StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Bounty wrote:I only counted shutter lag as the time between pressing the shutter after focussing and the moment the shutter fired. If you're talking about the full processing time between taking two pictures than yes, I'm seeing your point.

The actual figures for my Canon are 0.54 second at the wide end, 0.68 second at full zoom, and 0.075 second prefocused. That prefocus time isn't awful, since it's about par with the slower DSLRs (also prefocused), while the unfocused (total) lag is twice as slow as the very slowest DSLRs. Prefocusing does make a difference, but it comes with its own problems, to wit: when the camera selects a wide aperture and the target is moving toward and away from the camera, prefocusing at any time other than immediately before the shutter is depressed is going to be unhelpful. This was certainly the case at the SCA fair I covered last weekend.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:3. I'd rather have something that really is better then its competitors, the full frame M9 for example (drool).

Trying to have the newest and best is pointless if it doesn't suit your shooting requirements or offers features in gross excess of what you need.

I don't give a crap about interchangeable lenses, as longas I have a flexible, good lens and good image quality.

Flexible but non-interchangeable means a zoom, which means extra bulk unless you are using a P&S. Good image quality could rule out P&Ss altogether unless "good" doesn't mean "as good as my 40D." Your requirements and your wants are conflicting.

I consider a 1.5 kg camera "take anywhere" in every regard except for size and cost, and i'm not some American sized behemoth.

Just as I said. A go-anywhere camera should be small enough that you can carry it without thinking about it. And considering your gripe about your hike, evidently 1.5 kg is too much. See, you're losing track of your requirements already.

But it's always fun to have a light replacement for stuff, especially one a sixth of the weight and a quarter of the size.

And this is the difference between "I want" and "I need." Do you need a small but non-shit camera to carry around where a DSLR is too big, or do you want a camera that can do everything a DSLR can do while being a little smaller, but still isn't terribly pocketable?

Simplicius wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:3. I'd rather have something that really is better then its competitors, the full frame M9 for example (drool).

Trying to have the newest and best is pointless if it doesn't suit your shooting requirements or offers features in gross excess of what you need.

This point needs to be emphasized, again. The latest Canon & Nikon flagship DSLRs may be great cameras and all that, but they're absolutely useless for me because there's no way in hell I'm going to carry them around. And if I don't have them with me, I'm not going to be taking any pictures with them. I will get more use from and take better pictures with a $5 disposable camera than I will with any DSLR because the disposable will actually be with me to make those shots while the DSLRs will never leave their boxes.

Identify your needs, then figure out what features you'll need to meet those needs, then find the camera gear which has those features. Looking at gear and then trying to fit it to your needs is completely ass backwards. A Leica or an Olympus Pen FT fits my needs (simple, quality camera I can carry anywhere), a Nikon D3 doesn't.

An experiment.

I've been mucking about with my Powershot's firmware - turns out you can squeeze a lot more out the older models if you're willing to trade some battery life. One of the options is to force-override shutter speeds, from 1/40.000th of a second to over a minute.

So.

My desk, at night. All lights of. The only light source is a yellow-ish streetlight 50 feet down the street. 64 seconds on the shutter, with a two-second countdown on the self-timer.

This is what I got:



Also, is there a practical advantage to using RAW or DNG? I've been shooting JPEG since it's smaller and the quality difference seems to be pretty much none, but if there are other advantages, I'm all ears. Google seems to say there are very loud fans either way and not much content.

RAW gives you more room for correcting mistakes and/or fine-tuning your pictures after you've taken them. Basically imagine all the major adjustments you can make in post-processing (white balance, shadow levels, some degree of exposure compensation); shooting in RAW will allow you to make those changes with little or no effect on the quality of your final output. Admittedly most of the major photo editing apps have gotten good at editing JPEGs without too much effect on the quality, but RAW will hold up to editing much better 9 times out of 10.

It's worth shooting if you want the absolute maximum quality from your camera, but the advantages aren't really as pronounced in something like a PowerShot as they would be a DSLR, where you have bigger sensors and generally more dynamic range. Plus you have to consider whether the extra quality and flexibility in post-processing are worth being able to take less photos (I tend to shoot in JPEG+RAW mode, but that's only because I have a massive memory card).

Bounty wrote: Also, is there a practical advantage to using RAW or DNG? I've been shooting JPEG since it's smaller and the quality difference seems to be pretty much none, but if there are other advantages, I'm all ears. Google seems to say there are very loud fans either way and not much content.

Larger dynamic range and "light" information (you can make it more or less exposed), and it's easier to muck about with the settings (White balance supposedly, though i've never ahd trouble adjusting the WB with my JPEGS).

