| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2006 12:18:53 PM · #26 |
I never put too much stock in the "Best" Camera,Lens, doo-dad or gizmo of the year awards, especially when they are given by magazines.
Who's paying their bills? |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 12:46:09 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never put too much stock in the "Best" Camera,Lens, doo-dad or gizmo of the year awards, especially when they are given by magazines.
Who's paying their bills? |
Nikon and Canon mostly. Does that make you feel better?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 01:21:59 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by lesgainous:
... I don't want to pay for IS/VR every time I buy a
lens. |
I don't either, nor do I. :D |
I like my VF to work for the viewfinder as well*, in-lens VR does that and I will gladly pay for it. You don't even notice it that it is working until you hear the clunk in the lens that indicates the VR has maxed out.
It does not have a negative impact on the image, the resolution of the Canon EF 70-200 does not differ much, if any, from the EF 70-200 IS. The only downsides of in-lens VR are indeed the fact that you cannot switch it from lens to lens like a teleconverter and that is has a slight negative influence on the bokeh. Bokeh with IS/VR turned off is better.
* Added: Unless the K100 focuses with its imaging sensor, the optical path to the AF sensors is not corrected, unlike the optical path to the AF sensors of a camera fitted with an IS/VR lens. This should help with the focus.
Depends on you if you find this important or not.
Just make pretty pictures, I don't care what you buy.
Message edited by author 2006-11-14 13:23:10.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:00:26 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
* Added: Unless the K100 focuses with its imaging sensor, the optical path to the AF sensors is not corrected, unlike the optical path to the AF sensors of a camera fitted with an IS/VR lens. This should help with the focus. |
This make no sense at all. VR doesn't focus, it stills. What are you talking about focus for, and what difference does it make if the lens corrects, or if the sensor corrects? It's the same light, and the same focal plane.
Only thing I could think you're talking about is the possibility that distortion might occur when the sensor shifts. ??
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:30:15 PM · #30 |
I like the fact that in the Joey L interview he talks about his first camera being a 1.2 mega pixel. And we are worried about image stablization and focus.
Also I am waiting for Apple to come out with a slr called the "eyepod". Thank you... I will be here all week.
Message edited by author 2006-11-14 14:32:47. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:33:34 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
I will be here all week. |
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:45:09 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
* Added: Unless the K100 focuses with its imaging sensor, the optical path to the AF sensors is not corrected, unlike the optical path to the AF sensors of a camera fitted with an IS/VR lens. This should help with the focus. |
This make no sense at all. VR doesn't focus, it stills. What are you talking about focus for, and what difference does it make if the lens corrects, or if the sensor corrects? It's the same light, and the same focal plane.
Only thing I could think you're talking about is the possibility that distortion might occur when the sensor shifts. ?? |
No.
Check out this image of the lightpath trough a D2x. You see the light entering the body where the lens would be and because the mirror is down the light is splitted into two paths.
One path goes up trough the prisma and viewfinder lenses, the other one goes down to the exposure metering and autofocus sensors. At this stage no light at all hits the sensor. Not in the D70 or the D2x, nor in the K100D.
So, the sensor is not involved in the af process. It can shake all it wants, but it has no influence whatsoever on the lightpaths up and down. In case of camera shaked the lightpath from subject to af sensor will be unstable and changing. This can have a negative effect on af speed and af accuracy.
Now put a Vibration Reduction/Image stabilisation element in this path. The lightpath after this element will be stable (to a certain limit), creating a stable unchanging lightpath between subject and af sensor. This helps AF speed and AF accuracy. The same applies to the upward path to the viewfinder, giving you a more stable view which can help with manual focus too.
Only when the mirror opens, the lightpatch goes onto the focal plane and the path to the AF sensors and Viewfinder is blocked. Only now the IS/VR and sensor-shift systems have the same effect.
That's why I am talking about focus for. Does it make sense now?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:45:10 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by boomtap:
I like the fact that in the Joey L interview he talks about his first camera being a 1.2 mega pixel. And we are worried about image stablization and focus. |
Bah. That's huge. My starter
Message edited by author 2006-11-14 14:45:25.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 03:07:12 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never put too much stock in the "Best" Camera,Lens, doo-dad or gizmo of the year awards, especially when they are given by magazines.
Who's paying their bills? |
B&H Photo, Samy's Camera, Adorama, etc, etc...
