Prosumer vs. DLSR thoughts

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. Mike

    usenet Guest

    Kibo informs me that (Sabineellen) stated that:
    If it does, I think it's a safe bet that the image qality will suffer
    for it. (Unless of course they use a second sensor for the live
    preview.)
     
    usenet, Nov 25, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike

    usenet Guest

    Kibo informs me that stated that:
    But still of lower quality than a standard DSLR sensor of the same size,
    just as I said. I would also expect to see increased moire/aliasing, due
    to the lower fill-factor of such a sensor.
     
    usenet, Nov 25, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike

    usenet Guest

    Actually, it does.
    Well no, it wouldn't be. The interline transfer buffers have to be
    roughly the same size as the photosites they're attached to. If you
    think about the phsyics involved, the reason for this limit should be
    obvious.
     
    usenet, Nov 25, 2004
  4. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    [adding interline transfer circuitry to large sensors]
    Think about it for a minute - if the "bucket" in your light-sensing part
    holds N electrons when full, then the "bucket" you put it into to transfer
    it out has to hold the same number of electrons as well, otherwise they'll
    spill.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 25, 2004
  5. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    Actually, it's just a gimic. It gives you a very low resolution, B&W image
    and disables the shutter release anyway. One might imagine it has very
    limited use in framing something that, for some reason, you can't use the
    viewfinder for, and that isn't going to move while you reconfigure the
    camera back into shooting mode.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 25, 2004
  6. It shouldn't be difficult to build a CCD like this; just scale up the
    designs used in the digigams that provide live preview output.

    It would be interesting if some manufacturer offered the same camera
    with two different sensors and let the public choose which version they
    wanted to buy.

    The live-preview version would have the advantage of live video out
    during composition, but it would have

    - Longer shutter release delay, since the shutter needs to be closed
    and charges swept out of the sensor before beginning the exposure
    (In a conventional DSLR, the shutter and sensor can be kept ready)

    - Lower dynamic range, as half the chip area is used for storage
    register instead of image sensor.

    - Higher noise level because of the smaller pixel wells

    I wonder how many people would buy the live-preview version. I
    wouldn't, even though I'm used to and like live preview on my existing
    digicams.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Nov 25, 2004
  7. I would not.

    I own a dZLR with live preview and a dSLR without. I use the dZLR for
    casual situations and the dSLR when I want fast response and premium
    image quality. I prefer the dSLR, but don't like its size and weight,
    nor the vibration and noise from the mirror.

    So I whish they would change the design of compacts! I.e. keep them
    small, but without that damn shutter delay. If someone made a quality
    pocketable compact with a fast (f/1.4) 45mm FOV fixed focal length
    lens, an instantaneous shutter response, and no live preview.
    Wow - that would be some camera!.
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 26, 2004
  8. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    Epson RD-1
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 26, 2004
  9. I know. Now, if I could just win the lottery ...
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 26, 2004
  10. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    Tell me about it. :-( One silver lining - remember how much the D30 cost on
    launch, only a few short years ago. Now look at the 300D.

    Of course, SLRs are mainstream in a way that rangefinders will probabl;y
    never be again, but the anticipated entry of Leica and Zeiss Ikon into the
    digital rangefinder market may open things up for a less expensive
    Cosina/Espon body in a couple of years.

    Until then, I'll just have to be content with using my rangefinder lenses
    with 35mm.
     
    Chris Brown, Nov 27, 2004
  11. Mike

    paul Guest

    I've got a D70 & am not that impressed with the sharpness of the photos.
    The lense is AF Nikkor 28-200mm1:3.5-5.6G selected for the wide range of
    zoom and I'm kind of regretting not getting the other one they had with
    image stabilization. Even if I use a tripod though, the images seem kind
    of blurry to me.

    I do appreciate that compared to my little oly 3.3MP the images from the
    D70 can be heavily manipulated to bring out info from dark areas without
    noise and there is no problem with purple fringing like the 8MP cams had.
     
    paul, Dec 8, 2004
  12. Mike

    adm Guest

    That could be your problem right there ! That's a wide zoom range - and that
    lens is not the sharpest in Nikon's box. Especially if you are trying to
    shoot with it wide open and/or at either end of the zoom range.

    I think your problem is probably the lens - not the camera. The D70 is
    capable of extremely sharp shots, but you need to use a good lens to get a
    good result.
     
    adm, Dec 8, 2004
  13. Mike

    paul Guest


    So I'd get the sharpest pictures in the middle of the zoom range with a
    low aperture setting (and a tripod... grumble...)?

    I think the lense cost about $700 I forget but wasn't cheap. And it's
    not much good for macro even if I zoom way in. And it doesn't get as
    wide angle as I'd like. Maybe I could afford some more lenses if I got
    em used. What do you think about the image stabilization type lenses?
    I'm thinking I'd have been better off getting that for general use. I
    really don't want to carry a bag of lenses around. What if I got a
    really good one with less zoom range and some adapters type lenses for
    tele/macro & wide angle? Apparently it is kind of a problem with getting
    dust on the CCD if you change lenses often and it's a pain to clean.
     
    paul, Dec 8, 2004
  14. Mike

    paul Guest


    I was mistaken, I paid $370 which was more than I should have, here it
    is (28-200mm):
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28200g.htm

    This is the kit lense that I opted out of (18-70mm):
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1870.htm

    Here's a typical shot cropped to show full detail (hand held) at 66mm
    10/600 f5:
    http://www.edgehill.net/testDSC_5381+.jpg
    I don't know, does that look kind of soft to you? Maybe the anti-shake
    lense would make a difference?

