don_v.

October 18, 2011

Why is this not a 1D-Mark V?

</blockquote>

Because it can also be seen as the 1Ds-Mark IV. Going with either "1D" or "1Ds" would have left doubt about whether it really is the replacement for both of those cameras--which Canon says it is.

Now everyone will say it's a Canon EOS 1-DX.

</blockquote>

By naming it as such, they're presumably hoping that people will start referring to it as the Canon 1-Dx.

October 3, 2011

To the OP:

Definitely wait. There is no reason for you to buy now; you don't "need" a new camera. After the 5D3 (or whatever) is announced you can decide whether it's worth waiting for, but either way the cost of 5D2's will not go *up* after the 5D3 is announced. Sit tight a little bit longer; you won't regret it.

To spend almost $2000 (used price) for a 3-year-old DSLR that sells new for $2400 seems pretty foolish, which is why you'll find very few people here (including those urging you to buy) who have done it.

September 27, 2011

And the reason to quote my post was for????

</blockquote>

It is considered most polite and helpful to quote a post to which one is responding if said post is not immediately above one's response. Since Charlie's post was between yours and Danny's, Danny helpfully quoted your post to make it clear that he was not replying to Charlie. ___________

With all due respect, at some point you might want to go to Adobe.com, Wikipedia, or any of several thousand other descriptions of Photoshop to learn more (to find out about alternatives to Photoshop, you can Google "Alternatives to Photoshop" and research each one).

Generally speaking one gets what one pays for in photo-editing software; people wouldn't pay a premium for Photoshop if it didn't do things that cheaper programs did not do, providing capabilities that many photographers and graphic/web designers wish to have.

But even explaining most of those more high-level capabilities that people value in Photoshop takes significant time on the part of the explainer and requires significant existing knowledge in the explainee. For example, if someone answered your question "What can Photoshop do that other programs do not do?" their saying that they like the various layer mask, Gaussian blur, high-pass sharpening, gradient map, alpha channel, luminance noise reduction, and vector capabilities in Photoshop compared to some lesser programs would not be particularly helpful to someone who is unfamiliar with these terms.

If you don't know those terms, you could start with the basics at Wikipedia (type in "image editing"), proceed to dpreview.com's Glossary, read through the numerous articles under the "Learning" tab at the top of this (photo.net) page, and then go to other websites for more.

But if you already are familiar with those terms and want to ask specific questions about them in Photoshop vs. the alternatives, those questions would be relatively straightforward to answer.

September 22, 2011

"Also they seem to be going backwards on resolution. Why only 10.1 megapixels?"

</blockquote>

Many photographers would say that ever-more megapixels is not automatically synonymous with "progress." There are plenty of <a href="http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olstemplatemapper.jsp?_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1&_dynSessConf=-5822863140071041746&id=pcat17080&type=page&lcn=Cameras+%26+Camcorders&sc=abCameraCamcorderSP&st=processingtime%3A%3E1900-01-01&usc=abcat0400000&cp=1&sp=%2Bcurrentprice+skuid&nrp=15&qp=cabcat0400000%23%230%23%23dh~~cabcat0401000%23%230%23%233e~~q616263617430343031303030~~nf26||31362d3138204d656761706978656c73&add_to_pkg=false&pagetype=listing">$100 16-megapixel cameras</a> available for those who think that "more megapixels" = "better camera."

"Finally, what I'm more confused about is where do these new cameras stand in relation to Nikon's current line up? We've all been wondering when Nikon will come up with the D400, D4 or D800. Does the announcement of these new cameras signal the death of its current line?"

</blockquote>

In terms of sales, you're referring to a relatively small portion of <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/cameras">Nikon's current line-up</a>. Hard as it is for many advanced photographers to believe, Nikon also has a consumer division that makes point-and-shoots (and happens to bring in a lot of income). Nikon's new cameras are an overture to that market and probably will not affect the timetable for updating the pro/sumer SLR line.

September 22, 2011

It will be very interesting to revisit this thread in a year or two.

Good photographers often make great photos using "amateur-oriented" tools that are dismissed by advanced photographers, from point-and-shoots to camera phones.

