kevin_krumwiede2

Sorry for the mess. Looks like the site's interpretation of HTML tags is a bit, um, nonstandard...

I found <a href="http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-shopping-forum/00JWFu">this old thread</a> about ISO and raw.

It touches on my question but doesn't quite answer it.

 

<p><blockquote>"Let's say that for an exposure of 1/60 second the photosite produces an output of 1 unit (I'm being

decidedly non-technical here). Let's further say that ISO 100 is the camera's slowest available speed (simply for

convenience).

 

<p>"In this case, at ISO 100, the camera reads only the 1 unit. At ISO 200, the photosite produces a value of 1 unit,

which is then boosted to 2 units by a physical amplification of the signal. At ISO 400, the photosite still

produces a value of 1 unit, which is then boosted to 4 units by a physical amplification of the signal, and so on

and so forth." ? Aaron Meyer</blockquote>

 

<p>I understand that much. But in that last example, which value goes into the raw file ? 1 or 4? If the

latter, does the "amplification" take place before or after the analog-to-digital conversion?

SLR: better battery life

Digi: smaller, lighter, 100 rolls of film on a tiny chip, price per photo many times lower

 

Quality-wise, the two are about equivalent. Sure, a 35mm slide is theoretically 20 megapixels... with a prime lens at its sharpest aperture, perfectly focused, bolted down to a heavy tripod, and shooting a static subject. In real life, 35mm film is usually good for about 4 megapixels, maybe 6 on your better shots.

I used to sell cameras. The popular entry-level models take great photos, but the leading brands (Canon and Nikon) both have some drawbacks. The Rebel XTi feels too small in many people's hands -- even some women's. The D40 shares this problem, plus its autofocus is crippled to reduce the cost. It lacks a focus drive in the body, so it can only autofocus with AF-S and AF-I lenses. I picked up a D50 when they went on clearance after the D40 came out. They have a focus drive and they feel like a real camera. They've been discontinued for over a year now so they're hard to find new, but IMO they're the best entry-level DSLR ever produced.

To clarify what Sean said about "color" IR: such images do exist, but for the reasons he mentioned they are more accurately described as false color. One way to achieve them is to make two exposures, one in visible light and one in IR. Then load them into your favorite editing program, decompose the channels, and compose a new image using two channels from the visible image and one from the IR image. This technique is sometimes used in astrophotography to produce "color" images of features that are only readily visible at certain wavelengths, such as emission nebulae.

I just want to reiterate what others have said in favor of a DSLR. The price of entry-level DSLRs has come down to the point where there's no excuse for not having one if you want to take really good photos. Their being "overkill" for a new photographer is no argument, as you will quickly learn to appreciate and use their superior capabilities if you put any effort into it at all. And no point & shoot in the world can match a DSLR with a 50mm f/1.8 lens for the kind of pictures you're looking to take. If you can afford only one lens, a 50/1.8 should be it. (And if you want to spend more, upgrade the lenses before the body. Lenses are an investment because optics don't wear out or become obsolete anywhere near as quickly as camera bodies. Buy good lenses and you'll enjoy them for decades.)

 

<p>I'm surprised nobody has linked you to this excellent article: <a href="http://vothphoto.com/spotlight/articles/forgotten_lens/forgotten-lens.htm">The Forgotten Lens</a>

I've noticed that a major part of the "film look" is decreased contrast in the highlights and clipped highlight detail – something we're constantly told to avoid at all costs with digital!

I second Michael's recommendation. My second digi was a A520, and I still have it and use it when I don't feel like carrying my DSLR. Thanks to their SLR-like controls and optional filter attachment (on most models), you can do a lot of creative things with A-series cameras that you can't with many other inexpensive point & shoots.

I'd find another D50, but I'd get a 50/1.8 instead of the 28/2.8 I currently keep on it most of the time.

You don't necessarily need a full-frame DSLR. They're extremely expensive and therefore, IMO, only a sensible investment if you're accustomed to using a large kit of expensive full-frame lenses. An APS-C DSLR is a lot cheaper, and you can enjoy a wide range of relatively inexpensive lenses and still have reasonable control over DoF. Compare any brand's prices on a 50/1.8 vs. a 85/1.8, and you'll get the picture.