    This one was at full 200mm telephoto on a tripod at 10/3200 f8:
    http://www.edgehill.net/testDSC_1453.jpg
    Maybe some haze in the air but looks very fuzzy to me.

    Anyways it's small, light & versitile so assuming I keep this lense
    would it be a mistake to get a converter for wide angle and macro? Or do
    you agree these images are pretty crappy & I should sell this lense &
    get the kit lense above (which the review says IS very sharp) and get
    converters for that. It's not just the money, I'm simply not interested
    in changing lenses frequently.

    PS the same site says this Nikkor 12-24 is the only option for a wide
    angle DSLR lense: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm for $1,020
    That's 18-36 35mm equivalent, my lense is 42-300 35mm equivalent.

    Lastly, pardon my ignorance but what do I need for macro shots? My
    little old 3.3MP oly got up to 7 inches away & this thing only goes to
    about 17", the kit lense to 15" & the wide angle to 12".

    Ah, here's that same guy discussing general selection issues for DSLR's:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#digital
    He recommends the expensive wide angle 12-24 zoom, skip the middle and a
    cheap 70-210 telephoto and the only mention of macro is fixed. He says
    the sharpness is just not going to be very good for a D70. I think I saw
    amazing sharp stuff in the 8MP models but they lack in other qualities.
     
    paul, Dec 9, 2004
  15. Mike

    adm Guest

    Try the middle of the zoom range and the middle of the aperture range -
    maybe f/8 upwards.....

    And a tripod :)
    That's a good lens. The only reason I didn't get that with my D70 was that I
    already had an f/2.8 24-85 AF lens handy. All reviews on it say it is sharp
    as hell though.
    I'm lusting after the f/2.8 80-200 AF-S VR lens - again, it's meant to be
    really sharp - and has VR as well. Kind of pricey though....
    I think you'd need two additional lenses - one wide angle and one macro if
    you are half way serious. You simply cannot get everything from Wide to Tele
    plus Macro in a single lens.
    I have this lens - and it is very sharp indeed. Lovely from about 18mm
    upwards (there's some distortion at the 12mm end, but that's what Photoshop
    is for anyway).
    Ah - you'd need a Macro lens. Or "Micro" in Nikon's terminology.....

    All in all, how about the following selection:

    AF-S 12-24 DX
    AF-S 18-70 DX
    AF-S 80-200 VR

    That should cover every eventuality apart from Macro shots. All those lenses
    are very sharp indeed. The downside is the price.....
     
    adm, Dec 9, 2004
  16. Mike

    Ken Tough Guest

    That might have been a mistake. The 18-70 seems to be unique
    in getting pretty universal praise for being excellent value-
    for-money (as part of the kit), giving nice sharpness, and being
    suitably portable. Is there any way to swap your 28-200 still
    and get the kit lens plus something else?
    When you say cropped to show full detail, I guess that's
    "100% zoom". It would be interesting to see the shots
    resized to show the whole image, say 800x600. I don't really
    see evidence of shake, but I'm not an expert. Have you tried
    any manually focussed? Any better?

    It might be worth you getting a nice sharp cheap lens like the
    50mm f1.8, and see how you get on with that. It's good for
    photographing people, and fast, so perhaps useful in many
    conditions, and is so cheap it might be worth just getting for
    the learning experience, before you put out money on other
    lenses or accessories.

    You could also consider a short course at a local photo school
    where maybe they can give some tips & analysis?
     
    Ken Tough, Dec 9, 2004
  17. Mike

    paul Guest


    grumble grumble, what about the anti-shake lense? I really don't have
    the patience for a tripod.




    Here's a 640 wide view of the full shot:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/index.php?SCREEN=ecards.php&IMG_DIR=SOUTHWEST/2004-11-13-zion&PAGE=2>



    Here's an 800 wide view of the full shot:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/index.php?SCREEN=ecards.php&IMG_DIR=CALIFORNIA/BAY-AREA/SAN-FRANCISCO>
    Still looks blurry to me.


    What about adapters for that? I could get the kit lense or the
    anti-shake one for my base lense if this one is so bad.



    I need macro too. Maybe not incredibly close but I need reasonable macro
    abilities. Can't I get an adapter for that? I think the anti-shake lense
    would be a must for this as I do macros hand held out in the field while
    hiking of bugs & plants. My crummy little old Olympus C3030 did macros
    wonderfully and fit in my pocket.

    Why is it that cheaper digitals seem to have more capability than this
    darn D70 & I'm forced to buy a bunch of lenses?

    <snip>
     
    paul, Dec 9, 2004
  18. Mike

    paul Guest


    Wahhhhh!

    I've had it a couple months, I don't think they'd trade it out. I could
    just sell it & take a loss though if that's what it comes down to.

    Is it possible to get wide, telephoto & macro adapters for the kit lense
    or for this lense? I really do need relatively wide angle for landscape
    shots and I need macro too.

    I do appreciate having a single lense & really don't want to be carrying
    around a big bag. I love the telephoto capability of this but if it's
    really that crappy & blurry, it'd be silly to waste my D70 body on those
    results. I suppose I'm still getting better metering & a larger CCD
    which means it's probably getting more subtlety in tones & such so it's
    not a total waste.

    Nobody has opinions on the anti-shake lense? My lense is also not very
    good in low light, which effects the shake factor & it's noticeable to
    me compared to my old oly 3.3MP.
     
    paul, Dec 9, 2004
  19. Mike

    paul Guest


    Correct 100% zoom. See my reply to adm, I give links to the full pics as
    you describe.
     
    paul, Dec 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.