I never use RAW, though I should to be honest.

the advantages aren't really as pronounced in something like a PowerShot as they would be a DSLR

That's what I figured. Looking at the filesizes - RAW takes up four times the space - makes me think any marginal increase won't be worth it.

Simplicius wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:3. I'd rather have something that really is better then its competitors, the full frame M9 for example (drool).

Trying to have the newest and best is pointless if it doesn't suit your shooting requirements or offers features in gross excess of what you need.

There's no such thing as overkill, only too much weight or cost . (And the M9 is astoundingly tiny compared to any other full frame camera on the market).

I don't give a crap about interchangeable lenses, as longas I have a flexible, good lens and good image quality.

Flexible but non-interchangeable means a zoom, which means extra bulk unless you are using a P&S. Good image quality could rule out P&Ss altogether unless "good" doesn't mean "as good as my 40D." Your requirements and your wants are conflicting.

Yup, hence my deliberations. I've grown used to ranting at the fuzzyness of my 40D on a top end consumer zoom (the 17-55), going back to a compact will be painful.
Still, as things stand I think i'll be going for a compact, either the S90 or a LX3 (but probably the former, I want the larger zoom range and it seems superior overall).

I consider a 1.5 kg camera "take anywhere" in every regard except for size and cost, and i'm not some American sized behemoth.

Just as I said. A go-anywhere camera should be small enough that you can carry it without thinking about it.

And without worrying too much about it.

And considering your gripe about your hike, evidently 1.5 kg is too much. See, you're losing track of your requirements already.

Actually, it's not, as I usually do hike with such a large camera. The top of a glacier on top of a mountainr ange might be difficult in terms of logistics, but it's a place where the best images are to be found. Still, better some than none.

But it's always fun to have a light replacement for stuff, especially one a sixth of the weight and a quarter of the size.

And this is the difference between "I want" and "I need." Do you need a small but non-shit camera to carry around where a DSLR is too big, or do you want a camera that can do everything a DSLR can do while being a little smaller, but still isn't terribly pocketable?

Sigh. Need. I need a take everywhere camera .

Actually, it's not, as I usually do hike with such a large camera. The top of a glacier on top of a mountainr ange might be difficult in terms of logistics, but it's a place where the best images are to be found.

So if you actually want a big bulky SLR and are apparently convinced you can carry it everywhere, why a smaller camera? Considering you are already talking about ditching the lighter camera for a heavier, "better" one, do you really think a new compact will see any use?

Bounty wrote:

Actually, it's not, as I usually do hike with such a large camera. The top of a glacier on top of a mountainr ange might be difficult in terms of logistics, but it's a place where the best images are to be found.

So if you actually want a big bulky SLR and are apparently convinced you can carry it everywhere, why a smaller camera? Considering you are already talking about ditching the lighter camera for a heavier, "better" one, do you really think a new compact will see any use?

Yup. Day to day life for example, in the university or when walking around normally and not for the purpose of photography.
Also, it would be nice to carry something light for grueling hikes as opposed to nothing at all.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:There's no such thing as overkill, only too much weight or cost . (And the M9 is astoundingly tiny compared to any other full frame camera on the market).

Oh ha ha of course there is - don't tell me you've never seen anyone using a DSLR as a bulky P&S. Camera companies profit by selling overkill to susceptible consumers. "You could buy that compact...but for just a few hundred extra clams you could get this PRO DSLR with a ZOOM LENS and OVER 9000 MEGAPIXELS and A BUNCH OF OTHER STATS YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND, and ALL YOUR PHOTOS WILL BE SO PRO." That's how you sell this shit. Meanwhile the real pros have carefully tailored their equipment to give them the right mix of capabilities and don't necessarily get the newest, fastest, best of everything, and the reason is that their cameras are tools, not toys.

I know about the M9 and frankly, so what? Unless you are used to rangefinders and have tailored your shooting style around them, a Leica will not be satisfactory. A full-frame sensor is pointless when it's in a camera you can't use effectively.

Yup, hence my deliberations. I've grown used to ranting at the fuzzyness of my 40D on a top end consumer zoom (the 17-55), going back to a compact will be painful.

Your 40D is fine. Your lens is fine. A new camera won't make your pictures any better than they already are. This is a truth.

ps your photos won't look as fuzzy if you don't pixel-peep

Sigh. Need. I need a take everywhere camera .

Then get your compact, make your snapshots, end of dilemma. Don't succumb to camera envy, because that's stupid. Your 40D is just as good as it was when it was brand new, and honestly I see no reason to think you have actually outgrown it.

Just a thought. Take a look through the entire "Photo a day" and "Photo Contest" threads and pick out all the best pictures. Then look at the cameras & equipment used to take those pictures, in most cases the gear is quite modest, many of the standout photos in those threads were taken with basic compact cameras, cellphone cameras and 50 year old flea market specials.

