Reading mode: Light Dark

Isn't it the lenses in the end anyway?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glenn Barber
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Kevin Roczey said:
That's an interesting point about the brush. I bet they don't pick
the "best" brush, because it doesn't exist. It depends upon their
need, use and style as to which brush they feel is best for their
application. No doubt that it's a lot of hard work, but some
innate talent doesn't hurt any :) (Do you think they have a
website they go to so they can debate the pros and cons of new
brush releases :-)
Click to expand...
Actually there is a vietnamese fellow in southern California (his name escapes me right now) who is world famous for the art of watercolor brush painting (mostly of flowers) and his work is a marvel to behold. He has a TV series on cable and has sometimes devoted a major part of his show to the selection of brushes and the differentiation in the construction between a good brush and a "best" brush. Artists like this usually have some artisan who makes their tools for them to spec (I know musicians who do the same with their instruments).

I know a fair bit about the film industry, and you should see how picky the best cinema photographers are about their equipment selections.

Obviously the best have talent - but to be a professional you have to produce consistently repoduceable high quality results - and that always requires a great attention to getting the best out of your tools.
Kevin Roczey said:
Kevin R.
Kevin Roczey said:
I have heard this "Zen of Photography" before - and my response is
that the good artist (photographer or whatever) picks the best
brush. Knowing which is the best brush and how to use it comes from
vast experience - and education from their masters and peers - and
that's what this forum is all about.

Nobody is a great artist without a hell of a lot of time learning
about the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tools of the
art. I know a number of famous artists in several professions
(photographers included) and they are uniformly insulted when
someone suggests that its "just some innate talent" they have.
They know they worked their asses off to get where they are.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I have also spent a lot of time heree lately (too much) - and like you I have been glued to this forum since the announcement of the D100. its an addiction.

I actually got involved with the Sony 505 and 707 cameras. The later takes superbly sharp and noise free images with its custom designed zeiss lens - but its flash system is horribly flawed. I was getting the same "zen of photography" and "its the photographer" b/s in the sony forum when I complained that the auto flash setting of 1/40th at F2 caused ambient light blurring on anything that moved and that if you manually override the shutter speed in manual mode the electronic viewfinder went dark.

I am about to go back to film just to prove to myself that I can take an accurately focused and exposed sharp picture with my lenses and flash.
michaeladawson said:
When I say that the great photographer will produce lasting images
with the crudest of cameras I am not suggesting that they do it
with some natural born ability.

Rather, they spent their time honing their skills, analyzing
composition, learning print processing work in the darkroom.

I get the impression that a large number of people in this forum
spend their time arguing over hardware specs rather than developing
their skills as a photographer. That's not what this thread was
about. I only posted my comment to make the statement that in the
end it's the photographer.

And yes, I find myself spending far too much time on this forum as
of late. I got my D100 2 weeks ago and came to this forum to read
about others experiences with the camera. I should take my own
advice and spend more time developing my skills.

To be fair to the forum I must admit that I started following it a
week after the introduction of the D100. This naturally has
sparked a flurry of messages. So what I have seen in the last
couple weeks may not be the norm.
Glenn Barber said:
michaeladawson said:
You know, someone posted a reply with an edited subject line that
says it all... "Isn't it the photographer". The content did not
match the subject line and know one seems to have picked up on it.

Actually I think no one wanted to pick up on it. Everyone wants to
talk specs. Which lens is better, which body.

Granted, this is a hardware forum so I understand why the
discussion centers on this topic.

But in the end it is not the bodies, not the lenses, it is the
photographer. This constant battle over the best followed by a
posting of yet another dog or flower picture to prove the point is
amusing to say the least.

A great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest
of cameras.

Anyway, I don't need to go on, it's all been said countless times
before. I simply wanted to echo a previous sentiment that it is
not the lenses in the end, it is the photographer.
Click to expand...
I have heard this "Zen of Photography" before - and my response is
that the good artist (photographer or whatever) picks the best
brush. Knowing which is the best brush and how to use it comes from
vast experience - and education from their masters and peers - and
that's what this forum is all about.

