Camera Reviews

[tegan]

All of the camera reviews seem to be with the kit lenses, which admittedly are not the best. Certainly something needs to be used and that is the logical choice but it leaves open the question, what would the difference in lab results or image quailty be if you did NOT use the kit lenses?

How would a Zeiss lens on a Sony Alpha for example compare with a Canon lens on an XSi? How would a top Leica lens on a Panasonic camera compare with a great Nikon lens of a D3?

I read a report that for the best nature photos the answer is a Leica lens on the top Canon Mark II or III camera, but this is probably changing as new cameras and lenses come out as well.

I don't think we will ever get the definitive answer on camera/lens related image quality for the type of photography you do, so the bottom line is probaly to go with whatever works best for you.

Tegan

[Travis]

I think for the most part (at the dslr level)it is all irrelevant.... I never hear anyone look at a photograph and say "oh yea... that must be the pentax K20"

you could jam a $135 50mm 1.8 on a $400 6 meg Nikon D40 and make a three foot wide print that wouldn't be questioned...

the higher cameras just make it easier.... higher fps... more autofocus points... better high iso quality... but only marginal increases in actual image quality...

i think your avatar pretty much says it all...

having said that... i'm dying for a D300 or better yet a D700... lol.... i'm sucked right into that marketing machine and love every minute of it..

[tegan]

Well, for those who think that processors and cameras cannot go much higher in megapixels, think again.

Apparently the technology is coming on-line for a camera chip that will run a gigapixel digital camera.

Tegan

[Travis]

well thats nice..... but it is beyond the human eye to resolve these differences...

what I would like to see are sensors/processors with a dynamic range closer to the human eye... I could do without the restrictions of midday shooting.... blown highlights... i'd like to toss my nd grads out the window...

perhaps the day will come soon when cameras will have an HDR option where multiple exposures are taken and processed in as long as it takes for the shutter to open and close..... (and i'm talking about HDR without all of the excessive tone mapping).... just nice subtle hdr to balance and smooth out a scene as the human eye see's...

or better yet sensor that just plain recognizes a 3 stop difference between a skyline and the foreground and limits the sensitivity of just the overexposed part of the image hitting the sensor...

or maybe the development of sensors that produce noiseless images at ISO 50,000...

[Marko]

I like this thread - and I feel your frustration travis!

In many ways, we are working backward in digital. We never NEEDED digital. It's HARDER not easier for both pros and newbies to get a good print with digital. IMO the instant feedback is the most important part of digital. Almost everything else about digital, on AVERAGE is inferior to film and a wet darkroom..

Your turn...:)

[tegan]

well thats nice..... but it is beyond the human eye to resolve these differences...

what I would like to see are sensors/processors with a dynamic range closer to the human eye... I could do without the restrictions of midday shooting.... blown highlights... i'd like to toss my nd grads out the window...

perhaps the day will come soon when cameras will have an HDR option where multiple exposures are taken and processed in as long as it takes for the shutter to open and close..... (and i'm talking about HDR without all of the excessive tone mapping).... just nice subtle hdr to balance and smooth out a scene as the human eye see's...

or better yet sensor that just plain recognizes a 3 stop difference between a skyline and the foreground and limits the sensitivity of just the overexposed part of the image hitting the sensor...

or maybe the development of sensors that produce noiseless images at ISO 50,000...

I have a dynamic range control on one of my cameras which according to PopPhoto is the best on any camera. If I shoot in RAW, there is even more control of dynamic range in the included postprocessing software.

Tegan

[Travis]

I have a dynamic range control on one of my cameras which according to PopPhoto is the best on any camera. If I shoot in RAW, there is even more control of dynamic range in the included postprocessing software.

Tegan

Great... then you can forward me your nd grad and polarizer collection...:)

Nikon uses a similar approach called "Active-D Lighting" or Active Dynamic Lighting.... I use it... I enjoy it... but I think we can both agree on it's somewhat limited capacity. Development in this area could be further stimulated and it's benefits would be better utilized in lieu of the great megapixal race..

Don't get me wrong... I am not anti-megapixal... The more the better UNLESS you are cramming too many pixals on a sensor(for the sake of marketing) resulting in poorer IQ....

[tegan]

Great... then you can forward me your nd grad and polarizer collection...:)

Nikon uses a similar approach called "Active-D Lighting" or Active Dynamic Lighting.... I use it... I enjoy it... but I think we can both agree on it's somewhat limited capacity. Development in this area could be further stimulated and it's benefits would be better utilized in lieu of the great megapixal race..

Don't get me wrong... I am not anti-megapixal... The more the better UNLESS you are cramming too many pixals on a sensor(for the sake of marketing) resulting in poorer IQ....

Don't hold your breath waiting for me to forward my grad or polarizer collections. :D

PopPhoto indicates that my dynamic range control is the best of the lot currently available but then if you read PopPhoto, you know that they can and do contradict themselves from one camera review to the next.