Simplicius wrote:I know about the M9 and frankly, so what? Unless you are used to rangefinders and have tailored your shooting style around them, a Leica will not be satisfactory. A full-frame sensor is pointless when it's in a camera you can't use effectively.

Rangefinder shooting is really fun - but quite different. I adore my little Canonet (and I also have an AE-1, a 645N and a 400D...) but it handles just so very differently.

Yup, hence my deliberations. I've grown used to ranting at the fuzzyness of my 40D on a top end consumer zoom (the 17-55), going back to a compact will be painful.

Your 40D is fine. Your lens is fine. A new camera won't make your pictures any better than they already are. This is a truth.

ps your photos won't look as fuzzy if you don't pixel-peep

A 40D and 17-55 IS is "fuzzy".

As for me - I often shoot at ISO 1600 and f/1.4 - "sharpness" is all relative, there. And I'm happy with it.

Sigh. Need. I need a take everywhere camera .

Then get your compact, make your snapshots, end of dilemma. Don't succumb to camera envy, because that's stupid. Your 40D is just as good as it was when it was brand new, and honestly I see no reason to think you have actually outgrown it.

For that matter, the pros often do have a little compact P&S to take everywhere with them - or even a cameraphone. Sure, they lack nice big sensors and have more noise - but so what? (See Luminous Landscape for his take on a small P&S)

it handles just so very differently.

What would you say the difference is? Coming from rangefinders I've so far seen SLR's as basically "like rangefinder, but bigger and clumsier". Objectively I know there are advantages, I know about the more accurate framing and that you get instant filter and aperture feedback, but I'm having a hard time visualizing just where the difference really lies in terms of usage.

EDIT: to be clear, I have two SLR's, but when I shoot with them I just treat them as rangefinders with an odd viewfinder.

Bounty wrote:What would you say the difference is? Coming from rangefinders I've so far seen SLR's as basically "like rangefinder, but bigger and clumsier". Objectively I know there are advantages, I know about the more accurate framing and that you get instant filter and aperture feedback, but I'm having a hard time visualizing just where the difference really lies in terms of usage.

EDIT: to be clear, I have two SLR's, but when I shoot with them I just treat them as rangefinders with an odd viewfinder.

In my case, it's a mental thing rather than a hardware thing. An SLR is the hand I always brush my teeth with - the job gets done without thinking about where my hand is, what it's doing, what it will do next. When I use a rangefinder, it's like switching hands. The job still gets done, but it's slower and clumsier and I have to divert more attention to the equipment.

(John Camp's piece for TOP on why DSLR users shouldn't jump recklessly to the M9 gets at why someone used to DSLR methods won't be able to transfer his shooting style directly to an M9 and get the same results.)

An SLR is the hand I always brush my teeth with - the job gets done without thinking about where my hand is, what it's doing, what it will do next.

I understand what you're saying, but I have a hard time relating it to my experiences. Shooting an image is setting shutter speed, setting aperture, focusing, click - whether I'm using a rangefinder, an SLR, a digital, or a box. The buttons are in different places, and each camera has its practical limits, but to me the process is the same each time. I feel like I'm missing something here.

The process will of course be the same, but I think phongn was referring more to style. For instance, SLR framing is WYSIWYG, so you can compose without thinking about the camera at all. The camera becomes your eye, and the frame, focus, field of view & magnification, and all of that are built right into your vision. That's not the case with a rangefinder; I have to think about the camera because I'm not just looking through the viewfinder, I'm looking at the projected framelines and focusing patch.

On the converse side, rangefinders typically have a viewfinder that is wider than the field of view of the lens. Whereas with an SLR you are essentially looking through a drinking straw and situational awareness comes away from the camera, with a rangefinder you can see something in the finder before it enters the frame proper, watch it pass through the shot (because of no mirror blackout), and then follow-through. You have a slightly more open view when you frame with a rangefinder, which makes it easier to deal with moving scenes, even if you have to be more attentive to framing.

Translating that to my own experience, as a heavy SLR user I am used to composing in-camera and having nice, absolute framelines. When I use the Koni, framing takes longer and I am always less sure of it. On the other hand, at an airshow I take my head away from to camera a fair bit to see where the next shot will be, and I have to be quite scrupulous about leading my targets because I can't see anything outside the frame. Each requires different mental approaches.

Then again, rangefinders aren't very suitable for macro and tele work (extreme parallax error and trying to compose in a tiny portion of the viewfinder, respectively), so a rangefinder user will have to work around that in his approach to his subjects and choose his shots differently from an SLR user. And so on.

When I use the Koni, framing takes longer and I am always less sure of it.