Nobody is a great artist without a hell of a lot of time learning
about the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tools of the
art. I know a number of famous artists in several professions
(photographers included) and they are uniformly insulted when
someone suggests that its "just some innate talent" they have.
They know they worked their asses off to get where they are.
michaeladawson said:
Mike
Glenn Barber said:
Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I agree 100% - now can anyone tell me more about how the best of Nikon compare to the best of canon?
Ron Reznick said:
Ron
michaeladawson said:
Actually I think no one wanted to pick up on it. Everyone wants to
talk specs. Which lens is better, which body.

Granted, this is a hardware forum so I understand why the
discussion centers on this topic.

But in the end it is not the bodies, not the lenses, it is the
photographer. This constant battle over the best followed by a
posting of yet another dog or flower picture to prove the point is
amusing to say the least.

A great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest
of cameras.

Anyway, I don't need to go on, it's all been said countless times
before. I simply wanted to echo a previous sentiment that it is
not the lenses in the end, it is the photographer.

Mike
Glenn Barber said:
Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
 
A few years ago when Cd's came out the engineers told the public that they couldn't hear anything above 15KHZ - but the world knew better and could hear the difference immediately.

One can instantly see the difference in sharpness between two lenses on a 5 or 6mp camera - and it's in the texture and color - even though its hard to quantify. Of course you have to be a luck person to have very sharp vision - there are many (even without glasses) that do not perceive fine detail or differentiate color or terxture well and are completely unaware of this limitation. Unfortunately as we age - some of this is gradually lost.
Ron Reznick said:
Ron

PS: I agree that the lenses are far more critical than the figures
stated above would make some folks think. It is exceptionally easy
to tell a good lens from a mediocre one based on my experience.
Glenn Barber said:
Andrew Snow said:
Member said:
It would probably hold me as well - but I am not sure I would want
to hold it for too long. (too heavy...)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is heavy... wouldn't suit most people.
Click to expand...
My wife has to be able to use it - and when we go on family outings
even the d100 with a 18-35 left me with a stiff neck. Got to get a
better carrying system.

Here's a shot at what traveling light looks like with three small
kids.

http://www.pbase.com/image/3299391/large
Member said:
  • Andrew
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
 
Having been an audio engineer and designing high-end product since 1979, I was in the middle of the CD revolution when it occurred -- believe me when I say that much of the 'engineering BS" that came out about how folks couldn't hear above 15kHz was marketing hype and fluff. Granted, some folks with damage from percussive noises and loud ambient noise as well as other obvious noise sources have hearing damage that causes reduction of bandwidth, but for the most part people can hear just fine to 18-21kHz. I have to say that with quality gear, the difference between the CDs and well-recorded and produced analog recordings was easily discernable, but as time went on the quality of CDs and the gear to play them got better. Meanwhile, for most people the quality of output of a CD exceeded that of the analog on the systems they had so it made sense for that reason, and the CD was the wave of the future so sticking your head in the sand was counter-productive. I was involved in the design of one of the higher-end turntables released at the beginning of the CD revolution, and I wasn't all that happy about the way things were going, but that's progress for you.

Many medium-grade lenses do a good job when stopped down to f/8-f/11. It's when you want to shoot them more open when problems start to arise. If you are shooting in relatively low light or you want subject isolation you simply have to get the better glass. That better glass also does a better job at apertures like f/4 and f/5.6 almost all the time too, and those are apertures that come into play very, very often in my shooting style.

It really comes down to what you shoot. If you shoot f/16 landscape work a lot, then you can get away with lenses that I wouldn't touch for my work. If you shoot wide-aperture work you'd better avoid those lenses.

