maxnimo: Very nice.
I'm curious, though. Did he have a bodyguard with him? If he ever passed through New York or L.A. all his stuff would have been robbed within 10 minutes. But since I don't see any big city pics I assume he was smart enough to avoid those places, unless of course he had a bodyguard, or a loaded weapon.
The car-crazy people in Los Angeles don't even know what bicycles are. They'd assume he was from another planet and keep their distance.
Holy cow. That's real photography.
rzuch: Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the sensor specifications and factors that effect picture quality. A Nikon designer commented that the 810's sensor has better dynamic range (vs. the 750). Is this measured and included in the camera's specifications? I would think that more pixels (810) in the same sensor size might give less dynamic range as the pixel noise would increase. Other than the resolution, what makes one sensor better or worse than another? Can we read into the 750's specs to know how this camera's picture quality will compare to Nikon's other cameras?
It's no different from the film says and no, specs tell almost nothing because the picture quality is dependent on a web of factors that all interact with each other in unpredictable ways—camera firmware, lenses, subject, post processing software, and your own personal preferences. That's why it's almost pointless to read reviews—you have to try the camera with your light, your lenses, your post-processing, and your eye.
Yeee haaaa!!!! Finally, the phone of my dreams. As a person who shoots events from time to time and needs to upload photos to client websites while the event is happening, this camera will solve a lot of problems for me.
You know why Nikon cameras are so screwed up? Because of you people and your negative comments. The engineers at Nikon are people with feelings just like you and when they read these words—even in translation—it must be devastating to their professional pride and their egos. So instead of innovating boldly and giving us amazing cameras, they design out of hurt feelings and confusion and fear of further criticism. Hence, we get timid cameras that are confusing. Creative people thrive on positive feedback. You need to praise the good behavior, ignore the bad. So, if you don't like what Nikon is doing, you have only yourselves to blame.
Peiasdf: Isn't Roger "Len's Rentals" so why is he saying management tell him this and that?
Always enjoy reading his lens test and disassembly.
He sold all or part of the biz or turned over management to someone else....You'd have to go look through old posts on the site, but a year or two back he said that he was taking a different role at the company.
mayurgogoi: Dear Shooters--what is your experience abt ISOs performance of NIKON D810?
It's really great, at least the jpegs out of the camera are—Adobe is still fine tuning its raw converter. But I've shot a lot at 6400 and they're wonderful as long as you look at them as photos and don't go all nerdtastic over them... If you zoom in to 200 percent they're a little grainy but nothing that makes them unusable. And if you set your masking at 80 or 90 percent in ACR they're awesome.
Thank you for bringing objective measurement to the difficult question of tripod evaluation. There's nothing more satisfying than the ka-snick of a camera firing when it's solidly attached to a vibration-free tripod so thanks for helping us find out which ones deliver.
You're a genius for figuring out that vibration measuring system! I hope you patented it.
Erick L: Total light on sensor affecting noise doesn't make sense to me. Don't smaller sensors appear more noisy simply because the image needs to be enlarged more, noise included?
Seems to me that saying a FF sensor has less noise because it gathers more light is akin to saying a telephoto lens "compresses perspective".
Correct, but that's not what these people are talking about. For them, lens equivalence is a BUYING tool. It's NOT a shooting tool. It's a metric to make intelligent choices about tradeoffs to reduce the size and weight of the equipment you carry. And forget exposure—this is mainly about depth of field.
Thom Hogan has a useful article on equivalence http://www.sansmirror.com/articles/pick-a-size.html
"The simple fact is that there are looks you can't get with small formats that you can with large formats, and vice versa. The trick is to pick the right tool for the right job, and therefore to understand the underlying differences of your tools… You may make hundreds of decisions to get a single good photograph, and one of them is to choose the right tool for the job….People want small, light, inexpensive, high image quality, flexible, robust…But there's a simple fact of life: the more things you require from a tool, the more compromised and/or expensive it is."
wansai: while applaud dpreview for doing this article, i have the distinct impression all it is doing is confusing more ppl than it is helping.
camera settings for any exposure of a scene is done for your respective sensor/camera. it's not useful to consider its equivalence, only what focal length/reach do you want, how are you framing it and what settings on THIS camera do i need to get the exposure.
equivalence is purely academic and is being used almost entirely by fanbois to support either of their cases for superiority.
when taking a shot, what does it matter what the Ff ewuivalence is? here, now, my camera, i need my f stopped to x to get a certain amount of dof. i need the iso and shutter to be set at xx. i expose.
that's all that matters.
Here's the question that all this raises for me....does noise increase at a linear rate with exposure time or does it stay the same and only is affected by ISO? Lets say your sensor introduced 1 unit of noise when you take a shot at f/8 ISO 100 and 1/100. So what happens in low light levels when the shutter needs to stay open for 1/2 second or 1 minute? Do we still get that 1 unit of noise at ISO 100? Or does something else come into play like heat-induced noise?
mostlyboringphotog: @DPR/Richard,May I make a modest proposal:Instead of simply "Equivalent Aperture or F-stop" can we use "DOF Equivalent Aperture or F-Stop)".
After annoying Sven umpteen time, sorry that it took 141 post and 5 days to come up with this modest proposal but I'm not known to be swift.
To all those who would think but that's what is implied in the Equivalent F-stop, remember that F/2 is NOT equivalent F/4 for brightness in any format. No such corollary for Equivalent FL, which makes it less controversial.This proposal is not for the forum posters who know all this already.
Thanks again all, particularly Sven, GB and Richard for engaging me.
That is the best idea I've heard in this entire discussion. Stick to the one point that people agree on and forget about trying to convert people on the others.