Tegan

[tirediron]

Ehhh... all of this is taking us farther and farther from where we need to go. Call me an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud, or even late for dinner, but I think we need to leave the development of gimmicks alone, and concentrate on building better quality cameras. Take the D3 for instance; a $5000.00+ camera body that has a shutter which is only rated for 300,000 cycles?? :eek: That's ludicrous. I'd like to see the return of bodies built to the standard of the M6, or the old Mirandas. heck, even the Pentax Spotmatic bodies I still have at home (somewhere) are built solid enough to use as weapons...

</rant>

Okay... I'm better now.

[tegan]

Ehhh... all of this is taking us farther and farther from where we need to go. Call me an old-fashioned stick-in-the-mud, or even late for dinner, but I think we need to leave the development of gimmicks alone, and concentrate on building better quality cameras. Take the D3 for instance; a $5000.00+ camera body that has a shutter which is only rated for 300,000 cycles?? :eek: That's ludicrous. I'd like to see the return of bodies built to the standard of the M6, or the old Mirandas. heck, even the Pentax Spotmatic bodies I still have at home (somewhere) are built solid enough to use as weapons...

</rant>

Okay... I'm better now.

Well, because of the fast changing technology, cameras have become consummable. The thinking of the manufacturers is that the camera will be obsolete before 300,000 cycles and for pros, it is just a business expense anyway.

Tegan

[tirediron]

Well, because of the fast changing technology, cameras have become consummable. The thinking of the manufacturers is that the camera will be obsolete before 300,000 cycles and for pros, it is just a business expense anyway.

Tegan

True, but I think for most, it's a business expense because it has to be from the point of view of built-in obsolesence. You can bet the Life reporter from the 50s didn't buy a new Speed-Graphic every 18 months. A pro body should be something that is purchased and usable for a LONG time. Take a look at lenses; even Nikon's gold-ring stuff is only rated for 10 years. That is sad.

[Travis]

True, but I think for most, it's a business expense because it has to be from the point of view of built-in obsolesence. You can bet the Life reporter from the 50s didn't buy a new Speed-Graphic every 18 months. A pro body should be something that is purchased and usable for a LONG time. Take a look at lenses; even Nikon's gold-ring stuff is only rated for 10 years. That is sad.

I dunno.... school me if I'm wrong.... but I think 300,000 cycles would take a lot longer to achieve on film than with digital format.... simply for the sake of changing film, cost of development etc I don't think film photographers (which many of you were/are) were as careless with their shutter release as we digital shooters are. This very reason might contribute to perceived durability among film bodies simply for their lessened use. I am speaking without knowing so tell me if I am right or wrong.

Plus if you really wanna get picky about it.... the cycle rating is typically for the shutter that can be replace for a couple of hundred bucks.... just like getting brakes for your car.... if you cared to keep your body you could simply pay to maintain it... however, at the rate this technology is moving I wouldn't see this as desirable...

[tegan]

Good points, Travis. I totally agree.

Tegan

[tirediron]

I dunno.... school me if I'm wrong.... but I think 300,000 cycles would take a lot longer to achieve on film than with digital format.... simply for the sake of changing film, cost of development etc I don't think film photographers (which many of you were/are) were as careless with their shutter release as we digital shooters are. This very reason might contribute to perceived durability among film bodies simply for their lessened use. I am speaking without knowing so tell me if I am right or wrong.

Plus if you really wanna get picky about it.... the cycle rating is typically for the shutter that can be replace for a couple of hundred bucks.... just like getting brakes for your car.... if you cared to keep your body you could simply pay to maintain it... however, at the rate this technology is moving I wouldn't see this as desirable...

Very true.

I understand your points, I just don't think it's fair of the manufacturer to build in that degree of planned obselescence on a $5000.00 item.

[tegan]

Very true.

I understand your points, I just don't think it's fair of the manufacturer to build in that degree of planned obselescence on a $5000.00 item.

I agree, however I had the shutter of a good film camera go in Mexico after probably less than 100,000 cycles. The reason according to the camera repair expert was largely due to the fact that it was plastic rather than metal.

My point is that film cameras were not necessarily better or more reliable as the push came for lighter bodies and lenses.

Tegan

[tirediron]

I agree, however I had the shutter of a good film camera go in Mexico after probably less than 100,000 cycles. The reason according to the camera repair expert was largely due to the fact that it was plastic rather than metal.

My point is that film cameras were not necessarily better or more reliable as the push came for lighter bodies and lenses.

Tegan

True, but I think that pro film bodies were built a lot tougher than pro digital bodies.

[tegan]

True, but I think that pro film bodies were built a lot tougher than pro digital bodies.

Yup, the bodies certainly were, although I did accidently bounce a non pro compact digital with a 28mm to 200mm attached lens off a truck seat onto the pavement and was surprised that it did not have damage or scrapes and kept on clicking. I am sure however that was the exception, rather than the rule.

Tegan