Ron
Glenn Barber said:
One can instantly see the difference in sharpness between two
lenses on a 5 or 6mp camera - and it's in the texture and color -
even though its hard to quantify. Of course you have to be a luck
person to have very sharp vision - there are many (even without
glasses) that do not perceive fine detail or differentiate color or
terxture well and are completely unaware of this limitation.
Unfortunately as we age - some of this is gradually lost.
Ron Reznick said:
Ron

PS: I agree that the lenses are far more critical than the figures
stated above would make some folks think. It is exceptionally easy
to tell a good lens from a mediocre one based on my experience.
Glenn Barber said:
Andrew Snow said:
Member said:
It would probably hold me as well - but I am not sure I would want
to hold it for too long. (too heavy...)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is heavy... wouldn't suit most people.
Click to expand...
My wife has to be able to use it - and when we go on family outings
even the d100 with a 18-35 left me with a stiff neck. Got to get a
better carrying system.

Here's a shot at what traveling light looks like with three small
kids.

http://www.pbase.com/image/3299391/large
Member said:
  • Andrew
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Glenn, the best of the Canon lenses and the best of the Nikon lenses are pretty much equivalent. There are exceptions both ways of course -- the 85/1.4D Nikon is described as a better lens than the 85/1.2 Canon by people who have shot them both, and the 17-35 AFS is a better lens than the Canon equivalent. Canon has recently come out with a 16-35mm that reportedly has taken care of a lot of the issues the earlier lens had. Canon has a better lens in the long zoom category with their 100-400 IS/USM when compared to the 80-400 VR Nikon. They have a number of lenses with Image Stabilization, and Nikon is just now about to release their second VR lens, so in that category Canon is ahead. And so forth.

For the most part, I'd say that you can find what you want in either system with superb quality. Select your camera body based on what that body will do with the knowledge that the lenses available in either system will allow you to get the job done right.

Personally, I chose the Nikon system because at the time I made my decision there was nothing available in the Canon system that would allow me to do what I wanted. That has changed, but still there seems to me to be no reason to change.

I have written a dissertation on lenses that you might want to read sometime: http://digital-images.net/Lenses/lenses.html -- The information applies to lens selection in general, with details applying to Nikon lenses of course.

Ron
Glenn Barber said:
Ron Reznick said:
Ron
michaeladawson said:
Actually I think no one wanted to pick up on it. Everyone wants to
talk specs. Which lens is better, which body.

Granted, this is a hardware forum so I understand why the
discussion centers on this topic.

But in the end it is not the bodies, not the lenses, it is the
photographer. This constant battle over the best followed by a
posting of yet another dog or flower picture to prove the point is
amusing to say the least.

A great photographer will produce lasting images with the crudest
of cameras.

Anyway, I don't need to go on, it's all been said countless times
before. I simply wanted to echo a previous sentiment that it is
not the lenses in the end, it is the photographer.

Mike
Glenn Barber said:
Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other - and we will probably all be regularly
upgrading to keep up - but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.

Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.

I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.

I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
The lens does matter greatly.

There are some very sharp Canon lenses, and some very sharp Nikon lenses. NOT all lenses they (Canon/Nikon) make are good...beware.

There are plenty of BAD lenses...for instance that Sigma 50-500 mentioned in a D100 rant elsewhere in dpreview. That Sigma is a piece of lard...horrible contrast and NOT sharp. ALL zooms with more than a 3:1 ratio are to be avoided. The Sigma 50-500 is a 10:1 !
The Canon 28-135 is poor, yet the 28-105 is very good....go figure.
Conservative design is ALWAYs better.... the Macros are all EXCELLENT.
Canon: 50 & 100mm & 180mm......Nikon: 60 & 105 & 200mm.
Fixed prime lenses will increase your results SIGNIFICANTLY over zooms.

Also.....I have never experienced 2nd party lenses to be as good as the original manufacturer. 2nd party lenses are mechanically inferior.
Buy fewer lenses...buy better ones !
 
Ron Reznick said:
Glenn, the best of the Canon lenses and the best of the Nikon
lenses are pretty much equivalent. There are exceptions both ways>
Click to expand...
Funny - I have seen a lot of discussion about the 16-35 in the Canon forum and some are very disappointed with the results - offhand in this range the Nikkor 17-35 is the clear winner. Canon is supposed to come out with a new 2.8 medium zoom which is supposed to replace the 28-70 - but otherwise in the medium range they are pretty much a draw. The Canon big lenses seem to have an advantage over Nikon - but I need to do more research.

