Should I switch?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Dervical, Oct 17, 2004.

  1. Dervical

    Eric Gill Guest

    GT40 <> wrote in news::

    > Got an extra $80k with nothing to do? You can order a 1200mm lens
    > from Canon :)


    Thanks, but already have a telescope with a much larger objective (light
    gathering being paramount for this application), and paid about $400 for
    it.

    Betcha most people already into astrophotography are in the same boat.
     
    Eric Gill, Oct 17, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. "Eric Gill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9585B33F09965ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246...
    > GT40 <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> Got an extra $80k with nothing to do? You can order a 1200mm lens
    >> from Canon :)

    >
    > Thanks, but already have a telescope with a much larger objective (light
    > gathering being paramount for this application), and paid about $400 for
    > it.
    >
    > Betcha most people already into astrophotography are in the same boat.


    I wish Canon or Nikon would *lend* me one of these super-lenses (and I could
    find a telescope big enough to piggyback it on). I'll bet the edge-to-edge
    sharpness and uniformity are a lot better than with a telescope...


    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael A. Covington
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 18, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Dervical

    Matt Ion Guest

    Phil Stripling wrote:
    > Matt Ion <> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Going from film to digital, the only part of the interface that's going
    >>to be familiar is the control dial and the shutter button anyway,
    >>regardless of brand.

    >
    >
    > Not so. The consumer digital Nikon is built on the N80, which I use. Going
    > from an N80 to that digital camera won't mean re-learning the controls
    > which are common -- and there are many.


    The N80 has an LCD viewscreen with menus for setting image quality,
    white balance, etc.?
     
    Matt Ion, Oct 18, 2004
    #23
  4. Dervical

    Eric Gill Guest

    "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote in
    news:41730e9d$:

    >
    > "Eric Gill" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9585B33F09965ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246...
    >> GT40 <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Got an extra $80k with nothing to do? You can order a 1200mm lens
    >>> from Canon :)

    >>
    >> Thanks, but already have a telescope with a much larger objective
    >> (light gathering being paramount for this application), and paid
    >> about $400 for it.
    >>
    >> Betcha most people already into astrophotography are in the same
    >> boat.

    >
    > I wish Canon or Nikon would *lend* me one of these super-lenses


    Hey - Sports Illustrated allegedly owns two - maybe one isn't doing
    anything at the moment.

    > (and I
    > could find a telescope big enough to piggyback it on). I'll bet the
    > edge-to-edge sharpness and uniformity are a lot better than with a
    > telescope...


    Well, I'll grant it's probably better than my current Dob. I'd also sure as
    hell *hope* the optics are superb.

    But I'm willing to bet a big Zeiss Schmidt camera would run rings around it
    for sky shots. As long as we're still in fantasyland and don't have to
    factor in the equally massive and expensive mount.

    That green curtain aurora shot is bloody magnificent, btw. Is that M-31
    shot with the 300mm lens a 100% crop?
     
    Eric Gill, Oct 18, 2004
    #24
  5. Matt Ion <> writes:

    > The N80 has an LCD viewscreen with menus for setting image quality,
    > white balance, etc.?


    I can understand, now, why you would have trouble. Buh-bye, hon.
    --
    Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
    Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
    http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
     
    Phil Stripling, Oct 18, 2004
    #25
  6. "Eric Gill" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9585D1FED4807ericvgillyahoocom@63.223.5.246...
    > "Michael A. Covington" <> wrote in
    > news:41730e9d$:


    >> I wish Canon or Nikon would *lend* me one of these super-lenses

    >
    > Hey - Sports Illustrated allegedly owns two - maybe one isn't doing
    > anything at the moment.
    >
    >> (and I
    >> could find a telescope big enough to piggyback it on). I'll bet the
    >> edge-to-edge sharpness and uniformity are a lot better than with a
    >> telescope...

