aaron meyer

In a couple of weeks I'll be going to rural Alaska as part of a rural assistance program and I'd like to fit in

some time to explore and take some photos. But given that the temperatures I've been tracking have been

between 0 and-20 (Fahrenheit) I'm a little worried about how the cameras would hold up. Does anyone

here have experience with either the Sony A700 or the Maxxum (Dynax) 7 in the sort of very cold, very dry

conditions I'm likely to see? Would one be sturdier than the other or is it an even match? Or would I just be

best to dust off the old manual Chinon screwmount and use a camera that can manage full manual

operation?

 

Or am I just over thinking everything and the A700 will hold up just fine regardless of the manual's warning

about avoiding extended use in temps below 32 Fahrenheit?

"...the pictures...had no details of the kids because they looked like black silhouettes"<BR>

<BR>

And still,<BR>

<BR>

"...he had me erase the pictures and I did"<BR>

<BR>

Why on earth would you acquiesce to that? His request was patently unreasonable since the children were obviously unidentifiable and by his own admission the work was clearly not pedophillic in nature. He had no legal or logical basis to ask that you delete the photos.

I have been fond of the Sony 16-105 as a walkaround lens. For snapshots or other use, it covers a great range and does so well enough that, unless someone is being incredibly critical, the photos will be perfectly good.

 

One of my only complaints has nothing really to do with the lens, but is rather a comment that, with a maximum focal length of 105mm, the lens tends to get you just close enough to wish you had a longer lens. =P The other complaint is that it doesn't focus as close as my Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 and it's not as fast. Neither of which is really a big consideration for a walk-around lens.

 

If you want a faster lens, I really do like the Minolta 28-75 F/2.8, but it doesn't get nearly as wide as your other options do, which can be limiting on APS-C.

 

The Zeiss 16-80 is reported to be excellent (the issues seem limited to early copies from what I've read), and would also be a good choice if you are OK with it being f/3.5 or slower depending on the zoom setting.

 

Aaron

"I figure the lens set at 70mm focal length asks for 1/70 seconds shutter speed for hand holding, and if enlarging to the same final print size that a 105mm lens would have captured on full frame, then as you suggest, 1/105 seconds is a suggested minimum shutter speed - without anti shake."

 

The 1/focal length rule applies only for 35mm FOV, so at 70mm on APS-C you'll need approximately 1/100 second for handholding by general rule. Remember that you're effectively always enlarging the APS-C image to the size of a full 35mm frame.

 

In general, I am only willing to count on SSS for 2 stops. I've had 4 or even 5 stop improvements, but those are less repeatable. In my experience also, the effectiveness of any anti-shake system is reduced as shutter speeds approach about 0.5 seconds. Of course, I can't prove it, so I could just be crazy. :-)

 

And Peter, no worries on the name. People can call me anything as long as they don't call me late for dinner. :-)

"Um ... why didn't we think of this before? Here's the EXIF from Jania's original picture - any suggestions BASED ON EXIF?"

 

Did you read my reply? =P

 

"Looking at the EXIF data captured in the photo reveals that you used a shutter speed of 0.4 seconds with a 70mm lens. With that lens you should be shooting no slower than 0.04 (1/25) seconds even with steady shot, and no slower than 0.01 (1/100) seconds without it. It's simply not possible to hand-hold a shot like this and not have it come out blurry."

 

(I'm just giving you a hard time, don't take it wrong. I'm in a cheeky mood today.)

 

This is a shot that needs a tripod. Even with a very fast lens (f/1.4), which would give a 4 stop advantage over the f/5.6 lens used, is only going to get her to the ragged edge of a hand-holdable shot and that's assuming she's still using ISO 3200 with Super Steady Shot engaged based on the way the camera metered for the shot she posted. (Photo taken at f/5.6 and ISO 3200 with a 0.4 sec exposure, 4-stop improvement from the lens still only gets to a 0.05 or 1/20 second exposure, which, at 70mm or 105mm effective FOV equivalent, is on the edge of what Steady Shot can reasonably be expected to accommodate.)

The photo you posted isn't too bad as far as noise is concerned. Take it in RAW, process through Bibble, and use some subtle Noise Ninja settings and you'll get pretty decent prints probably up to 8x10 with it. Even as it is, it's acceptable for printing up to about 5x7.

