markci

<p>"As you can guess I am confused why I couldnt get f22 without the shutter speed being outrageously slow."<br>

<br /><br>

I'm confused as to why you are confused. You were indoors. F/22 isn't what we normally think of as an indoor, available-light, handheld aperture.<br>

<br /><br>

And yes, long lenses mean short depth of field.<br>

<i><br /></i></p>

<p>Get out of the car.</p>

<p>"But with a lens that's designed to make the same image (say a 50mm) on a small sensor as another lens would on a large sensor (say a 75mm - sorry I don't know of such a lens), and both offer an aperture of f1.8, and both have the same size objective lens, wouldn't the final result be that the photons collected by the lens all end up in the photo-sites of the lens in basically the same proportions? "<br>

<br /><br>

(sigh) again with the objective size. Maybe my explanation would work better for you if you actually read it.<br>

<br /><br>

You need to stop worrying about the diameter of the objective. It has very little to do with anything. The quantity that actually matters in terms of light gathering is called the entrance pupil diameter. If you know the focal length and the f/stop then you know the entrance pupil diameter. It happens that with long lenses the front element's diameter is close to the entrance pupil's diameter, but it is not true for wider lenses. Measuring any wide lens should convince you of this.<br>

"But with a lens that's designed to make the same image (say a 50mm) on a small sensor as another lens would on a large sensor (say a 75mm - sorry I don't know of such a lens), and both offer an aperture of f1.8, and both have the same size objective lens..."<br>

<br /><br>

STOP!! RIGHT THERE!! The fact is that THEY WON'T and CANNOT have the same size entrance pupil and they WILL NOT have the same size front element diameter either. Your confusion perhaps stems in part from theorizing lenses that are in fact impossible.<br>

<br /><br>

"I believe that if I use a similar f8 aperture to shoot a scene with my 5 D, I get approximately the same exposure in about half the time or less that I do with my 4x5, using the same ISO settings. I suspect this is due to the relative differences in size of objective lens to film."<br>

<br /><br>

You can believe in fairies and leprechans if you like too, but that doesn't make them exist. Tell me - does the typical light meter include a setting for the diameter of the front element? I wonder why it would be that it would not. If there is a different between your exposure times in the two systems it's because of other factors, like poor light transmission in older lenses, the fact that the ISO of digital cameras is an approximation, etc.<br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p><br /><br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>It's not unusual. Foreign diplomats in the U.S. (and U.S. diplomats serving abroad) and their family members get into scrapes from time to time, and the most that usually happens is they get sent home. If it's really serious the nation where the crime was committed may request that immunity be revoked, but it may or may not be.</p>

<p>No that's pretty wrong.<br /> <br /> Objective size, by which I assume you mean the diameter of the front element, doesn't really mean a damn thing on its own. It's a function of the lens design and maximum aperture. For long lenses it's very close to being equal to the maximum aperture. For short lenses it generally isn't.<br /> <br /> The important thing is that <em>no, just because a photon hits the front element does not mean it winds up on the sensor</em>. For any lens or any camera. And it certainly doesn't work that way when you have a sensor that is much smaller than the image circle of the lens. When you put a D300 behind the lens instead of a D700, the light is not magically refocused on the smaller sensor.<br /> <br /> Nor is nothing magic about the lenses designed for smaller sensors. If you keep the focal length constant in doing a comparison, the camera with the smaller sensor will be collecting photons from a narrower angle of the scene, thus fewer photons. If you adjust to a shorter lens so that the viewing angle is the same, then you'll have a shorter lens with a smaller aperture (at the same f/stop), thus fewer photons.<br /> <br /> Basically if your argument were true it would be possible for 110 film to produce the same results as 8x10. Guess what: it can't. The laws of physics have not been repealed.<br>

<br /><i> "And isn't the real issue about signal-to-noise ratios all about the objective of the lenses on those small-sensor cameras not collecting as many photons?"</i><br>

<br /> You can sort of look at it that way, but it's completely irrelevant. Small sensors imply small lenses with small aperture diameters. There is no way around it.<br /> <em><br /></em></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Wow, you back-ordered an item and they shipped it when it came in. B&H is OK, but somehow this information falls short of inspiring "awe."</p>

<p>Oh, and I agree with Daniel's "fanboy" characterization of Michael's post. When you read something like that, it's very hard to take the poster seriously (as well you should not).</p>