After reading dpreview's "hands-on" report, I have to say that if not in this camera then in a future variant (by whichever manufacturer) I am very interested in:

--Being able to shoot 60 full-resolution frames per second

--Having faster autofocus than any other Nikon ever, including the D3s

--Being able to hold focus on moving subjects at 10 fps in a $1000 camera

September 21, 2011

These new cameras were just announced today and we don't even have samples of what they are capable of....

</blockquote>

Some night samples at all ISOs up to 3200 are viewable at <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/NIKONJ1/NIKONJ1GALLERY.HTM">imaging-resource.com</a>.

September 9, 2011

I haven't used the Toyo, but I have several of the Horseman rollfilm backs and think very highly of them. The 6x7 Horseman back for 4x5's sells for around $200 in excellent condition on eBay. Just search on eBay for "Horseman 6x7 4x5" and you'll see several (be sure to include the "4x5" part, as they also make 6x7 backs for rollfilm cameras). But especially if you can get a Toyo for a comparable price, from Michael A's word it sounds like a good alternative.

September 9, 2011

"I wonder why there has never been a camera format made to the proportion of the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.google.com/search?q=golden+section&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=507&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ZhlpTqrWEuKi4gSl9YzcDA&sqi=2&ved=0CE0QsAQ." target="_blank">Golden Section.</a> Or has there...."

</blockquote>

39x24 (Golden Section) is very close to 36x24 (<a href="http://fotogenetic.dearingfilm.com/golden_rectangle.html">the most popular photo format in history</a>) and I've always heard that the latter was designed to reflect the former.

September 8, 2011

"4x5 and 8x10 have a 1:1.25 ratio."

</blockquote>

Not to nitpick, but <a href="http://www.mamiya-usa.com/mamiya-7-ii.html#Specifications">Mamiya</a> 6x7 cameras have a 1:1.24 ratio (69.5 x 56), so 6x7 can be pretty darned close to 4x5/8x10 (I was unable to find image area of the 6x7 rollfilm backs).

August 22, 2011

At $149 for a replacement standard, the eBay auction that has the exact same photo as you linked above (auction #270799808056) is probably your best bet.

Someone may rent Sinar cameras in San Francisco (Calumet doesn't, last I checked), but one month's rental will likely exceed $149 and you'd still return home with a broken camera.

So I'd click "Buy It Now" on the eBay auction.

July 17, 2011

In the digital world, the popularity of the 40mm perspective has gotten a huge boost from the excellent <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/panasonic_20_1p7_o20/page4.asp">Panasonic 20mm/1.7</a> for Micro 4/3 cameras.

That lens has apparently been quite popular (it's one of few relatively affordable fast primes designed for M 4/3) and with M 4/3's 2x crop factor it gives a field of view similar to 40mm in film camera terms.

July 16, 2011

I'm surprised no one has linked yet to Mike Johnston's well-known article, "Why 40mm?"

<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/why-40mm.html">The Online Photographer</a>

July 11, 2011

I don't think anybody is saying that the X100's successor should be larger. Nor would many users of the X100 argue to decrease the size of the sensor. Keep both the same.

</blockquote>

Eric, I agree with you that the sensor should stay the same. I was only responding to the OP's suggestion of a 4/3 lensmount (which would require a smaller sensor) or an M (Leica) lensmount (which would require a larger sensor if it were to be different from current crop-sensor M-lens-compatible digital cameras and appeal to Leica lens owners who want full-frame).

But I myself think APS-C (like the x100) is a sweet spot for "large sensor in a small camera" designs.

July 11, 2011

I am interested in hearing about your preference, esp compared to Nikon and Canon dSLRs. For sure you could get a Canon 7D and have a very nice selection of primes that have outstanding IQ and outstanding low light performance.

</blockquote>

I've got several dSLRs already, and there's a lot they don't do as well as a smaller and quieter camera does. To me, the only downsides of the "smaller quieter" cameras are (1) that their eyelevel viewfinders often stink and (2) their sensors are smaller and noisier than Nikon's and Canon's SLR sensors are (the x100 was the first camera that proved an exception to both of those).