 

That said, the entire image is soft, to the point at which I would suspect camera shake because nothing is in focus. Looking at the EXIF data captured in the photo reveals that you used a shutter speed of 0.4 seconds with a 70mm lens. With that lens you should be shooting no slower than 0.04 (1/25) seconds even with steady shot, and no slower than 0.01 (1/100) seconds without it. It's simply not possible to hand-hold a shot like this and not have it come out blurry. In fact, it's a small miracle that it came out as clearly as it did.

 

For a shot like this in the lighting you have, you will need to use a tripod, which will enable you to use a lower ISO (800 or below as opposed to the ISO 3200 that you used in the example photo) and still have a sharp image. Try using a tripod and let us know how that turns out.

"However, it has not been proven that Sony makes the sensor used in the D3. Nikon has said that THEY designed the sensor. So, it may be possible that Nikon contracted Sony to manufacturered the sensor for them. If this is the case, then Sony does not have a right to use the sensor, unless Nikon allows Sony to use it.

 

The more likely possibility is that Nikon may have felt that now that Sony is in the DSLR business, and is a direct competitor, may have decided to design their own sensors, and have a third party do the manufacturing."

 

Sony manufactures the sensor in Nikon's DSLRs. Nikon designed the sensor in the D3 and contracted production to Sony. You are almost certainly correct that Nikon has not licensed the sensor to Sony for use in their own cameras, but it simply wouldn't make business sense for Nikon to spend more money by contracting a different chip manufacturer. Sony's economies of scale and manufacturing experience make them a logical choice for volume production.

I should clarify that it hasn't been an issue for me. And I apologise for the slight towards Adobe. It does well with most other sensors, but doesn't seem to like the CMOS sensor of the A700 and I've heard rumors of similar complaints from Canon 5D users. Near as I can tell from the article I linked to, the chip Sony used doesn't seem to like the particular de-mosaic algorithm used by Adobe.

 

I don't think your friend can go wrong with the A700, but I also don't think he could go wrong with a Canon 5D or a Nikon D3 either. They are all great cameras.

Not sure what you mean about poor high-ISO performance with the A700. RAW noise at high ISO speeds is quite good provided you're using one of the better RAW converters and not Adobe. Adobe has issues creating mottled images from A700 RAW files and Capture One currently has issues with the compressed RAW files (cRAW). Nikon and Canon may have a half-stop edge at most, but in real use that doesn't come into play.

 

A good comparison of A700 RAW files from different converters can be seen here: http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/21/a700-6400-iso-seven-raw-processors/

You are much mistaken regarding the Sony lens lineup.<BR>

<BR>

Only the "DT" line of lenses from Sony are APS-C lenses. This represents mostly a small number of lower-end or

kit zoom lenses (the Zeiss 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 being the one higher-end exception and it's still slower). The full

list of APS-C lenses from Sony is this: <BR>

<BR>

- The aforementioned Zeiss<BR>

- Sony 16-105 f/3.5-5.6<BR>

- Sony 11-18 f/4.5-5.6<BR>

- Sony 18-70 f/3.5-5.6<BR>

- Sony 18-300 f/3.5-6.3<BR>

- Sony 18-250 f/3.5-6.3<BR>

- Sony 55-200 f/4-5.6<BR>

<BR>

From your description, your friend would not be even looking at any of these lenses anyway.<BR>

<BR>

ALL other Sony lenses, and the other Zeiss lenses (the 24-70 f/2.8 SSM, the 85 f/1.4 and the 135 f/1.8) are full

frame. Aside from walkaround zooms Sony has shown little interest in APS-C lenses, preferring to maintain

full-frame lenses.<BR>

<BR>

Sony does make a full-frame sensor (they make the sensor in the Nikon D3), and they will be releasing a

full-frame DSLR later this year (the A900). I am biased since I loved the Maxxum 7 in film form and the A700 is

clearly evolved from that camera, but I really can't say enough positive about the A700.

"A real photographer cares more about figuring out the lighting setup on victoria secret models than the model themselves."

 

Reminds me of a very old photographer joke: If you were walking along a beach at sunset with your camera and you came upon a man who was drowning in the waves and you had to make the choice to either save him or photograph the event... What film would you use?

David,

 

There's a difference between "machine gunning" and the realization that, back in the film days, getting a single really good exposure from a roll of film (36 exposures) was generally considered to be a reasonable "hit rate". Looking back at my post, I did seem to come off advocating a machine gun approach and I didn't mean to, so my apologies there for not wording my post well.