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 03:14:25 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
It does not have a negative impact on the image, the resolution of the Canon EF 70-200 does not differ much, if any, from the EF 70-200 IS. |
A Canon IS camera "works by using a floating lens element that is moved orthogonally to the optical axis of the lens, using electromagnets. The vibration signal which is compensated for by the stabilizing lens element is typically aquired using two piezoelectric angular velocity sensors." (quoted from here)
You can not sit there and tell me that the addition of another lens element does not negatively affect the light coming through--you just can't. Albeit, it may not be noticiable to the naked eye, but having light pass through another piece of glass is not as good as passing through one less piece of glass, period.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 03:52:34 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Originally posted by Azrifel:
It does not have a negative impact on the image, the resolution of the Canon EF 70-200 does not differ much, if any, from the EF 70-200 IS. |
A Canon IS camera "works by using a floating lens element that is moved orthogonally to the optical axis of the lens, using electromagnets. The vibration signal which is compensated for by the stabilizing lens element is typically aquired using two piezoelectric angular velocity sensors." (quoted from here)
You can not sit there and tell me that the addition of another lens element does not negatively affect the light coming through--you just can't. Albeit, it may not be noticiable to the naked eye, but having light pass through another piece of glass is not as good as passing through one less piece of glass, period. |
"does not differ much" is what I said. The difference is not as dramatic as you seem to want to make it.
Here are the MTF charts for the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 with and without IS at 200mm.
 = non-IS
 = IS
Here is how to read an MTF chart
What is basically comes down to is that the IS has no significant effect, in some bits underperforms slightly and in other bits it outperforms the non-IS.
As for the difference in elements? The amount of lenses added is surprising, it is a lot more than one as you can see in the following image. I cropped them to the part where the differences are. In the front they are the same.
I count six extra lens elements compared to the non-IS.
In that light the MTF chart is not that shabby eh?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 04:38:24 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never put too much stock in the "Best" Camera,Lens, doo-dad or gizmo of the year awards, especially when they are given by magazines.
Who's paying their bills? |
B&H Photo, Samy's Camera, Adorama, etc, etc... |
Don't forget Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc.
Of all of those, who's the biggest company with the most $$$ to spend on ads?
That's right, Sony.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 05:09:31 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I never put too much stock in the "Best" Camera,Lens, doo-dad or gizmo of the year awards, especially when they are given by magazines.
Who's paying their bills? |
B&H Photo, Samy's Camera, Adorama, etc, etc... |
Don't forget Sony, Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc.
Of all of those, who's the biggest company with the most $$$ to spend on ads?
That's right, Sony. |
ROTFL. It's quite amusing to see the tinfoil hats come out. Doesn't matter whether it's cars, cameras, hi-fi gear or anything else. The minute some kind of award or ranking comes out, a proportion of the people who disagree with it come out of the woodwork with the 'it's because of advertising revenue' line.
On the popphoto.com they have some sister magazine's 2006 editors choices listed. Someone needs to explain to me which of the Olympus E330 (Entry level editors choice), Nikon D200 (Advanced level editors choice) or Canon 5D (Pro level editors choice) awards were based on advertising revenue. Or is it only Sony that gets awards because of money?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 05:57:46 PM · #39 |
Best example of that is the fortune 500 'best companies to work for' list.
Companies suddenly disappear from the list, that were top 5 the previous year, because they didn't pay for it the next year...
The funny part is that anyone thinks the editorial content isn't just a vehicle to shift more ads. It's all about subscription numbers for advertising sales. (which is why a years subscription to wired costs $8 now, vs $60 cover price - because they can re-sell the fact that you've subscribed)
Message edited by author 2006-11-14 17:59:12.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 06:50:25 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
And I thought Canons glass was expensive. Holy Crap. A 70-200 F/2.8 is $2400 and a 1.4x and the 2x teleconverter is $600+ |
Like an ink jet printer, the printer is cheap, it's the ink that will cost you your first born. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 07:16:49 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by boomtap:
I like the fact that in the Joey L interview he talks about his first camera being a 1.2 mega pixel. And we are worried about image stablization and focus. |
Bah. That's huge. My starter |
Right on! 5.6 with that sucker. Good job! |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 07:44:37 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Goes to show that Pop Photo has probably never actually *held* an A100.