Maybe that's where I've learnt it different - I never trust the frame. Ever. When I take a photograph I take one of the centre 80% or so of the viewfinder, depending on the camera, and mentally blank out the rest; if something absolutely needs to be in the frame I just step back for a larger margin. I can't imagine trying to get a frame right down to the millimetre, and I don't try it on an SLR, either - which probably makes the transition that much easier.

Bounty wrote:Maybe that's where I've learnt it different - I never trust the frame. Ever. When I take a photograph I take one of the centre 80% or so of the viewfinder, depending on the camera, and mentally blank out the rest; if something absolutely needs to be in the frame I just step back for a larger margin. I can't imagine trying to get a frame right down to the millimetre, and I don't try it on an SLR, either - which probably makes the transition that much easier.

On an SLR the frame centering will be absolutely accurate - there may be some extra stuff if the viewfinder isn't 100% but you are pretty much guaranteed to get what you see at a minimum. I'm used to that way of taking photographs and I suspect that's how most people are, especially with modern digital point-and-shoot cameras generally using some form of Live View.

Rangefinders force me to stop, think and consider how accurate the frameline is. The parallax error also means I'm moving the camera a bit more than on my SLRs. There's also issues where I have to guess at depth-of-field, whereas on an SLR I can do an instant-preview. Now there are other advantages - size, in particular - that make rangefinders attractive.

aerius wrote:This point needs to be emphasized, again. The latest Canon & Nikon flagship DSLRs may be great cameras and all that, but they're absolutely useless for me because there's no way in hell I'm going to carry them around. And if I don't have them with me, I'm not going to be taking any pictures with them.

Ahahahahahahha.

*pauses*

aahahhahahaha

The USAFM laughs at your puny point and shoot.

I bought a Polaroid Land 95a tonight on a lark, might make a decent project camera (4x5 conversion, maybe?). Only trouble was, the front standard was derailed. I popped it back on with the help of a screwdriver, only to realize I had done it wrong and it needed to come off again. How did I derail it again? With a hammer.

Steel was here; plastic sucks balls.

Edit:



It would make for a decent large-format camera, because it's a bit lighter and much more easily held than the Speed Graphic. The case is a plus.

With the other two big folders:

I picked up the remains of a century-old Folding Pocket Kodak No. 3A, Model B3. It's totally shot as a camera, but the lens (B&L 165mm Rapid Rectilinear) looks to be in good shape, and the shutter works in 'I', so a cleaning might revive 'B' and 'T' too. The front standard has some rise and shift that might be liberated. I dig the brass shutter housing and the rosewood trim on the bed.

The part of the camera that is worth any attention:



A little girl with a 3A back in the day:



It's the same size as the Polaroid & shot 3 1/4 inch by 5 1/2 inch - postcard format.

phongn wrote:

Yup, hence my deliberations. I've grown used to ranting at the fuzzyness of my 40D on a top end consumer zoom (the 17-55), going back to a compact will be painful.

Your 40D is fine. Your lens is fine. A new camera won't make your pictures any better than they already are. This is a truth.

ps your photos won't look as fuzzy if you don't pixel-peep

A 40D and 17-55 IS is "fuzzy".

I blame my shakey hands, and an astoundingly high amount of out of focus shots.

As for me - I often shoot at ISO 1600 and f/1.4 - "sharpness" is all relative, there. And I'm happy with it.

Iso 1600 is fine by me too. . (I prefer going down a quarter-third stop, though it's mainly a psychological thing (I can't tell the difference).

Sigh. Need. I need a take everywhere camera .

Then get your compact, make your snapshots, end of dilemma. Don't succumb to camera envy, because that's stupid. Your 40D is just as good as it was when it was brand new, and honestly I see no reason to think you have actually outgrown it.

For that matter, the pros often do have a little compact P&S to take everywhere with them

Where do you think I got the idea for a good compact from? . (Well, that and my old, dead TZ1).

- or even a cameraphone.

Tried that. It's useless, and I still have a year and a half left on my contract.

Sure, they lack nice big sensors and have more noise - but so what? (See Luminous Landscape for his take on a small P&S)

Reduced IQ is one thing, but blue should be blue and not purple or blobs.

I blame my shakey hands, and an astoundingly high amount of out of focus shots.

Then try learning to use your equipment before you start blaming a machine that costs more than most people can afford for your failings.

Bounty wrote:

I blame my shakey hands, and an astoundingly high amount of out of focus shots.

Then try learning to use your equipment before you start blaming a machine that costs more than most people can afford for your failings.

My hands aren't that shakey, it was never a problem with compacts, and focus issues are the len's fault .

Do you use autofocus? If so, don't complain about focus issues.