 

A neighbor of mine, an artist and professor of photography, recently had an exhibit of her work documenting the construction of a new bridge. She made over 1,000 exposures but the exhibit showed only about 50 prints. No machine-gunning there though since she only shoots with an 8x10 view camera. So out of 1,000 exposures, approximately 5% were ultimately "keepers". Obviously a gallery showing is more selective than the family photo album, but the illustration remains valid.

 

A lot of people buy a nice camera and then expect to get 80% or 90% great shots. That's just not going to happen. No matter how careful you are, no matter how much attention you pay to your shots, those aren't realistic expectations. Even a quarter of that percentage would be an ambitious goal. There are a lot of photos that just have to get thrown out. The temptation with digital is to try to save every photograph in post and that doesn't really work well, at least not for me.

 

Cheers!

Tripod, cable release, manual focus set for infinity, F11 or higher.

 

I used to shoot them with ISO 50 Velvia slide film and the "bulb" setting for the shutter. I'd just guesstimate the shutter speed at 5 or so seconds and they would tend to come out nicely. The trick is finding a location that has no other bright spots to compete with the fireworks, or at least where you can frame the shot to exclude other bright spots. As Bob said, the fireworks will probably show almost no matter what, you just want to remember not to leave the shutter open so long that the background begins to resolve.

 

Most cameras will perform a "dark frame subtraction" for noise reduction. This is non-destructive to detail, but can take a long time so if you want fast shot-to-shot time, disable this feature.

That lens will fit any Sony DSLR and any Minolta auto-focus film or digiral SLR.

A lot of it is just throwing away a lot of photos. For every great photo you see in a magazine there are probably thousands of photos that didn't make it. It's not terribly uncommon for a pro to shoot 500+ photos in a day and only come away with 5 that are worth keeping. A fair amount of photography is just knowing what to throw away.

What do you mean by "getting close"? There are different ways of doing so.

 

Long Telephoto: Used when you are far away, usually 300mm or more and can get quite expensive when using a "fast" lens (i.e. a lens that allows a lot of light to pass through it). Typically these are not zoom lenses, though there are some slow zoom lenses available (like the 75-300 lens you have, which is f/5.6, not f/4.5 by the time you're at 300mm or the Sigma 50-500mm lens, which is very slow at f/6.3 by 500mm) and the slow 500 f/8 mirror lens (which is mainly good for wildlife photography against backgrounds where its strange bokeh effects won't be as noticeable). None of these later lenses will be particularly good for use indoors. A 70-200 f/2.8 would be better for indoors, but you won't be able to zoom in as "close" as you can right now with the 300mm lens.

 

Macro Lenses: These are used for "critter" photography and entail getting very close to the subject (sometimes within an inch or so at maximum magnification). These are typically faster lenses, but they are usually primes (that is, they are not zoom lenses) and are more common in the 50-100mm range, though there are 180mm f/3.5 Macro lenses out there. That will sacrifice some speed though since an f/2.8 lens will be able to gather more light.

 

Of note, shooting indoors requires a fast lens and high ISO. Inside a well-lit room I'm usually needing ISO 800 or ISO 1600 even with an f/2.8 lens. Even then, I'm not getting the 1/500 second shutter speeds necessary to "stop" fast motion like sports.

 

The A100 is a great little camera, but high ISO shooting is not its strongest point. It's better than any current non DSLR at high ISO, but it's still a little noisy.

 

Overall, I second Evan's recommendation to get a basic photography book and start playing around with that to figure out a little more about the ins and outs of photography.

CS2 only supports up to the A100, it doesn't support the A700's files nor the files of later cameras.

 

I went to Bibble and never looked back, but I don't edit much in PS, so all I really need is a RAW developer. Overall I found Bibble to be very intuitive, despite the reputation it has, but that may just be my own oddity.

 

Give Bibble a shot and see if you like it.

<EM>What would appeal most to me, short of a high resolution full frame sensor, would be a Sony DSLR built like the Maxxum 7 instead of the cheaper Alpha design.</EM>

<BR><BR>

Which is almost exactly what the A700 is... Magnesium body, Maxxum 7-like controls. Sure, it's not exactly like my Maxxum 7 (film), but it's damn similar and clearly related.

Unless there is some specific functionality that you need that the D200 has and the D80 does not, your money will almost always be better spent on a lens.

 

The added benefit of two identical bodies is that you can have a seamless backup if something goes wrong with your primary body, there are no quirks or little things to remember from one camera to the next.