That's why I'd like someone -- Canon, Nikon, Fuji, or Pentax -- to develop a mirrorless, interchangeable-lens APS-C camera with built-in (not clip-on) eyelevel finder (if the lenses were interchangeable, it would probably have to be an EVF to be at all accurate for framing).

Then we'd have a camera that's smaller, quieter, and equipped with potentially better lenses than any comparable-sensor camera with a mirror box can ever be.

I don't think I'm the only one who wants this camera system, and quite a few people actually think it will eventually replace the SLR. I think the first company to produce it will absolutely clean up, and right now, with the x100, Fuji seems most capable of doing it.

I can't believe that Fuji could work any magic with the 4/3 sensor that will outdo what Panasonic and Olympus (who have been at 4/3 for years) have done, and I think Fuji too would ask why they should try to reinvent that 4/3 wheel when there are plenty of excellent 4/3 cameras out there already. But I've been wrong before(!), and perhaps (as you hope) the x300 will go to a smaller sensor so it can use the 4/3 mount.

July 10, 2011

Don: yes, I was thinking of a smaller sensor. If they keep it APS-C I'm even more perplexed why this is a good idea.

</blockquote>

But the x100 was the star of Photokina last fall because it offered some things no other camera offers: very small form factor for an APS-C sensor camera with an eyelevel finder, unique viewfinder, unparallelled high-ISO performance for a smaller-than-full-frame camera, lens matched carefully to sensor. If you're OK with Fuji dumping all four of those things in the "x300", what do you want from Fuji in a (4/3) x300 camera that the existing 4/3 cameras don't already offer?

I'm not being contentious; I just don't understand what you like about the x100 that would translate into a 4/3 camera without duplicating what's already available from Olympus and Panasonic. The answer to that would determine the likelihood of Fuji making any successor to the x100 a 4/3 camera (again, I'd be surprised if they decreased the sensor size from the x100).

If they keep it APS-C, they'd have a camera that's more DSLR like in size, which sort of kills it for me as well.

</blockquote>

Well, if it's a mirrorless APS-C camera it could be an interchangeable lens camera that's much smaller than an SLR and with better lenses (no mirror to clear). I'm thinking of a sort of mini digital Mamiya 7: a proprietary lens mount with a few outstanding lenses and size that's much smaller than an SLR of the same capture area.

July 10, 2011

What if Fuji just makes an x300 that's m4/3 compatible or a M mount? Or maybe I'm missing the point?

</blockquote>

I understand the OP's wish, but 4/3 lenses can't cover the image area of the x100's APS-C sensor. I'd be surprised if Fuji decided to make the x-series sensor 40% smaller (4/3 instead of APS-C) just so that people could put other manufacturers' lenses on the camera. That means less income for Fuji, and besides the x100's high-ISO output is at least one and more often closer to two stops better than 4/3 cameras and I can't see them stepping backward in high-ISO performance, as a noticeably smaller sensor would force them to do. The M mount is possible, I suppose, but despite a lot of talk on the Internet I'm not sure how many Leica owners actually would buy a crop-frame Japanese-made digital body to put their manual-focus lenses onto (I don't see Fuji making the x-series full-frame).

July 7, 2011

1976 from 47th St. Photo in NYC:

RB67 w/120 back - $348 ($1361 in 2011 dollars) 127mm lens - $284 ($1111 in 2011 dollars) 65mm non-C lens - $279 ($1092 in 2011 dollars)

Source: /> He has other camera old camera ads and prices at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/sets/72157621778835031/

For example, Olden Camera in 1958 has the Rolleiflex 2.8E for $197:

Currency conversion (always controversial, never exact): See "What's a dollar worth?" in upper right of http://www.minneapolisfed.org/

July 1, 2011

I think this has been discussed here before. The two most obvious choices are the Canon 1.4 and the Sigma 1.4. Depending (naturally) on their personal experience with each lens, users are quite divided on both lenses, both of which can produce great results but can have unreliable AF (Canon) or inaccurate AF (Sigma).

Lots of helpful reviews out there, including <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/">fredmiranda</a> (hundreds of user reviews average out to 8.9 out of 10 for both the Canon and the Sigma) and <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/">the-digital-picture</a> (where you can compare test charts for the lenses two side by side).