No one is going to change their mind, and trying to argue one side or the other just perpetuates the cycle of trolling and flaming, trolling and flaming.
Compromise is what adults do when they realize that they're not going to agree on everything; it's time for both DPR staff and readers to grow up.
This is one of those great simple innovations that you can't appreciate unless you've watched $5000 worth of camera and lens on what you thought was a carefully propped monopod start sliding slowly toward the concrete.A great, low-tech way to add stability to an inherently unstable piece of equipment. Bravo.
rfsIII: There must be an professor of imaging science out there somewhere who can be hired by DPR to write a nice counterpoint article that will untangle this topic and bring sanity to what is essentially a holy war between two under-informed camps. I would start at http://www.rit.edu/cos/optics-rit and work westward from there.
There is nothing simple about optical science especially at the level we're discussing. But I get the point. For whatever reason you're not going to reveal the name of anyone in your circle who has the academic or professional credentials to back up this theory of yours. I surrender. Live long and prosper.
The problem is that the equivalence evangelists don't work in the field of optics or sensor design so it is impossible for them—or us—to know what gaps there are in their theories.
For instance, yes, on a single-element lens, I would imagine you might get the same amount of light. But what about a double Gauss? Or a 15-element 24-70 with 11 lens groups? There's a lot going on in that tube that they're not accounting for.
The other thing that makes me skeptical of their idea is that they attack those who raise questions about it. It's something we see frequently here in America where arguments are won by out-shouting your opponent rather than by weight of logic and fact.
And despite the protestations by the supporters we still haven't heard anyone with even a bachelor's degree in a relevant field come forward and endorse this theory. That's what makes me think that perhaps there's a gaping hole somewhere and it may in fact be this "total light" concept as mentioned by nigelht, above
This is my point. No one involved in promulgating this theory has said anything about their relevant scientific or engineering credentials. Supporters just keep saying it's common sense. I haven't seen a single mathematical proof.It's a nice thought experiment and it may be completely true, but right now it lacks the real-world input from people working in the field to make it something that should be spread on the front page of an important website like DPR.
I'm no physicist, but I know that you guys are leaving out the fact that resolution is a tradeoff between diffraction and aberration. A wider aperture means more optical aberrations (which are themselves a form of "noise") which is just as deleterious if not more so than diffraction. You are also ignoring new sensor technology that is coming close to eliminating the problem of noise from smaller pixels.
We live in a world of science, theories should not be set forth as facts without rigorous evaluation by qualified experts.
There must be an professor of imaging science out there somewhere who can be hired by DPR to write a nice counterpoint article that will untangle this topic and bring sanity to what is essentially a holy war between two under-informed camps. I would start at http://www.rit.edu/cos/optics-rit and work westward from there.
JPdeJ: In response to sb. below. The human eye - 50 degrees and standard lens on 35mm?Most humans have the functional use of two eyes with a significant distance relative to sensor size and optics.That means horizontally we see differently than vertically.Image processing in the brain helps us and sometimes fools us.The angle of view is the conscious part of _male_ (=tunnel) vision.
My first wide-angle lens (28mm on 24x36) seemed an eye opener. After some time I needed 24mm. Then I moved to 20mm on 24x36. After 10,000 conscious shots, I noticed a sudden change and it seemed all lenses "narrower" than 180..220 degrees were actually a limitation. The male tunnel had gone. Through learning. Neuronal connections, etc.
Or, "standard" or "normal" are so relative.
Great point about the vertical axis. But I'm with you, wide angle is better especially when you can contrast close subject with distant background.
Bodhi Dharma Zen: To put it in other words. MARKETING people are (professional) liars. They would push a lens as being "2.8" when, in reality, their light sensitivity is a lot less (depending of course of the relative size between sensor and lenses)... There should be LAWS to guarantee that marketing people should be limited to stating FACTS in RELATION to an approved standard.
All lensmakers overstate the aperture. If you read lens reviews most lenses labeled f/2.8 are actually around f/3.2. But if you're metering through the lens it doesn't make any difference the meter is reading the actual light. If you're using a handheld meter, then it's a problem.
ThePhilips: DPR, you should have started with historical fact that 135 film format, aka "Full Frame", started its life as a crop, literally.
All these formats are crops of the crops of the crops. None of them is "full".
The de facto standard for stills in the film era was 8x10; when I started working in the mid-90s the standard was 4x5, which slowly morphed to 2 1/4 square, then 645 and then medium-format digital backs and finally 35mm digital. It wasn't really until the 60s that 35mm became the standard even for news photographers.
rfsIII: Thanks for legitimizing one man's crackpot theory. You have set photographic understanding back by 150 years and made life harder for photography teachers everywhere.What you guys are ignoring is that f-stop also controls overall performance of the lens. Most lenses are sharpest at their middle apertures—there's no "equivalence" for that law of optical engineering. The image from a cropped sensor camera is not going to be as sharp across the frame at f/2.8 as one from a large-sensor camera is at f/5.6.
What really bugs me about this whole story is that it is not up to the usual standards of DPR journalism. The writer naively buys into the nomenclature and conclusions of the "lens equivalence" crowd and doesn't engage his own critical faculties nor does he interview qualified optical or imaging scientists to probe anything about their assertions. It's as if he were writing about people who think the earth is flat and didn't bother to talk to an astronomer or a geographer. I think the editors of DPR do a great job of keeping their distance from Amazon, so they're clearly people of strong character and high intellect, but for this story they allowed themselves to be seduced into becoming the blushing, star-struck cheerleaders for a group with a somewhat questionable understanding of physics.