gusmahler: Disagree with the analysis of the 50 mm lens. It's a great purchase for crop cameras. On Nikon it's the equivalent of 75 mm. On Canon, it's equivalent to 80 mm. Both are decent portrait focal lengths. IOW, 50 mm is a great portrait lens for crop cameras that is still usable as a walkaround lens for a FF camera.
The "will I upgrade to FF" question really comes into play at 35mm, though. Especially with Nikon. Because Nikon makes two 35 mm lenses, an inexpensive ($200), but crop-only lens. And a $500 lens that can be used on both crop and FF bodies.
Odd comment about lens costs. I decided to buy FF lenses to save money.
First, I got a used Nikkor 35-70 2.8D lens for $200 to put on my APS-C camera for full body children and waist up adult studio shooting. But then it becomes a useful walk-around lens when put on a FF body. My 70-200vr is a great head and shoulders studio lens on FF, but then becomes a great sports and field lens when mounted on the D300.
I suppose I could have bought a (new at the time as there were no used ones available) Nikkor 17-55 for 7x the cost, which wouldn't have really done what I wanted it to do, and then bought a new lens to put on a FF camera at a later date.
Same for the 70-200vr. I guess I could have waited a couple of years for a 3rd party lens maker (Sigma 50-150) to release a lens that wouldn't have done what I wanted it to do on a crop body, then bought another one for FF duties. Seems wasteful though.
But according to you, I didn't make much sense when I bought those lenses...
RMGoodLight: I Agree with this article. Fullframe is not suitable for everyone.
I tried the sony Alpha FF cameras myself and from my experience I miss 1 critical point in most of this discussions: useful aperture and equivalence. With mFT and APSC I'm used to F1.8 and F1.4 lenses. After using this terrific Zeiss 55mm F1.8 wide open at a Sony A7R I had to commit I had to rethink which apertures to use. At F1.8 FF optics have a very thin DOF. Misfocus is more critical then with F1.8 at APSC or mFT.
After some trial-and-error I think that F2.0 or better F2.4 gives much more usable DOF at FF cameras. That explains why there are so many FF lenses starting at F2.0 or F2.8. F1.8 gives very nice image results at FF cameras but you need a good AF or a steady hand to get good use of it. And thats the tricky part of the quote from above "with the same shutter speed and f-number, a larger sensor ... allows better image quality." You will not use FF with the same ISO and F-number as APSC or mFT.
Hear Hear b0k3h! Right on the money.
People's obsession with razor thin dof usually points to their otherwise lack of photographic capability.
"Oh noes... I need to make this snapshot of this person standing awkwardly in the middle of nothing special in mid-day sun to look 'professional' what to do? I know, I load it up with tones of blur!"
I think this article made some sense with point 1, but then it just got silly with point 2.
I'd be more concerned with the drive overheating with all that rubber around it.
maxnimo: carpeted concrete floor?
I've seen carpets with a lush, soft, 6 inch thick pile.
Half a foot of pile? You'd lose a shoe in 3 steps...
Flashback: Pop-up flash yet again. ugh...
Is it just me, or does anybody else think the over hanging flash, just completely spoils the look of a fine camera?
It's just you.
Nobody buys these consumer slrs for the looks.
Suntan: Bitorrent Sync and half a brain will get you all of that and more for no dollars a year.
I don't have this need. So I don't know how to make everything so extremely "SEAMLESS" that it would satisfy you. Sounds like you should call Apple.
I would have to think that anyone who has that pressing of a desire to look at pictures on a big screen (aside from just handing their cell phone to a person and saying "see!") already has some form of system set up to access their images/videos.
I fail to see a market for this device that hasn't already scratched this itch.
Sorry, I don't. I don't really do much of anything with Apple products.
But what you describe is pretty easy to do on an android tablet/home computer. I'm sure Apple has similar options. I would assume bitorrent sync has an apple app. If you can transfer your pictures from your camera to your tablet, then you can transfer them on to your home computer with that.
As for selecting/editing/ranking, you can do it on your apple tablet if you have an app for it. Or you can transfer all of the pictures to your home computer first, then play with them by directly accessing the remote computer on your tablet via Splashtop or some lesser VNC application.
Vlad S: I can't see how light source less than 1 inch wide could possibly be discussed in terms of softness. Without a modifier, you'd have to keep it just 1 inch from the subject. What's the point?
He meant, "... and won't be the right one for MOST every thing."
Mal69: I miss the days when people just took photographs, now its all about who can do the best job using Photoshop applications, it feels a little like cheating to me as i never know if the photograph is natural or heavily changed using the computer.
Meh. I appreciate the final result. I don't care if it takes effort to get there.
These aren't forensic shots submitted at trial here. They can differ from reality.
HowaboutRAW: did #1 really have to be cliché softcore?
The only thing that seems to be missing is the interaction between you and a real woman in the real world if you are looking at that picture and interpreting it to be some woman getting felt up by someone else's hands...
Regardless, even if there was someone else stand behind her touching her like that, it still wouldn't be considered "soft core porn."
I'm done here.
If you have deemed yourself the final authority on exactly what is and what isn't porn, then so be it. Live in your own world.
This looks little more than a woman stretching her neck to me.
Suntan: Personally, #3 bugs me as it is a prime example of what happens when a gear collector takes pictures.
Namely, a photo of a person with no emotion, showing nothing of merit, complete with a distracting background that does nothing to compliment the subject.... Then try to make it "art" with a HUGE helping of blur all over everything except the eyes and the back half of the nose, because - you know - fast glass.
This is not the Mona Lisa.
You seem to be getting sidetracked on your own tangent about the subject's appearance. That was not the core of my original comment.
I didn't say there was no emotions because she is not smiling, I said their was no emotions because she is showing no emotions...
Meh. Wait for a young lady with bright blue eyes to go get her driver's licences renewed at the DMV. Same result, minus the blur-crutch and with a less distracting background.
Bordering on porn? I'd have to disagree. It isn't even in the same zip code as porn.
It's just a young lady showing a bit of cleavage.
Personally, #3 bugs me as it is a prime example of what happens when a gear collector takes pictures.
Suntan: You can get a billion different, cheap LED flashlights off Amazon/Ebay.
Buy 3 for $10 combined, then JB weld them to a 1/4-20 nut... Boom, this product.
Jeez... I knew someone would take that literally.
Anyway, you can find any number of cheap flashlights built with Cree T6 LEDs on Amazon. Output of one alone can reach 1,500 lumens.
As for wireless... yeah, history proves that no video or stills were possible prior to having everything able to be wireless...
The product looks extremely expensive for ultimately providing relatively little light, with garishly poor light quality.
Basically it looks like a gadget for people that like to play with gadgets. It doesn't look like a worthwhile addition for meaningfully improving the capture of video or stills beyond what is already available (for much less.)
You can get a billion different, cheap LED flashlights off Amazon/Ebay.