Seriously.. if that kind of build quality gets that kind of recognition, I weep for the future. |
I agree. Pop Photo has NO credibility when it comes to product reviews...They will not bite the hand that feeds them advertising $$$... |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:09:16 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Do you want people to like your camera or your photos? |
Most sensible comment in the entire thread.
"Best camera of the year" is a pretty meaningless statement. Best for whom? Best on what criteria, and how are they measured? It's so subjective... even for people who are already invested in the same brand/system, there can be different "best" cameras (two of my photographer friends also use Minolta, but our needs are best met by different cameras in Minolta's range).
Would my photography be appreciably better (or worse) if I used another brand? I highly doubt it. I suspect the only thing we can conclude about anyone who says "Nikon is better than Canon" (or substitute any of the other top five brands) is that the speaker is insecure about their genitalia.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 12:14:45 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by paddles:
"Best camera of the year" is a pretty meaningless statement. Best for whom? Best on what criteria, and how are they measured? It's so subjective... |
do you also think that the ribbon winners on this site is also meaningless, by your definition? |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 09:54:05 AM · #45 |
| I am so glad I started such a lively conversation. Let me just say that if I don't blow my horn, who will? Hey, if you got a mag in the mail that said your first dslr was voted camera of the year, wouldn't you have at least mentioned it in the forums? Lets be real. It doesn't have anything to do with insecurity at all. I just wanted to share a bit of information. Besides, I am not saying that any one is better than the other, but we have all won awards of some sort in our photo careers, and the same goes for selling prints or getting a paycheck from a stock sight. Who's to say that the sale was the best photo ever taken? Just that we are proud, and want to share. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 11:51:55 AM · #46 |
I will have to say that reading press on the Sony has made me wondering if they are as cool as they say. Some of the features seem pretty cool.
I think cameras are like computers now. By the time you take it out of the package it is outdated and there is a better camera. You will never keep up anymore. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 05:27:58 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Originally posted by paddles:
"Best camera of the year" is a pretty meaningless statement. Best for whom? Best on what criteria, and how are they measured? It's so subjective... |
do you also think that the ribbon winners on this site is also meaningless, by your definition? |
That doesn't necessarily logically follow. The ribbon winners here are determined by a larger number of people, not just one or three - and hence more meaningful/reliable.
So that you don't think I'm trying to weasel out of an argument, let's extend that. The ribbon winners figures are more meaningful/reliable, but as a measure of what? The popularity of the images. To whatever degree there is consistency across the majority of voters on certain aspects (e.g. meets challenge, sharpness, etc.) it could also indicate best (in that challenge) at meeting a certain set of shared criteria.
But "best photo in challenge" is a subjective judgement, depending on what one's criteria are. Different people will have different (valid) opinions on which image in a challenge is best, evident from
- images lower in the ranking being added as individual's favourites
- the existence of forum threads such as "underrated "
Someone (I can't remember who) had a sig line that spoke along those lines, but far more pithy than I've said it.
Don't get me wrong, I hope to be good enough to create ribbon-winning images. But if I do win a blue, that doesn't automatically make my image the best in the challenge - or the best among my work.
Btw, my comment about insecurity was not aimed at the OP, ladymonarda. She spoke about the award being validation that Sony is a decent choice to make, despite the criticism made by certain other people. I could be wrong, but I don't have any recollection of her slagging off on other brands.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2006 06:33:13 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by ladymonarda:
Hey, if you got a mag in the mail that said your first dslr was voted camera of the year, wouldn't you have at least mentioned it in the forums? |
No.
Would you be as excited if the screwdriver in your toolbox was "screwdriver of the year"?
A camera's just a tool. It's what you do with it that matters.
I don't understand this apparent need to validate your choice of camera. |
|
|
|
11/15/2006 06:49:48 PM · #49 |
Such a warm and fuzzy thread - geez.
June - I'm glad you're happy with your camera selection. You made a choice that works for you and that's great. If the camera I use had rec'd similar press I may have been moved to talk about it in a forum thread as well. |
|
|
|
11/30/2006 04:51:54 PM · #50 |
I'm looking at this camera. A friend of mine won a contest and doesn't know whether to keep it or sell it. There's not one challenge image on DPC taken with this camera, according to the Equipment section.
WTH?
|
|
= non-IS
= IS