I am going to read your dissertation - thanks a lot for the info.

One more question - it had been noticed by others (as well as my personal experience) that the sharpest images on the D100 seem to come from closely focused images - and that there are comparatively few far-focused examples of sharpness. I can't think of any reason why this would be (if it's true at all). Do you have any ideas about this?
 
re: the 16-35, I have read a few reports that said that the lens was significantly better than the 17-35 Canon in certain areas that led me to believe that they had improved it considerably. I do not know of any reports where the user tested the 17-35 AFS against the 16-35 Canon though.

re: the long lenses, the Nikon 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4 and 600/4 AFS-series are exceptional lenses and I would say that there is little reason to assume that the Canons are better here -- things were different a few years ago when the AF-I or AF lenses were all that could be gotten... AF was very slow but the optics were still quite good. Now, with the high-speed motors I'd say that it's a draw. The Canon 300/4 is one that I have had a chance to shoot directly against the Nikon, and results are exceptionally close. The Canon 180mm macro lens has faster AF than that of the Nikon, but the image quality is exceptionally similar.

Many lenses are softer at long distance, and the fact that there are fewer pixels per detail to describe those details makes it more difficult to get sharp long-range shots. Unless someone was shooting a lens that was very sharp at distance and carefully focused as well as using a tripod or a high shutter speed, it's easy to understand why a distance shot was less sharp. It's possible that someone using a D100 would use consumer-grade glass and less-than-perfect technique, but of course that may not be the reason.

Glenn, to be certain of anything I'd have to test it myself, and I haven't yet had an opportunity. Failing that, I'd have to see a test by someone whom I am certain knows what they are doing, using tools that are fit for the job at hand.

Ron
Glenn Barber said:
Ron Reznick said:
Glenn, the best of the Canon lenses and the best of the Nikon
lenses are pretty much equivalent. There are exceptions both ways>
Click to expand...
Funny - I have seen a lot of discussion about the 16-35 in the
Canon forum and some are very disappointed with the results -
offhand in this range the Nikkor 17-35 is the clear winner. Canon
is supposed to come out with a new 2.8 medium zoom which is
supposed to replace the 28-70 - but otherwise in the medium range
they are pretty much a draw. The Canon big lenses seem to have an
advantage over Nikon - but I need to do more research.

I am going to read your dissertation - thanks a lot for the info.

One more question - it had been noticed by others (as well as my
personal experience) that the sharpest images on the D100 seem to
come from closely focused images - and that there are comparatively
few far-focused examples of sharpness. I can't think of any reason
why this would be (if it's true at all). Do you have any ideas
about this?
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Joe- I found your discussion to be very valuable. I'm especially intrigued by your reasonable speculation, that I share, that image stbilization will end up in the bodies. I'm far from expert on this, I have a vague idea that currently the digital stabilization would not as accurate as the optical lens based system, but this too would seem destined to come to pass. Any chance Nikon agrees and this explains why they haven't charged in to IS?....Peter
Joseph S. Wisniewski said:
Glenn Barber said:
Looking at the debate on sharpness, exposure, buffer handling,
between Nikon and Canon DSLR's - my guess is that every 6-9 months
we will have an offering from one or both which eclipses the
functionality of the image capture, auto-focus, and auto-exposure
capability of the other
Click to expand...
Probably.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
and we will probably all be regularly upgrading to keep up
Click to expand...
Probably not. They're actually hitting levels of acceptability
which might see people keeping a digital body for more than a 2
year "computer upgrade" cycle. A D30/D100 class camera (6MP, great
8x10, acceptable 11x14) will hold me until I get ahold of something
that's full 24x36mm, and 12 MP (for really popping, sellable
12x18). And tracking IC die sizes and costs, that's not going to be
in my price range till somewhere around 2006. So maybe a DSLR
upgrade in 4 years.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
but in the end the quality of images we get
will be limited more by lens quality (sharpness, lack of distortion
and chromatic abberations, speed and accuracy of focus). I suspect
even now a lot of our old favorites that worked great at 35mm are
going to be challenged in the 6mp + digital environment.
Click to expand...
I'd say you suspect wrong. The D100 puts 3000 pixels in the 24mm
length of the CCD. Thats 125/mm. If the anti-aliasing were
absolutly perfect (I won't get into the DSP math) that's only 62
lines/mm. You have to have a pretty mediocre lens to make this any
worse than it already is.

