electrophoto: Addendum:To all those (and the writer) about how scary and what not it is:You know, that you're usually wearing a harness and fixed rope route (Via Ferrata) type lanyard protection systems... It's considered to be the most basic type of a mountain "climb" ... I like how the article (nor the full story) mentions any of this and makes it sound that people just "climb" their without any safety... just to make it sound a tad more thrilling.I'm an avid mountaineer & climber ... but telling stories in that way usually just makes it look silly to someone who knows how reality looks.
Sure, fear of heights is something different - but I dislike that he tries to come over doing something "crazy / heroic" ... if proper technique is used there's not a lot "crazy" and certainly not much heroic in it.
And to finalise this:http://raredelights.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Yosemite-Half-Dome-Via-Ferrata-1-640x375.jpgThe link shows a photo of the same "climb"... more people, less steep.
my palms sweat just thinking about this, let alone doing it .. I'm pretty terrified of heights, and to do this would be .. well, I can't even contemplate even thinking about doing it.
brownie314: I would kind of expect the higher volume lenses to have less variation. Just thinking about it from a manufacturing point of view. If you make a higher volume of a product you are more likely to have that assembly process very worked out and have less variation than a low volume assembly process. I could be wrong as I have not worked in high volume electronics manufacturing, only other industrial product manufacturing.
not really - actually usually the reverse. low volume botique / expensive can go through more QA/QC to finer degrees of tolerance and have higher reject rates because you're pricing it at a premium.
high volume / lower cost atypically has lower QA expectations and less reject rates.
Almost akin to mil spec versus consumer.
rrccad: "Now, at the price point of the 85mm F1.8s, it's unlikely that either Canon or Nikon is spending a lot of time tuning each copy, so the better results of even the F1.8 Nikkor suggests that the Nikon design is very well matched to its production methods. "
Gee I dont know .. maybe it's something to do with the fact that the canon 85mm 1.8 EF was designed in the early 1990's for film?
comeon dpreview you can do better than this.
@Hugo808 - because the housing and mechanical parts of the lens were designed when tolerances were habitually far less stringent, and possibly even element formulation.
PhotoKhan: First off all, a big thanks to LensRental and DPR for making and publicizing this.
LensRental is probably one of the few outfits out there that, by its own nature, have the ability to test extensive series of a same lens but it is a blessing to us all that they actually opt to engage in things like this. They are certainly becoming a reference.
Secondly, from a Canon user's perspective, this confirms what I've been noticing.
Not only has Canon turned into a manufacturer that simply "does not know" how to make less than stellar optics nowadays but they seem to also have taken their market's pulse and have now cracked QA in lenses, the less than optimal standard of which had historically led to problems in older offers.
The 24-105 f/4 L IS was the last Canon lens I remember having to "sample pick" from and this seems to show why.
Thank you, both LR and DPR, for the very informative piece.
Canon has certainly upped it's game over the last five-seven years.
"Now, at the price point of the 85mm F1.8s, it's unlikely that either Canon or Nikon is spending a lot of time tuning each copy, so the better results of even the F1.8 Nikkor suggests that the Nikon design is very well matched to its production methods. "
toni2: Sony A7R II eye focus, and other specifications are so superior... The canon 5 ds looks as old fashioned analogue film. I think that it is the principal camera beauty right now.
right .. eye focus - I saw that, focused on the cheek the eyelid, the eyebrow, the nose, FINALLY the eye, back to to eyelid..
you'd have a hell of a time with a F1.4 / f1.2 relying on that.
but of course .. there's something that is called skill that trumps all
Just a Photographer: These portraits look very soft to me. Might be my retina display, but if not then either the lens was soft, or the 5Ds is not up to its task.
not to mention that ACR just isn't processing the raws well
here's a snippet of the 85mm 1.8 wide open processed with canon's free RAW software tools.
while the zeiss still wins, it certainly can hold it's own considering the price differences.
km25: A cancelling filer to conteract the AA. Nikon used that a while ago, then just did put the AA on the sensor. Canon money saving short cuts are one thing, but on a super highend camera like this one, spend a few bucks and just take out the AA on the given model.
actually changning the thickness of the sensor stack by removing the AA filter is a little more complicated than that.
