kevin_krumwiede2

Many Canon bodies have that (21). I don't know what it means. It's not really part of the serial number.

Autofocus cameras require a circular (as opposed to linear) polarizer. If you have an old one, it's probably linear.

Keith & Giampiero, thanks for your answers. I know that recording high can increase the SNR, because while the signal increases, at least *some* of the noise in the system does not. What I disagree with is the statement that the top fourth or fifth of the histogram represents "fully half" of the possible pixel values. If the horizontal scale is logarithmic, then the article is correct. But rarely have I seen a logarithmic histogram in digital imaging software, and I'd be surprised if that's how it's represented in the camera. Of course, I could be wrong!

 

<p>It really makes no difference, in the sense that you should still do what the article recommends doing. I'm just being picky about <i>why</i>.

I'm a bit confused by <a

href="http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml">this

article</a> on Luminous-Landscape.com. I understand it as far as the

table relating f/stops to pixel values.

 

<p>However, have a problem with the paragraph immediately following

the table. As the article states, CCDs are linear capture devices.

Am I incorrect in believing that the horizontal axis of the in-camera

histogram is also linear? The article is based on the notion that the

horizontal axis is logarithmic. In investigating this, I have learned

that at least some raw conversion software can display logarithmic

histograms. But most digital imaging software I have encountered uses

linear histograms.

 

<p>If the in-camera histogram <i>is</i> logarithmic... why? Isn't

that an unnecessary (and counter-intuitive, if you know how CCDs work)

throwback to film behavior?

 

<p>Thanks,<br>

Krum

I'm asking these questions specifically about the Nikon D70, but I'm

also interested in the general answers for other DSLRs (particularly

any member of the EOS-1D series.)

 

Is the horizontal axis of the in-camera histogram linear or logarithmic?

 

The RAW converter software's histograms are logarithmic... right? (At

least Canon's.)

 

Photoshop's histograms are linear... right?

 

When shooting raw mode, is the in-camera histogram based on the 12-bit

RAW data or an 8-bit resampling?

 

I noticed that the D70's histogram only has four segments, unlike

other cameras which have five or more. I'm confused as to whether or

not (and on which cameras!) these segments are supposed to correspond

to stops. Playing around with a D70 today, the histogram seems to be

linear, not logarithmic.

 

*confuzzled*

Learn to read the histogram and play with the analog gain to squeeze the most highlight detail out of your negs.

 

http://www.scantips.com/simple.html

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

That looks exactly like the one I use on my Elan II. Like Kai, I'm not sure about the accuracy of the focus scale, but I do get infinity focus.

That top picture looks perfectly normal to me, if it was taken with daylight white balance.

Type II CF cards are a little thicker than Type I. Microdrives are Type II. Your camera supports both.

 

Microdrives give you about twice as much storage for the price. In theory, they are more fragile than solid-state CF cards, because they contain moving parts. The way I look at it (and the way I explain it to my customers) is that, as long as it's in the camera, you don't have to worry about its shock resistance. If you shock it hard enough to damage it, you'll have more than the CF card to worry about. It's when you have more than one card and the spares are rattling around in your pocket that the fragility of a microdrive becomes an issue.

I see P&S digicams come into my shop all the time with the lens stuck.

The trend seems to be that if the zoom position sensors aren't happy,

the camera won't function at all.

 

I'm wondering if there are any cameras out there that are known to

function with the lens jammed... or removed. I want a P&S digicam I

can rip the guts out of and attach strange lenses to. Ideally, one

with manual controls. Anyone know, either way, if the Canon A series

fits the bill?

I had a very subtle focus problem with my Elan II which was caused by the mirror being slightly misaligned. The focus was closer than it appeared on the ground glass, but the nature of the problem wasn't evident until I got a 135/2.8. The pictures from my 50 and 24 had often been a little soft, but I'd always attributed it to carelessness and/or handheld shooting in low light.

 

You might take it to a shop and shoot off a roll with a big, fast tele. Try auto and manual focus and compare the results.

I wonder how much hand motion that OP/TECH strap allows. I tried a cheap Sunpak imitation of the Canon grip strap, and promptly returned it. If I tightened it enough to be of any assistance in holding the camera, my thumb couldn't reach the focus sensor and AE lock buttons on my Elan II.

It's already out – behold the <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikoncp8400/">Coolpix 8400</a>.

Press the button on the back that has ISO - AEB - etc. marked next to it. Multiple exposures is the thing that looks like two overlapping frames. When that icon appears in the LCD, turn the front control dial to set the number of exposures per frame.

 

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2153940">Elan II double exposure example</a>

How loud is the mirror slap on the Rebel X, compared to the Elan II?

I know it's louder... but how much louder?

Someone on PN made what I considered a very insightful comment a while back, and that was this:

 

If an image captures all the detail a viewer expects to see, then you can blow it up as much as you want and it will still look good. If a portrait captures every eyelash, it doesn't matter if it's 4MP or 16MP.

I still get occasional inquiries about the 4500 at my camera store. The reason it's still sought after – and about the only reason you should be interested in one – is that it had excellent close focusing ability. Otherwise, I think you'd be far happier with a 5200 or something like that.

My experience with the Kodaks is that they are average at best, and some of them are among the worst. Their between-shot delays are also some of the worst. But you may take this with a grain of salt, as my experience with them is limited to one environment (a brightly-lit camera store) and one type of memory card (the slowest ones we have, for our demo models.)

The Sony W1 seems very responsive, although I have read that it isn't so great in low light. It's also ready to go very quickly when you turn it on. I'm sure there are other (possibly newer) models that are just as good, but the W1 is among the best models I carry at my store.

Yes, that looks like a lens highly corrected for spherical aberration, and not a very large aperture! Ken Rockwell's site has a great explanation of what produces "good" and "bad" bokeh, if you want to better understand it.

 

<p><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm</a>

I look at it this way: the D30 produces better images than ANYTHING I can buy new for $300, and I have no reason to believe that it would be any less reliable than my five-year-old, used, mid-range film body. I don't have to worry about TCO, I just enjoy taking pictures.

Man, I guess I better ditch my hopelessly inferior Elan II right away, then! And all the photos I've taken with my Coolpix 2200... they're just crap. I might as well delete them.

Some commenters don't seem to realize the <i>huge</i> price difference we're talking about. Used D30s are going for US$300-400... in other words, one-third to one-half the price of a new 300D.

 

<p>I think it's a very reasonable and viable option, if it does what you need it to do. I've been thinking about getting a used D30 for a while myself. We'll see how the market looks after Christmas.

As distant as the background is, and as high as the ceiling is, I'd say you're <i>lucky</i> the flash didn't go off.

I bought a Sigma 24/2.8 on eBay for my Elan II, and turned right back around and sold it again because it wasn't compatible. I don't know what version it was exactly, but it looked just like the Quantaray-branded version that was sold up to around 2002.