I'm used to macro lenses (Luminars, or Macro-Nikkors (not
Micro-Nikkors, I know the difference) that together with a fine
grain film like Tech Pan will lay down about 300 lines/mm, or
Velvia which can do around 200. That's 9 time sthe resolution of
the D100, and twice the CCD area, or your basic 50M pixel CCD.
60% year resolution increase, and that is about year 2010.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Therefore it would seem our biggest and most lasting investment
will be in lenses - and out best choice of camera system would be
determined by who seems to have the best glass we can buy now.
Click to expand...
Seams reasonable.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
I don't have much knowledge of Canon lens technology and how it
compares to Nikon - although some of my pro friends swithced over
to Canon years ago for the fast USM focus ans Image Stabilization.

Now Nikon has AFS on some but not all lenses, and has the Vibration
reduction system.
Click to expand...
Canon and Nikon are nearly ideltical. They both have true USM
(circular motors around the lens body) only on their high end
lenses. Low end Canon lenses have a system where the USM is tiny,
and spins gears, so it's just like Nikon "screwdriver" drive, maybe
even a little slower.

I think both Nikon and Canon are heading in the wrong direction
when it comes to image stabilization. Give it a few more years and
you'll see digital cameras that do the image stabilization in the
camera, with all lenses, the way video cameras do it now.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
I have a lot of old Nikon Glass (and a few new ones) - but if we
were talking about starting out to purchase high quality lenses to
work well on the DSLR's of the future - how would you say the Best
of Nikon shape up against the best of Canon?
Click to expand...
Honestly, it's so hard to tell the difference between Nikon and
Canon (go ahead, flame me) that I would have a lot of trouble
picking a new system if I had to get rid of my 25 or so Nikkors and
start over.

Ciao!

Joe
Click to expand...
 
I just thought of a lens with which Canon has cleaned Nikon's clock in the tele range, even more than they have with the 100-400 IS/USM vs. the Nikon VR. The 400mm f/4 DO is a lightweight (relatively), short tele lens that has no equivalent in the Nikon line, and I for one would really like to see something like that. If this is a lens which you find a need for in your style, the only way to achieve this in the Nikon line is with a 300/2.8 AFS-II and a TC-14e, and that combination would be heavier by 50%.

They also make a 1200mm f/5.6, but if you need a lens like that the cost of an extra body to shoot it with is no problem for you I'm sure.

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Thanks - I love your images by the way and would really love to hear about any personal experiences you have had with the D100. Maybe I can convince Greg at Canoga Camera to loan you one.
Ron Reznick said:
I just thought of a lens with which Canon has cleaned Nikon's clock
in the tele range, even more than they have with the 100-400 IS/USM
vs. the Nikon VR. The 400mm f/4 DO is a lightweight (relatively),
short tele lens that has no equivalent in the Nikon line, and I for
one would really like to see something like that. If this is a lens
which you find a need for in your style, the only way to achieve
this in the Nikon line is with a 300/2.8 AFS-II and a TC-14e, and
that combination would be heavier by 50%.

They also make a 1200mm f/5.6, but if you need a lens like that the
cost of an extra body to shoot it with is no problem for you I'm
sure.

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
 
If Greg loans me one, I'll put it to a serious test and write about the experience, along with images processed from NEF to back up the report.

Ron
Glenn Barber said:
Ron Reznick said:
I just thought of a lens with which Canon has cleaned Nikon's clock
in the tele range, even more than they have with the 100-400 IS/USM
vs. the Nikon VR. The 400mm f/4 DO is a lightweight (relatively),
short tele lens that has no equivalent in the Nikon line, and I for
one would really like to see something like that. If this is a lens
which you find a need for in your style, the only way to achieve
this in the Nikon line is with a 300/2.8 AFS-II and a TC-14e, and
that combination would be heavier by 50%.