<p>It's pretty simple: Nikon lost its leadership in the pro market because they were several years behind Canon in introducing a useful autofocus. That was particularly crucial for sports shooters, but photojournalists of all kinds found Canon's AF useful, and Nikon's sadly lacking, for most of the 1990's.<br /> Other than that, it hasn't mattered much what system you use. Canon has been ahead in several other areas, like image stabilization and full-frame sensors, whereas Nikon has held a bit of a lead in metering and flash systems. But the differences are small, and either system will work fine.<br>

If Canon is still ahead (and I don''t know if they are) it's largely a legacy of Nikon's sloth with respect to AF in the 1990's, and a relatively brief and more recent period where Canon had clearly better digital bodies.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>I think it would be great if Apple would morph the mini it into a modular setup...<br /> say you have one...you link another and suddenly you have the added ram and the space and the processing power.....Steve Jobs....dont leave now...you have a new project! You just stack one on top the other.</em></p>

<p>I think it would be neat if they would morph my Mini Cooper in to a modular setup. You could attach them end to end and they would become a station wagon or stretch limo. And it's about as technically likely.</p>

 

<p>It's a stupid and meaningless question.</p>

<p>I guess you could toss the thing off the top of a hill and get one very long crash-o-rama shot. So it's good for something.</p>

<p>Jesus, the plane did not "drop a few feet" during the exposure. It woudn't have changed the relative position of the photographer and the prop even if it had. Unless you're expecting that the plane managed to drop several feet without taking the photographer with it.<br>

The direction of the props have nothing to with the position of the hub because their images do not lead back to it. They aren't accurate images of it - they are artifacts - and they are bound to be basically horizontal because of the nature of the technology.<br>

<em>Also, unless the shutter timing was exactly in synch with the prop revolutions, how could the multiple images be so evenly and perfectly spaced?</em><br>

There is no need for any sort of synchronization. The prop is rotating at a fixed rate. That determines the spacing.</p>

<p><em>All lenses change focal length when focused closely </em><br>

No, all of them don't.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>A 30% price drop would go a long way to bankrupting Canon, given the exchange rates.<br>

It seems like there ought to be bargains available on used lenses, even L's. Actually I have one I'm thinking of unloading.</p>

<p>The fact that they run ads on photo.net means nothing. Photo.net has run ads from some pretty sleazy outfits in the past.</p>

<p>B&W lists 52mm circular polarizers by Nikon, Canon, Hoya, Tiffen, B+W, Heliopan, Formatt and some no-name generic. Multiple versions by some manufacturers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wish I had your powers to judge build quality from jpg's of prototypes.</p>

<p><em>How does this photo taken with my lowly rated Minilux with the f2.4 Summarit look?</em><br>

Like every other 283 x 418 jpg on the Internet, only less interesting.</p>

<p>Next up: 1989 Toyota Corolla vs 1989 Honda Civic - the final verdict.</p>

<p>The prose on that askmen site is pretty hilarious...<br>

<em>"Some of the lenses have leaf shutters that enable rapid shooting speeds, while other smaller lenses run in sync with the S-System’s built-in, focal-plane shutter. Leica’s famous 3:2 aspect ratio, which recreates the human field of vision and provides a very original shooting style, is retained in the S2...If all this camera jargon and lens talk has you baffled, then odds are that the Leica S2 is not for you."</em><br>

I'm baffled alright. And the S2 is not for me. But the two aren't exactly connected the way they think.</p>

<p>Yeah, it's said. Polaroid prints are one-of-a-kind originals, and the print you hold in your hand is the very one passed around and admired by the people in the photo, seconds after it was taken. </p>

 

<p>This thread reminds me of why I rarely come here anymore. People arguing about things they really don't know anything about, which wouldn't make a damn bit of difference in any case.</p>

There are some excellent anti-anxiety medications on the market these days. That's probably all you really need.

They've always sold to the mom and pop camera shops and still do. I've never seen one that didn't sell Nikon and Canon. Of course, they've pretty much all gone out of business, so maybe it's not the wisest business plan.

Definitely sell all your Nikon equipment and buy Canon for a few more MP. Then when Nikon releases a new body in six months or a year, do it again. It'll do absolutely nothing for your photography, but it'll be great for the economy and the rest of us will have cheap stuff to buy on eBay.