Mike Griffin: It is my experience that small sensor cameras give superior depth of field for macro photography. I don't buy the diffraction argument. You may have to stop down to f:16 and beyond to get acceptable depth of field with a DSLR and suffer from diffraction limitations but a compact that is diffraction limited at f:4 has great depth of field at f:2.8.This article explores the argument further. http://www.eos-magazine-forum.com/showthread.php?4538-Small-sensor-macro
The problem of small sensor cameras is that there are no viable choices for macro lenses and that the gift of higher DOF comes at quite a price because the background usually will be unappealing cluttered and busy...
Lng0004: I have a question with focus stacking. Do I have to move the camera accordingly (like on rail) if the lens focuses by extension?
In my experience it is better to keep the focus of the lens fixed and indeed move the camera via an external focusing rail. It makes life easier for both helicon focus as well as CombineZM - which are the two most popular choices of focus stacking software...
kff: combining the images above via focus - it would do camera these days by a special function moving AF point (I say "AF macro bracketing":) and a final composition of result picture in the camera (or in the computer) ... I think, it is a simply software function :)
For it is better camera (tablet with camera module like GXR) with min.10'' display, for better select of AF point etc.
You are quite wrong. Focus stacking is a highly processor intensive business and most of the time you not only have to stack two or three images, I have seen stacks of several hundered images and myself have shot series of up to 50 images to be combined into a single image with this technique. The problem most of the time when refocusing a lens is that all lenses in closeup photography change not only focus distance but focal length as well (a 180mm macro lens can be just a 100mm lens when focused at 1:1). This focus breathing (which is more developed in zoom lenses) makes stacking a much more tedious process as you have to deal with artifacts due to the change in focal length.
Karl Gnter Wnsch: Unless they manage to produce sensors that can convey the *full* dynamic range of the scene (not just 6-7 EV in video mode like today, which is at least 20 stops short of the required range) and the EVF would manage to show the same dynamic range (the OLED is limited to about 5-6 EV) and that without lag and without heating up the sensor and without draining the battery... EVF is a solution to a non existing problem, OVF is and always will be superior, it's just hapless NOOBs which crave for the EVF solution as they lack the knowledge (and with an EVF they will never acquire this knowledge) to judge a scene. EVF are incapable of showing the vital aspects in any high contrast scene - so they are a deal breaker for many!
@Sousa: That's a misconception. It is not WISIXYG - as the dynamic range of a sensor video feed is lower than the captured still photo and the EVF can't manage to reproduce even this limited dynamic range properly. So you rather have a limited view of what you certainly capture but won't see what you may have captured inadvertently? Put yourself into the place of someone using flash to manage the subject lighting against a bright background - what will you see in the EVF? Nothing worthwhile, not a chance you can make out the subject or the background at the same time but yet both will be clearly seen in the photo taken! To manage photography like this you need to control the complete dynamic range of the scene to fall within the severely limited dynamic range the EVF will be able to convey - so instead of flash you need several thousand watts in terms of permanent lighting just like film crews carry around.
GSD_ZA: I would like to be among the first to applaud the end of tricks with mirrors and levers. The mechanical nonsense that goes on inside an SLR has no right to persist into the near future.
@mzillich, I resent the tone of your post and no matter how much the EVF will be enhanced there are simple laws of physics they can never avoid and which limit the usefulness. The medical problems that come from messing one eye up in terms of adaptation are real and a real threat to the photographers health.
That "mechanical nonsense" is still and always will be far superior to a lagging video feed with limited dynamic rance, high power consumption, overheating issues and higher eyestrain which can easily lead to head aces and even more severe problems...
@oselimg - such as? It's always those that have no viable argument that resort to inappropriate name calling without providing any arguments to sustain their position.@SteB - yes an OVF is limiting in some circumstances but to photograph in these situations you can apply different remedies which all are readily available - with the exception of video. But photographic tools are not about video, they are about photography. For video an EVF is indispensable. If you don't have an OVF anymore I'd challenge you to properly take back lit portraits - as in every circumstance where the contrast of the scene while viewing exceeds the strongly limited EVF you are at a loss. And these circumstances are present far more often than those that may require an EVF - so by mandating an EVF you are favoring the worse solution to the problem of delivering a viewfinder. There is no reason not to have a live view solution as well but to only have a live view solution is unacceptable!
Unless they manage to produce sensors that can convey the *full* dynamic range of the scene (not just 6-7 EV in video mode like today, which is at least 20 stops short of the required range) and the EVF would manage to show the same dynamic range (the OLED is limited to about 5-6 EV) and that without lag and without heating up the sensor and without draining the battery... EVF is a solution to a non existing problem, OVF is and always will be superior, it's just hapless NOOBs which crave for the EVF solution as they lack the knowledge (and with an EVF they will never acquire this knowledge) to judge a scene. EVF are incapable of showing the vital aspects in any high contrast scene - so they are a deal breaker for many!
Jonathan F/2: Great, now I gotta get new EN-EL18 batteries!
