dg1

I use grit additive also. It is good for what ails you.

I'm in the Meryl camp by and large. While virtually noise free images can be nice, like sharpness, they don't guarantee a great photograph, anymore than some noise or soft focus determine a bad photo. Meryl simply states that obsessing over the issue is not what photography is about, at least for most art or personal photography.

 

The subject of my post here is that there are different qualities of "noise" like grain, and it brings to my mind discussions of the qualities of OOF areas (bokeh) that some of us get into with this or that lens. Both are potential deficits to an image that can be turned into qualities that can enhance the photo.

 

I think Meryl's brush analogy is fairly apt too. And while my A2 has superceded my 10D as the main camera for the photos I do, my comparison of the noise of each at 800 provides me with a better awareness of what each has to offer when the differences are embraced rather than grabbing for some gold ring of "image quality". Great image quality can be a lot of things and not necessarily noiseless.

 

True no noise might be good noise, but not always or for everyone.

I'm just a hanger around the fort here, but I'll add to the discussion that I enjoy my 10D's viewfinder very much. Obviously it's not like a bessa or leica finder, but it is very clear and bright. And I don't find it terribly small. I assume the 20D is similar. That said it's my understanding that in the world of APS-C sensor size DSLRs the Pentax *istDS takes top honors for the largest viewfinder. I do a lot of changing up of cameras also, and I think it's simply a matter of seeking that thing that might click, and it's fun to experiment. Different people have different ways of learning. Some of us take the less efficient scenic route and have fun on the journey.

Wasn't Kertesz one of the earliest adopters of the Leica?

I think Ricoh is the company to watch for this. There is supposed to be a digital GR1 coming out soon, and one would assume with a fixed focal lenght lens similar to the GR lens. I have the Ricoh Caplio GX, and they've clearly brought over concepts from the GR1v 35mm compact camera. Things like the "snap" mode (fixed hyperfocal focus) to further speed up the already unusually fast response, and f/2.5 lens with 28mm wide angle. In the GX case it is a zoom lens, but they've thoughtfully included a step mode that offers discreet focal lengths of 28, 35, 50, and 85 mm equivalents and it defaults to 28mm, so it's easy to use as if it were a fixed focal length lens. The GX features well thought out controls that allow operation without referring to menus for most situations. Sure, it betrays it's digicam roots with some "scene" modes, and the 1/1.8 " sensor, but it is, IMO, the strongest nod to the serious photographer any manufacturer has yet provided in a compact digicam. It's very apparent the designers had real photography in mind. It's not perfect, but the best I've seen. An 8meg GX2 will soon be released, to be followed hopefully by the promised digital GR1.

I'd guess your getting dark exposures because your camera is metering the sky in the background. This would be a good place to use some fill flash if it is allowed (could that maybe mess up the rider's vision?). An alternative might be to meter off either a gray card or off the grass, and lock that exposure. This will blow out the sky of course but your subject will be exposed better. The only other way I'm aware of is to use fill flash.

I recently did a few comparisons of ISO 800 noise between the 3

digital cameras I use. By and large it simply varified what I

already know.. smaller sensors have more noise at high ISOs. The

cameras in question are 2 digicams, a Ricoh GX and a KM-A2, and my

DSLR, a canon 10D. Actually I wasn't going to bother with the 10D, I

was just interested in which smaller camera would serve best for low

light in a pinch. It's the A2. Ok whatever.

 

What I noticed however, is besides the amount of apparent noise,

there are differences in granularity of the noise, as well as color.

The digicams both produce the blue speckle thing, and the A2's noise

is much finer grained than the somewhat blotchy Ricoh (and works well

for B&W). Meanwhile the CMOS in the 10D produces extremely fine

grained and subtle noise without the blue neon speckles, and it looks

incredibly like film grain. It actually looks good, even when some

exaggerated sharpening brought it out more.

 

I'm not sure, but it seems to me this quality of the 10D noise is

partly due to the CMOS sensor, but I don't have a large CCD sensor

dslr to compare it to. It's quite lovely though, sort of like a fine

grained film. That's at 800, at 1600 I've seen more evidence of the

blue specks, evne there it is fine grained and quite smooth, although

I'm much less inclined to leave it there as with 800 or lower.

 

To me an image that is clean doesn't always work as well as something

with a little grit to it. It seems that another image parameter for

digital cameras might be "noise quality". Something else to quibble

about, like "bokeh" quality. The ISO 800 on the 10D is something

I'll choose for it's texture as well as its speed, whereas the

digicams stay at low ISO except for emergencies, and then have as

much of their noise removed as possible in pp.

I think it would be worth your while to look into the Casio Exilim line of small digicams. They're tiny and capable of excellent results, and feature extremely low shutter lag. Both fixed focal length and zooms are available in shirt pocket sizes.

My advice is, buy my 10D with 28mm 2.8 and 50mm f1.8 II prime lenses, and pair of Sigma DC lenses, 18-50mm and 55-200mm. This will be more than enough to keep you busy, and totally unlike your wife's S60.

 

I've got the body only in the classifieds, but I'm willing to revise the price for the whole kit. Includes all original accessories, in box, also extra battery, and 512meg CF card.

 

Email me directly if interested.

If you go the 8080 route, be sure to look into the minolta A2. It has a great user interface, and you can get plenty wacky with it.

 

I've got a 10D and if it's build quality your after I don't know that you can find anything better in your price range. I like the Canon CMOS sensors, and it has a somewhat wider ISO range than the Nikons which start at 200. And my 10D, which is very nice is for sale. Check the photo.net classifieds or email me directly if you might be interested.

I've been getting more and more into using my A2 like my old TLR. I like visualizing that way. The 1.8" LCD combined with my eyesight, doesn't allow me to dwell on the details as much as the distribution of the composition in the frame. I think for me that helps me shoot faster because I have a tendency to get hung up otherwise.

 

I read that for a while William Eggleston used his Leica with no viewfinder, but I don't know which of the pictures I've seen were the result. It would be interesting to compare the eye vs hip shots from a master like that.

Per, do you find having to stick with the lower ISO 100 on the D2 very limiting? The same situation exists with the A2, but I've been surprised to discover that most of the time ISO 64 or 100 is more than adequate, and in a pinch I might go up to ISO200 or even 400 and the noise can be handle pretty well in post processing. The DSLR's low light high ISO's is certainly nice to have however.

I've only seen mention of non-OEM batteries exploding, catching on fire etc recently, and I've been using them for a couple years in my 10D and Ricoh GX. I too, have yet to read any first hand report of this happening. I think it's another urban-myth. Perhaps started by the OEM battery manufactures?

I'm not a photojournalist, but I do walk around to do my photos and I agree, my DSLR, a 10D, is not a lot of fun for that. I've replaced my 10D with an A2, and while I haven't sold the 10D yet, it's for sale for the same reasons you've noted. The A2 works great for daylight shooting, and can squeak by pretty well for low light static subjects, very well actually with the image stabilization. I enjoy using the A2 more than the 10D, and it covers 90% of what I like to shoot. A DSLR, for me, cover's only maybe 60% of what I like to shoot even though it's more capable for the 10% the A2 doesn't handle as well..low noise low light, and more action oriented shooting. But a camera you don't care to use, isn't much good, even if it has great image quality.