    >
    > Well, I'll grant it's probably better than my current Dob. I'd also sure
    > as
    > hell *hope* the optics are superb.


    Yes, but I'll bet that at center of field, they aren't as good as a
    telescope. Telescopes are super-sharp at the center (diffraction limited,
    always, if they're any good) and fall off rapidly away from center. Camera
    lenses aim to be reasonably good across the whole frame. There's no point
    in resolving more than about 80 lp/mm at the center; the goal is to
    compromise between center and corners.

    > But I'm willing to bet a big Zeiss Schmidt camera would run rings around
    > it
    > for sky shots. As long as we're still in fantasyland and don't have to
    > factor in the equally massive and expensive mount.


    And the difficulty of loading, unloading, and developing the film!

    > That green curtain aurora shot is bloody magnificent, btw.


    Thanks. That aurora knocked my socks off. It's the best aurora I've ever
    seen, and it was in GEORGIA! We're not supposed to have auroras here! I
    wasn't very well prepared and don't think I photographed it very well.

    > Is that M-31
    > shot with the 300mm lens a 100% crop?


    No; it's the central region. I actually have 4 more or less well matched
    exposures and I want to stack them, to get a grainless picture. One day...


    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael A. Covington
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    www.covingtoninnovations.com/astromenu.html
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 18, 2004
    #26
  7. Dervical

    ernie clyma Guest

    Is there any reason to not shoot film and scan digital for those clients
    that prefer this medium ?? I would hope Nikon will soon raise their digital
    standards to Pro levels while allowing you to use current and in my opinion,
    some of the best lenses and accessories in the market.
     
    ernie clyma, Oct 18, 2004
    #27
  8. Dervical

    Guest

    George Stewart <> wrote:

    > The sensor in the D2X is supposedly made by Sony, and has a very
    > high density factor.


    High by DSLR standards, but not by digicam standards.

    > Considering that Sony has noise issues with its 8MP sensor on
    > consumer digicams, I'd think that the D2X will have similar issues.


    How does that follow? The designes will be very different.

    Andrew.
     
    , Oct 18, 2004
    #28
  9. Dervical

    Guest

    Matt Ion <> wrote:
    > GT40 wrote:


    >> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:06:13 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Dervical wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I shoot 70-80% sports, on almost every level, and do a lot of high
    >>>>iso shooting, so this is a major concern for me.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Second, the EOS lens mount was originally designed significantly larger
    >>>than most other lens mounts at the time, for the purpose of making
    >>>faster lenses possible (I believe there's an f/0.8 50mm available). The
    >>>availability of faster lenses should be important to your work.

    >>
    >>
    >> Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0 lens, but they don't anymore, they also
    >> made a 200 1.8 but not anymore.


    > The point remains, the EOS design uses a wider lens mount that allows
    > for the design and use of faster lenses.


    But if they don't make these faster lenses, why is that of interest to
    a purchaser? Just on the off-chance that he might find an old f/1.0
    lens?

    Andrew.
     
    , Oct 18, 2004
    #29
  10. Dervical

    Guest

    ernie clyma <> wrote:
    > Is there any reason to not shoot film and scan digital for those
    > clients that prefer this medium ??


    It's very slow if you have a lot of scanning to do. Most people are
    glad not to have to do it.

    Also, sports deadlines are often very tight.

    Andrew.
     
    , Oct 18, 2004
    #30
  11. Dervical

    GT40 Guest

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:50:55 -0000, lid
    wrote:

    >ernie clyma <> wrote:
    >> Is there any reason to not shoot film and scan digital for those
    >> clients that prefer this medium ??

    >
    >It's very slow if you have a lot of scanning to do. Most people are
    >glad not to have to do it.
    >
    >Also, sports deadlines are often very tight.


    Also makes it hard to send from a remote location in a reasonable
    amount of time.
     