 

I say that the lens is the better investment. Along with a good flash and a good diffuser like a Lightsphere or Omnibounce.

<EM>"Even if you would put a Perfect mode on the DSLR there are inherent limitations to the DSLR design. Whereas point and shoot cameras were designed from the ground up. DSLRs have to get by with their 1950s reflex technology and mounts.<BR><BR>

 

A perfect consumer DSLR would have a 1.8 sensor, live view, electronic shutter like the D40/50/70, built in wireless flash support like Nikon's CLS, unlimited flash sync, a fast 50mm equiv 1.0 prime lens, 2.8-4 28-200 equivalent zoom lens. 300mm equiv 2.8, 500mm equiv 3.1, 10 fps, 720p video."</EM><BR><BR>

 

Great idea.<BR><BR>

 

We'll use a 1.8x crop sensor to increase the noise and limit us to shooting at ISO 400 or slower. Why would anyone want low-noise high ISO performance anyway. And who needs lenses that can provide a large field of view? <BR><BR>

 

We'll do away with the TTL optical viewfinder so you can have an electronic shutter and live view. Nevermind that this makes manual focusing damn near impossible, why would anyone want the option of manually focusing anyway? Besides, this would get rid of that annoyingly fast and precise phase difference detection autofocus that DSLRs use and substitute the slower and less reliable contrast detection autofocus used in P&S cameras. And nevermind the increased shutter lag from the time it takes to switch the sensor from live view mode to image recording mode. Plus the severe decrease in battery life from running the sensor all the time surely wouldn't bother anyone.<BR><BR>

 

Built-in wireless flash and unlimited flash sync are already implemented on the Minolta 5D, 7D, and the Sony A100 DSLRs.<BR><BR>

 

Let's see, with that 1.8x crop sensor you want, your "50mm equivalent f/1 prime" becomes a 28mm f/1.0. Great. You have a retrofocus lens that now also has to be corrected to avoid vignetting and distortion at f/1.0. Expect a lens like that to retail around the $2,000 to $2,500 price point in a best case scenario. The "28-200 equivalent f/2.8-4" lens would be a 15-111mm f/2.8-4. Reasonable on the long end, but not on the wide end. And it would still be a 7x zoom, so it will suffer optically. Street price for something like that would probably be around $750. The 300mm equivalent f/2.8 would be a 170mm f/2.8 lens, do-able, but big and expensive to build. Probably a $1,000 to $1,500 lens. The 500mm f/3.1 equivalent (where the hell did you pull f/3.1 anyway, it's not common at all, in fact, I've never seen it before, always either f/3.2 or f/3.5) would be a 280mm f/3.2 lens, big, heavy, and expensive, probably $1,500 to $2,000 market price.<BR><BR>

 

Your "perfect soccer mom camera":<BR><BR>

 

- Too noisy to take pictures indoors reliably without a tripod.<BR>

- Lacking any true "wide angle" lenses (<=24mm equivalent).<BR>

- Poorer AF performance than current cameras and have the bonus of shutter lag.<BR>

- Dismal battery life.<BR>

- A flash system that has been in use by Minolta for the last decade.<BR>

- $5,250 in lenses alone, not counting the cost of the body.<BR><BR>

 

I think that I'll pass.

Fuji NPH 400. It does lovely, lovely things with skin tones and has enough saturation that it doesn't look washed out for "normal" shots. All around it's an exceptional film, well above the Kodak or Fuji "consumer" films I've used.

Thanks to both of you!

I have been successfully using my local chain shop for slide processing, but

this last time the slides came back mounted very poorly, almost as if whoever

mounted them simply didn't bother to worry about positioning them at all. There

are even a couple where I can see portions of the sprocket holes in the film

peeking out of the border and at least half of them are crooked in their mounts.

 

Is there a usual way to remove slides from cardboard mounts? I'd really like to

be able to re-mount the slides myself.

The question then is why don't manual focus lenses allow focusing past infinity?

You're right, but I think you miss just slightly.<BR><BR>

 

Predictability is a double-edged sword. My Volvo is "predictable", but it's my 21-year-old, always breaking something, Porsche that I truly love. A "professional's" predictability has positive aspects (every shot is good), but the same thing that makes every shot "good" can also limit the "professional's" ability to produce a "great" shot. There's a lot to be said for the contributions of people who just plain don't know enough to know what they can't do.