Nothing a screwdriver and a pair of wire cutters won't fix.

Rob,

 

That still doesn't make sense. How can the A620 only get 50 shots from four alkaline AAs when my A520 gets 150 from two? I can't believe Canon took that big a step backwards.

In Philip Greenspun's article <a

href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/best-digital-camera/">The Best Digital

Cameras</a>, he says of the Canon A6xx series: "They use four AA batteries,

which are heavy and will last for only 50 pictures."

 

<p>Is this an exaggeration? If not, why has the power consumption gone up so

much? I have an A520, which only uses two AAs. I've shot over 500 photos on a

set of lithiums (never using flash) and well over a hundred on cheap alkalines.

I use my Canon A520 with a Hoya R72. Shutter speeds are barely handholdable, but it works. Setting custom white balance with the filter on results in an image with almost no color saturation. I use color mode instead of B&W so I can mix the channels myself. (Green usually has noticeably less noise since it has 2x as many photosites, red sometimes has more contrast, etc.)

Has there ever been a dedicated B&W P&S? In other words, something without a

Bayes filter? I know about the Kodak DCS460, and I know there are monochrome

cameras for astrophotography, but the latter all seem to be designed for

tethered operation. I'm looking for something small I can carry around.

"I must admit I am not too happy with this particular ad, and on Monday I will be talking to the advertising agency about it. The ad is coming from a third party server, and I cannot turn off just one ad without underfulfilling on other campaigns and other advertisers to whom we have commitments."

 

I'm glad to hear that. But what I would really like to hear is that you are punishing this agency by immediately severing your business relationship with them, and publicly encouraging others to do likewise. Make an example of them so that other third-party ad services put stricter criteria on the media they serve. Advertisers seem to think they have a right to intrude in anyone's visual space, and they turn a deaf ear to complaints. They need to be put in their place with a swift kick to the pocketbook.

"when you click the ad closed, what happens?"

 

You can't click the ad closed... not in Firefox on Linux. When it's done playing, it leaves behind a white box that covers most of the screen. (I posted a screenshot in another thread that was either deleted or rolled off.)

 

Flash ads that cover other content on the page are unacceptable, period. If I see another one I will not be renewing my subscription.

This has probably all been said, but I've owned both, and the 50/1.4 was a joy to use. It focuses quickly and quietly, it's very sharp, and the bokeh is definitely smoother than the 1.8. The photos I've taken with my 1.8 are sharp, but they lack a certain something.

Are you thinking of the <a href="http://www.pinhole.cz/en/pinholecameras/dirkon_01.html">Dirkon</a>?

When that 50/1.8 II breaks (notice I didn't say "if") I suggest shopping for an older 50/1.8 with metal mount. Also, the 24/2.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8 are outstanding lenses for their relatively low price.

Generally, "well-corrected" lens exhibits mediocre bokeh in both the foreground and background. A lens with a significant amount of spherical aberration will exhibit good bokeh on one side of the plane of focus, and bad bokeh on the other. Notice how straight lines such as window frames appear to be doubled. Most lenses exhibit that kind of bokeh in the foreground, not the background. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2681394">This photo</a> of mine is a good example of the phenomenon. <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm">Ken Rockwell</a> has a good article on the subject.

I use the GIMP in both Windows and Linux. It used to be hard to install in Windows (years ago) but it's very easy now. Download the package with the GTK libraries included and it installs just like any other program.

They're internal reflections. If you reflect them (geometrically speaking) through the center of the image, you will find that they correspond neatly with two bright lights on the bridge pylon. Many UFO images are easily debunked this way.

@Lex: Quantaray lenses were almost all Sigma for many years. Only recently did they add Tamron to the mix. (When they first started carrying rebranded Tamron, some of the Quantaray lenses were even shipped in plastic bags with Tamron printed on them.)

 

Otherwise I agree with you 100%... and I say this as a former Ritz employee.

"So if a portrait was taken with for example a 24mm lens from 1 m the subjects nose would look distorted. If however it was taken with a 50mm lens at 1 m it would look less distorted."

 

Wayne, just to make sure you understand... your above statement is wrong. However, if you moved closer with the 24mm so that the subject's head appeared the same size in both shots, then yes, the nose would appear distorted.