The Zeiss 50mm f2 and the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 are also extensively reviewed (generally quite positively), but only you can decide whether the subjects you shoot are compatible with manual focus.

June 30, 2011

The 24-105 is probably my favorite lens (I have 15 or 20 EF lenses) but then I usually have things in my photos besides blank skies (at first I thought the OP's solid-blue sample images were bad links!).

So I'd say yes, if you intend to only take pictures of cloudless skies, you'll definitely want to sell the 24-105 lens. There are lots of primes and smaller-range zooms that don't vignette as much and thus are better-suited for shooting blue skies with nothing else in the frame.

On the other hand, if you want the most versatile lens either Canon or Nikon offers for general picture taking (I'd wager that "a high-quality 24-105 with VR" is the most coveted lens among Nikon users), the 24-105 is hard to beat.

P.S. to others: Before you buy, it's easy to find vignetting tests for every Canon lens at <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Vignetting-Test-Results.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=355">the-digital-picture</a>. The OP's copy of the lens does not contradict the vignetting shown for the 24-105 tested at t-d-p.

June 16, 2011

"The sensor in the latest digital M compares favorably with that in a $700 Nikon D7000."

</blockquote>

And others say that at low ISOs the Leica sensor compares favorably with that in a $7500 Nikon D3x:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=33010583

May 1, 2011

Hi Jackie, the best and cheapest way to get HUGE resolution is to shoot film, and 120 would be a great compromise. Something like a Mamiya RB67 will give you image quality higher than any digital yet made, better colour rendition, and HUGE resolution.

</blockquote>

Ty, I shoot as much film as anyone I know, but I have to point out that (even apart from the questionable claim that medium-format film produces better IQ than "any digital camera made"), recommending for candid portraits a large, heavy, unwieldy, manual-focus camera with thin d.o.f. that produces images that will require scanning could be construed by some as off the mark for this particular query.

April 29, 2011

All's well that ends well!

April 26, 2011

Bob the OP wrote:

"What do you really think are the Great Lenses in the 14 to 18 mm range?"

</blockquote>

and

"I see a full frame body in the near future and don't want to invest in crop-field-only glass."

</blockquote>

and

"Can't afford the [Canon 17 TS-E] lens at the moment."

</blockquote>

Bob, if you want a full-frame-compatible, razor-sharp lens in the 14-18mm range for well under $1000 or so, you might be asking for a lens that doesn't exist.

To my mind, the two best candidates (ignoring price) are the Canon 17mm TS-E and the Nikon 14-24 (with a Canon adaptor, of course). Neither will autofocus on your 7D, and neither is cheap.

John Crowe listed the likely candidates at the bottom of page 1. I assume you're also familiar with the-digital-picture.com, which lets you compare sharpness etc. of almost all current Canon and Nikon lenses at all f-stops. For example, <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=454&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=628&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0">this page</a> lets you compare the Canon 14mm II to the Nikon 14mm (mouse over the chart to see the Nikon); clearly you get what you pay for.

If you want to try a non-OEM lens like the Sigma 14mm (which I found lacking), you might buy from KEH, which has generous return privileges in the event you find the lens inadequate.

Assuming you can't spend what the 17mm TS-E or Nikon 14-24 cost, if I were in your shoes I'd look at some of the crop-field-only options and sell the lens if and when I moved to full-frame.

April 9, 2011

Hi Maciek,

You will probably get more responses if you ask this question at RangeFinderForum.com:

<a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=52">RFF's "Yashica" forum</a> or <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=81">RFF's "Fixed-lens rangefinder" forum</a>

March 31, 2011

OP wrote: "With rolling blackouts throughout the country and factories unable to produce, this could just be the first wave in a price tsunami that could last a long time. There's no amount of human misery that's too great to try to make a buck on."

</blockquote>

Please help me understand how the second sentence is a logical extension of the first sentence. Is Canon overcharging homeless tsunami victims -- or anyone else -- for basic necessities that are in short supply after the earthquake and tsunami?

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by don_v.