    GT40, Oct 18, 2004
    #31
  12. Dervical

    GT40 Guest

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:47:54 -0000, lid
    wrote:

    >Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >> GT40 wrote:

    >
    >>> On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 15:06:13 GMT, Matt Ion <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Dervical wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>I shoot 70-80% sports, on almost every level, and do a lot of high
    >>>>>iso shooting, so this is a major concern for me.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Second, the EOS lens mount was originally designed significantly larger
    >>>>than most other lens mounts at the time, for the purpose of making
    >>>>faster lenses possible (I believe there's an f/0.8 50mm available). The
    >>>>availability of faster lenses should be important to your work.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0 lens, but they don't anymore, they also
    >>> made a 200 1.8 but not anymore.

    >
    >> The point remains, the EOS design uses a wider lens mount that allows
    >> for the design and use of faster lenses.

    >
    >But if they don't make these faster lenses, why is that of interest to
    >a purchaser? Just on the off-chance that he might find an old f/1.0
    >lens?



    How do you know they aren't working on a new fast lens?
     
    GT40, Oct 18, 2004
    #32
  13. Dervical

    Guest

    GT40 <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:47:54 -0000, lid
    > wrote:


    >>Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >>> GT40 wrote:

    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0 lens, but they don't anymore, they also
    >>>> made a 200 1.8 but not anymore.

    >>
    >>> The point remains, the EOS design uses a wider lens mount that allows
    >>> for the design and use of faster lenses.

    >>
    >>But if they don't make these faster lenses, why is that of interest to
    >>a purchaser? Just on the off-chance that he might find an old f/1.0
    >>lens?


    > How do you know they aren't working on a new fast lens?


    Maybe they are. I don't think it matters much: the market for such
    lenses is quite tiny. The fact that they made some superfast lenses
    and then stopped is a clue about just how tiny.

    Andrew.
     
    , Oct 18, 2004
    #33
  14. Dervical

    GT40 Guest

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:08:44 -0000, lid
    wrote:

    >GT40 <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:47:54 -0000, lid
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>>Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >>>> GT40 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0 lens, but they don't anymore, they also
    >>>>> made a 200 1.8 but not anymore.
    >>>
    >>>> The point remains, the EOS design uses a wider lens mount that allows
    >>>> for the design and use of faster lenses.
    >>>
    >>>But if they don't make these faster lenses, why is that of interest to
    >>>a purchaser? Just on the off-chance that he might find an old f/1.0
    >>>lens?

    >
    >> How do you know they aren't working on a new fast lens?

    >
    >Maybe they are. I don't think it matters much: the market for such
    >lenses is quite tiny. The fact that they made some superfast lenses
    >and then stopped is a clue about just how tiny.


    The reason they stopped making them was enviromental. There is still
    a huge demand for the 200mm 1.8L
     
    GT40, Oct 18, 2004
    #34
  15. Dervical

    Guest

    GT40 <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:08:44 -0000, lid
    > wrote:


    >>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:47:54 -0000, lid
    >>> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >>>>> GT40 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0 lens, but they don't anymore, they also
    >>>>>> made a 200 1.8 but not anymore.
    >>>>
    >>>>> The point remains, the EOS design uses a wider lens mount that allows
    >>>>> for the design and use of faster lenses.
    >>>>
    >>>>But if they don't make these faster lenses, why is that of interest to
    >>>>a purchaser? Just on the off-chance that he might find an old f/1.0
    >>>>lens?

    >>
    >>> How do you know they aren't working on a new fast lens?

    >>
    >>Maybe they are. I don't think it matters much: the market for such
    >>lenses is quite tiny. The fact that they made some superfast lenses
    >>and then stopped is a clue about just how tiny.


    > The reason they stopped making them was enviromental. There is still
    > a huge demand for the 200mm 1.8L


    Well, that's a different matter altogether. I don't know if the
    reason Nikon didn't make a 1.8 200mm was the lens mount, but I doubt
    it. However, citing a speed advantage of a third of a stop on an
    unobtainable lens doesn't seem like much of a reason to choose a
    camera.