Retzius: Nikon management decides not to produce D400 because it might not appeal to enough photographers
Nikon management decides to produce niche astrophotography camera...
@Retzius - neither canon or nikon are losing marketshare to mirrorless companies.
globally or in the americas.
there's alot of fiction on this sub thread.. mirrorless isn't making any gains this year as far as marketshare and has been holding pretty constant since november of 2013.
even in NA, there's no real significant gains, as what some fail to mention is that the bottom fell out of MILC's in 2013, so 2014 "looks better", but they they are barely over 2012's marketshare...
RichRMA: No, it's not astrophotography in the normal sense, no galaxies, no nebula close-ups, no star clusters (apart from the Milky Way). But, I figure a lot of criticism comes from photogs who rarely venture further than a few hundred yards from whatever coffee shop they frequent.
actually some of the critism is from photographers that had to worry about dew shields, tracking mounts, polar alignment, payload weights, PEC, etc,etc..
and they realize that none of these images really show any hAlpha emissions requiring a special "cut filter" - not to mention having a specific cut filter is good/bad anyways - far better to have the camera set to full spectrum and choose your filter.
mpgxsvcd: Wonderful images but this is not the right application for this camera. Those are more landscape than they are astrophotography. Those pictures did not benefit from the “a” in the 810A at all and it is wrong to claim that these pictures demonstrate the cameras full capabilities.
You need to photograph objects with Hydrogen Alpha reflections like the Horse Head Nebula, M16, The Rosette Nebula, and M42 through a telescope to show why the 810A costs so much more than its non-astrophotography counterparts.
This article was nothing more than one guy showing off his night time landscape pictures and masquerading them as astrophotography. That is a disservice to the 810a which is truly a quite capable astro camera when placed in the right hands and in the right location.
problem is the D810A adds considerable payload to a tracking mount - for really such a little benefit of a full frame sensor anyways, since most focal reducers I do believe are optimized for APS-C.
and it's way too big to use hyperstared.
but there's certainly far more care and complexity to tracking for astrophotography then simply using a tripod and the "600 rule" and calling it a day :p
@mpgxsvcd - also given the complexity and also the expense and the discipline of "astrophotography" taht involves deep sky objects versus the relative ease of "astro landscapes".
anyone with a stable tripod and a fast UWA can call themselves an "astrophotographer" these days.
Not to mention, this is really not what this camera was for to start off with.
mpgxsvcd: “This gives such nebulae 'pop' with a more saturated red appearance, even in wide angle shots of the Milky Way.”
What Nebula? Most Nebula are way too small to see in such a widefield image. All I see is our galaxy and that has too much non-Ha light to demonstrate the benefits of this camera.
for once I agree with you .. wide field "astro-landscapes" aren't what this camera was meant for.
Alphaloki: If 4 of these have the same life as one Canon flash, then maybe Canon has a point. For most users who aren't shooting commercially, the knock off flash will live just fine. If I paid full Canon price for the knock off I'd be angry, but if I knowingly bought the knockoff for a discount, understanding the tradeoff I'd made, then I just made a choice. Canon wants to protect its market, we want to spend less. Ultimately, if the knock off is good enough, it puts Canon at a disadvantage and Canon has to lower their price to compete. I can live with that too. Ironically, articles like this - if properly translated, make the next gen of knockoffs harder to spot... Please understand I'm not arguing the morality of this, Canon has intellectual property rights, and their advertising budget helps sell credible knockoffs, based on Canon's popularity. I'm just watching from the sidelines. I have some Canon flashes, and I have some off brand flashes, according to my needs.
not that at all - these are sold as being flashes made by canon, which would then also include support,etc
canonpro: Biggest problem of this over the Sony, the Olympus does not have a removable battery, its built in. So when your battery runs out (or when it final craps out) your kinda of screwed.
Jeff - but does it also power via USB? ie: if the camera is gassed for internal power, will it power from the USB?
charges / powered by USB is it not?
Lightcapture: I am getting tired of trying to find what equivalent 35mm focal length(s) of this contraption?
hard to multiply by two?
mpgxsvcd: Useless for astronomy with its 4 second shutter speed limitation. That is the area where it had the most potential.
yes / no hyperstared exposures don't have to go as high as 4 sec really.
however, it's unknown whether or not the API can allow a longer shutter or a bulb exposure.