They also make a 1200mm f/5.6, but if you need a lens like that the
cost of an extra body to shoot it with is no problem for you I'm
sure.

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Ron Reznick said:
They also make a 1200mm f/5.6, but if you need a lens like that the
cost of an extra body to shoot it with is no problem for you I'm
sure.
Click to expand...
This reminded me of a lens Nikon offered for most of the 1990s (though apparently no longer), a 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 zoom. Weighed something like 43 lbs., if I remember correctly.

Back in 1993 or so, when I was a Nikon technical rep, I got a call one day from a dealer in Palo Alto, CA inquiring as to the diameter of the front element of the 1200-1700. Lawrence Livermore National Labs needed a 1500mm Nikon-mount lens that they could fit in a hole they were gonna' drill in the wall of a nuclear test reactor (or so the story went by the time it got to me.) They were fully prepared to buy six or eight lenses at $60,000+ apiece. (I think something about the nature of the experiment led them to believe they might go through a handful of lenses before they were done.) Unfortunately, the diameter of the front element was much too large for their purposes, and the deal fell through.

I did learn, though, that the FBI and the Defense Department had purchased a handful of 1200-1700s already. Occassionally, I imagine them peering through darkened hotel windows at drug deals or spies meeting in a D.C. park somewhere.
 
Peter said:
Joe- I found your discussion to be very valuable. I'm especially
intrigued by your reasonable speculation, that I share, that image
stbilization will end up in the bodies. I'm far from expert on
this, I have a vague idea that currently the digital stabilization
would not as accurate as the optical lens based system, but this
too would seem destined to come to pass.
Click to expand...
I think that it will be, every bit as accurate, but it might take a few years.

There are two ways to do image stabilization, either move the CCD (or an optical steering prism in front of the CCD), or do it digitally with multiple exposures shifted around to eliminate the vibration. The first approach has advantages, it can be very fast, and you can add just enough controlled movement to the CCD to provide an anti-aliasing filter that would out perform the scattering filters currently in use. And you can allow the user to vary how much anti-alias is applied.

The second approach means sub-sampling, and that takes quite a bit of work. For example, to sample from a 6M pixel CCD, 500 times a second (so all images are as stable as ones taken at 1/500 second exposure, no matter what the shutter speed is), you have to transfer 4.5 billion bytes a second from CCD to accumulator, shifting horizontally or vertically with every 1/500 second image.

This is not as far fetched as it sounds. Thanks largely to the video game and computer graphics industires, memories are actually that fast, and people have developed the technology to manage data transfers at this kind of speed. Theoretically, it could be done today. Practically, I wouldn't expect it for at least 2 more years.

But look at the advantages. A 1/2 second hand held exposure, with 250 images averaged together to get it. That would add 8 more bits to the dynamic range of the picture, so instead of a 12 bit image with D 3.0, you have a 20 bit image with D 5.0. And that really will spell the death of film.
Peter69322 said:
Any chance Nikon agrees
and this explains why they haven't charged in to IS?....Peter
Click to expand...
There's a chance, but personally, I think it's because they're more conservative than Canon. If I had to bet, I'd bet that Nikon (and Leica) will be the last camera companies dropping R&D money on film, when Canon and the rest have given up the film market totally (the way that Oly did last month)

Ciao!

Joe
 
Surely Nikon is developing a 400 f/4.. that would be a fantastic lens to use on a D1. I can't wait for one to be released, I suspect its the same with many of us.
  • Andys
 
I hope they do come out with something like that, including something similar to the DO glass that Canon released which reduces the size and weight. The 400/4 DO is a very lightweight lens -- much lighter than the 300/2.8 AFS-II and short in length -- yes, I'd be very interested in that.

Ron
Andrew Snow said:
Surely Nikon is developing a 400 f/4.. that would be a fantastic
lens to use on a D1. I can't wait for one to be released, I
suspect its the same with many of us.
  • Andys
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top