in the RAW
    files? - If you were to show that the LSB of every single pixel in a
    1600 shot is either 0 or 1, that'd be evidence for your model that I'd
    find quite convincing. I think it's more likely that they just scale the
    ADC conversion or analog amp, which would be consistant with the data
    you've found, while being somewhat more useful for actual photography
    than the model you've argued for.

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    , Oct 20, 2004
    #12
  13. John A. Stovall

    Guest

    In message <>,
    wrote:

    >Dunno. I've seen the data you've posted on this before, but I'm not 100%
    >convinced. (This is not intended as a slap at you, it's just that
    >reverse-engineering a closed design is a very tricky thing to get
    >right.) Have you actually run stat's on the raw ADC values in the RAW
    >files? - If you were to show that the LSB of every single pixel in a
    >1600 shot is either 0 or 1, that'd be evidence for your model that I'd
    >find quite convincing. I think it's more likely that they just scale the
    >ADC conversion or analog amp, which would be consistant with the data
    >you've found, while being somewhat more useful for actual photography
    >than the model you've argued for.


    The RAW data is all even in "ISO 1600" and "H" files. You won't see
    this clearly in "linear TIFs" from programs that create them because a
    blackpoint value is subtracted from the RAW data, and the data rescaled,
    and then demosaiced.

    If you doctor dcraw.c so that it doesn't scale anything, convert to RGB
    or interpolate anything, and then use the "document mode", you will get
    more direct data (although I think somehow that dcraw clips everything
    above about 3840 out of 4095 for no reason I can think of).

    If you don't doctor it, you can use it as is to create blackframe TIFs
    in "document mode" in various ISO, and poke around in photoshop in a
    16-bit info window after doing a 50% nearest neighbor reduction (so that
    only one channel is present), and you will see that the average steps
    between values are twice as high in ISO 1600 and 3200 than the other
    ISOs.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Oct 21, 2004
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Starlover

    Digitial TV

    Starlover, Sep 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    533
    Starroamer
    Oct 30, 2004
  2. Andrew McDonald
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    419
    Andrew McDonald
    Jul 31, 2003
  3. denton

    Canoscan FS 2710 vs prosumer digitial?

    denton, Dec 16, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    denton
    Dec 16, 2003
  4. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    474
    Mark B.
    Apr 1, 2007
  5. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Apr 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    457
    Ken Lucke
    Apr 1, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page