It seems that Nikons hands were forced as there is a new law in Japan regarding the contacts on high capacity batteries to prevent short circuits and their aftermath.
tuckerfx98: I like the idea of a new improved memory card. The idea of a CF and tiny SD card in the same camera was silly.Some of you may not work under cold winter conditions where handling an SD card is more than just a little awkward. Believe me SD should be buried for just that reason. Well, may keep it around for "Granny" and her "PHD Camera" when she's on vacation in Hawaii.
The second slot is for the CF-Card successor, not a fiddly SD card with it's far inferior performance!
Hide Takahashi: According to news at yahoo Japan, Sony,Panasonic and Fuji Film are fiercelyfighting to take over Olympus. Olympus medical equipments are already well known in the industry and now Sony is seriously considering to enter medical equipments business. Whoever succeeds in taking over Olympus,they will be in good hand.
"Whoever succeeds in taking over Olympus,they will be in good hand."The only company of those that you claim are queuing on their doorstep for a takeover that would keep the camera business alive would be Panasonic. Sony would bury it (eliminating internal competition against their NEX line) and FujiFilm has lost the plot a long time back... The DSLR line would anyways be dead with any of the three.
Sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Canon: 17 Elements, 13 Groups
Sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX DC HSM Pentax: 17 Elements, 13 Groups ??
... are the OS Elements Glued ?? :)
It isn't economically feasible to produce different optical makeups, so yes, they simply have remove the sensors and micro motors that moved the OS group and fixed them in place.
Why would anyone now buy this lens? The appeal of the lens was mainly in the optical stabilizer the predecessor had as it is more efficient than the built in stabilizers, reduced the overheating issue of the SLT cameras, stabilized the viewfinder, stabilized the image the autofocus works with - so now this lens is just another "Oh Sigma produces one of these as well..."
Deleted17: Where I live, if they sell you land that is below sea level, you go to jail. What were they thinking?
It was an one off event. Just like the eventual breakup of one of the canary islands will be an one off event - which will destroy the whole eastern seaboard of the american continent up and including to the first mountain range exceeding 3000 feet - So you better start evacuating...
Archiver: I have two licenses for Lightroom 3 and have only activated one. I am saving the second for when I upgrade my home computer, which will save me the bother of deactivating and reactivating somewhere else.
Lightroom is the only program I have found that gives me the image quality and 'look' that I like; no other raw processor gives the same look and IQ of Lightroom. This rather ties me in to Lightroom and means I may eventually have to pay big bucks to upgrade in the future, unless another raw converter comes to the party.
Take a look at rawtherapee, it has evolved quite enormously in the past few months and has surpassed the results I got from LR in terms of quality...
Karl Gnter Wnsch: Sorry, but endorsing the Manfrotto metal garbage is making me think about how the Amazon purchase of this site has influenced the contents. I had this tripod and it's stability wasn't something to write home about, the ability to dampen vibrations from say the mirror slap is virtually non existent. The main culprit (next to the too thin dimensioned legs) is the center column mount - to make this tripod usable this has to be removed completely (which is sort of an emergency measure supported by readily available parts). Even then it's too heavy for the performance it offers...
@Guidenet: I am quite sure. Manfrotto seems to source the clamps wherever they may get the best price. They range from bearable to unusable. I since have replaced my tripod with Berlebach ones and they are faster to setup (and less painful may I add, getting the fingers caught in the Manfrotto clamps is really really painful and takes some time to heal), more silent, much more robust and less prone to require disassembly cleaning...
@Guidenet, It's not the metal part (although it contributes to the problem), it's the way the center column is mounted - and the only way to get rid of it is 3rd party parts. Then there is the issue of the leg clamps on which I had the choice of tightening them to (well beyond) breaking point to get it to stand sturdily or to have them not hold the tripod. I more than once caught my fingers in them and in the end I dumped it (not sold, garbage collection). I then bought myself a wood tripod of about the same price and weight, which is much more sturdy, no leg clamps to worry about and I still have that. The basic carbon fibre tripods from for example Feisol would be a much better choice but probably aren't an option for DPreview because of the tie ins with Amazon. I buy lots of things through Amazon but would never limit my choice to their portfolio.
Sorry, but endorsing the Manfrotto metal garbage is making me think about how the Amazon purchase of this site has influenced the contents. I had this tripod and it's stability wasn't something to write home about, the ability to dampen vibrations from say the mirror slap is virtually non existent. The main culprit (next to the too thin dimensioned legs) is the center column mount - to make this tripod usable this has to be removed completely (which is sort of an emergency measure supported by readily available parts). Even then it's too heavy for the performance it offers...
Eugene Powers: Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 OS is very sharp without stopping down.As far as weather sealing and focus limit a $3 plastic sleeve will do. Certainly better than Canon $1000 option for weather sealing. And I don't want to be focus limited while I forgot to switch it back. Happened to me and I missed the shot because lens would not focus. Sigma lens focuses very fast without focus limiting switch.
Sigma HSM is fast, Canon ring USM is faster - and with the help of the focus limiter switch it is much more usable in the field. You just need to know what you are doing...
Stollen1234: nice) imagine if these were taken with a canon camera..the colors and the clarity would be unsurpassed.
The only reason NASA prefers Nikon is that certain lenses in the Canon range use the optically superior fluorite elements - which NASA doesn't trust to survive the vibrations during vehicle launch...