    Andrew.
     
    , Oct 18, 2004
    #35
  16. Dervical

    GT40 Guest

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:29:40 -0000, lid
    wrote:

    >GT40 <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 15:08:44 -0000, lid
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>>GT40 <> wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:47:54 -0000, lid
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>Matt Ion <> wrote:
    >>>>>> GT40 wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Canon used to make a 50mm 1.0 lens, but they don't anymore, they also
    >>>>>>> made a 200 1.8 but not anymore.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> The point remains, the EOS design uses a wider lens mount that allows
    >>>>>> for the design and use of faster lenses.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But if they don't make these faster lenses, why is that of interest to
    >>>>>a purchaser? Just on the off-chance that he might find an old f/1.0
    >>>>>lens?
    >>>
    >>>> How do you know they aren't working on a new fast lens?
    >>>
    >>>Maybe they are. I don't think it matters much: the market for such
    >>>lenses is quite tiny. The fact that they made some superfast lenses
    >>>and then stopped is a clue about just how tiny.

    >
    >> The reason they stopped making them was enviromental. There is still
    >> a huge demand for the 200mm 1.8L

    >
    >Well, that's a different matter altogether. I don't know if the
    >reason Nikon didn't make a 1.8 200mm was the lens mount, but I doubt
    >it. However, citing a speed advantage of a third of a stop on an
    >unobtainable lens doesn't seem like much of a reason to choose a
    >camera.


    Perhaps you have heard of used lenses..
     
    GT40, Oct 18, 2004
    #36
  17. Dervical

    Guest

    GT40 <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:29:40 -0000, lid
    > wrote:
    >>
    >>Well, that's a different matter altogether. I don't know if the
    >>reason Nikon didn't make a 1.8 200mm was the lens mount, but I doubt
    >>it. However, citing a speed advantage of a third of a stop on an
    >>unobtainable lens doesn't seem like much of a reason to choose a
    >>camera.


    > Perhaps you have heard of used lenses..


    For the sake of a third of a stop? Really?

    If we're talking about used lenses, why not prefer the Nikon so that
    you can use the 300mm F/2.0?

    Do you really believe that this is important?

    Andrew.
     
    , Oct 18, 2004
    #37
  18. Dervical

    GT40 Guest

    On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 18:36:20 -0000, lid
    wrote:

    >GT40 <> wrote:
    >> On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:29:40 -0000, lid
    >> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Well, that's a different matter altogether. I don't know if the
    >>>reason Nikon didn't make a 1.8 200mm was the lens mount, but I doubt
    >>>it. However, citing a speed advantage of a third of a stop on an
    >>>unobtainable lens doesn't seem like much of a reason to choose a
    >>>camera.

    >
    >> Perhaps you have heard of used lenses..

    >
    >For the sake of a third of a stop? Really?
    >
    >If we're talking about used lenses, why not prefer the Nikon so that
    >you can use the 300mm F/2.0?
    >
    >Do you really believe that this is important?


    The 200mm 1.8 is the lens of choice for indoor gymnastics, soccer,
    hockey......


    Yes I really believe that this is important.
     
    GT40, Oct 18, 2004
    #38
    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. Raymond Munyan
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,299
    =?Windows-1252?Q?Frisbee=AE?=
    Dec 1, 2004
  2. Au79

    Linux: should you make the switch

    Au79, Nov 14, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    488
    J.S.Fronyio
    Jun 24, 2007
  3. Jamie Kahn Genet

    Should I switch from Actrix to Worldnet?

    Jamie Kahn Genet, Oct 9, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    823
    Jamie Kahn Genet
    Oct 12, 2007
  4. chris
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    436
    chris
    May 17, 2004
  5. RichA

    Nikon should (should have) made the D9300 40MP

    RichA, May 16, 2014, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    57
    Views:
    933
    PeterN
    May 23, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page