The benefits of a DSLR are ??

Geir Ove · Mar 25, 2003

Hello,

I have for a long time been planning on buying a DSLR. I currently have a Richo Film SLR with a 1.4 50 mm lens. No AF. I also have a Dimage 7 DSLR that I enjoy, but it has its limitations: Very slow AF and quite noisy.

I skipped the D60 due its slow (fast compared to the D7, but even so) AF especially in dim lighting: Yes I have tried the D60 and the D30 at several occasions.

When the 10D was released I thought: This is it! I will buy it.

First I started to investigate what lens to buy. I was quite discouraged by my findings on the severe imiations even on some L lenses! See below.

Then all the reports on the AF offsets started ticking in (Front / Back focused).

One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in composing a picture. But where did this benefit go? It seems that due to the current limitation on Lens Quality and low precision AF we cannot take full advantage of the Shallow DOF. Here's why:

1) The lenses are too soft at large aperture openings,you have to "stop them down" to get sharp pictures => Shallow DOF is gone.

2) The AF on many D60 and 10D are, according to user reports here, offset / not accurate enough: (Front / Back Foucused Thus, to get a sharp picture, you need to "stop down" the lens again!

I expect a high level of flaming because I have the guts to question the state of the current technology: I have noticed that this is NOT popular around here: Worshipping is the way to go to become popular: But I want to find out what the state of the technolgoy is, and show Canon (in this case) that users are aware: This is the only way we can go to make the manufactureres improve the technology to everyones benefit: Not by blindly worshipping.

Well founded arguments are of course welcome.

Here are several links to qualify my findings:

Some Front Focus threads:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4676075

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4653382

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4700719

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4693042

"Newspaper" Lens Tests

Canon 28-105 vs. Canon 28-135;
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm

"Conclusions. For me, image sharpness is important. Because I wouldn't want to use these lenses at much less than F11,"

Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 vs. Canon 50 F1.8 Lens Test
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm

"The 50mm lens is the clear winner in terms of sharpness.

At F1.8-2.5, the 50mm lens is soft, but a soft picture is better than no picture (the 28-105mm lens cannot open up this wide). Despite their softness, these images are still better than the Canon 28-105mm lens at F4. "

More Lens Tests here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tderousie/mi/lens_resolution_test.htm

Geir Ove

Henrik Abelsson · Mar 25, 2003

Geir Ove said:
I expect a high level of flaming because I have the guts to
question the state of the current technology

heh. No, if i were you I'd expect a high lever of flaming because you seem a bit ignorant on how a DSLR works in the real world. Forget about the whiners here who takes pictures of news papers and cereal boxes all day and go out and take some real photos instead.

Yes, it's true that most lenses are softer wide open. (it would be very strange if they weren't). Yes, AF-inaccuracies are a problem. Are they showstoppers? Hardly! Calling that "severe limitations" is simply inaccurate. If you expect perfection you'll always be dissapointed, learn how to work around the problems instead.

If you're truly interested in shallow dof, get a macro lens and enjoy a DOF of fractions of a millimeter. (Not an artistic shot, but

; illustrates a very shallow DOF. The memory chip is less than a mm above the pcb)

Tony Lodge144005 · Mar 25, 2003

Geir Ove said:
First I started to investigate what lens to buy. I was quite
discouraged by my findings on the severe imiations even on some L
lenses! See below.

Hey, no lenses are perfect, IME, it's (usually!) a sliding scale between convenience (zooms) and quality/cost (high quality primes). This has nothing to do with a decision to buy a DSLR tho, its applicable to all cameras. I stick with primes as for any given shoot I tend to know which focal lengths I'm going to need. Some L zooms are pretty decent though.

Geir Ove said:
Then all the reports on the AF offsets started ticking in (Front /
Back focused).

In my opinion, FF or BF = faulty. "Give me another camera Mr retailer". V Simple.

Geir Ove said:
One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture. But where did this benefit go? It seems that
due to the current limitation on Lens Quality and low precision AF
we cannot take full advantage of the Shallow DOF. Here's why:

Leaving out lens quality (as you CAN buy decent lenses), you have a point with DOF and poor autofocus. I had a D60 and an 85mm f1.2. That combo was a pig as at f1.2the D60's autofocus often let me down as it was inconsistant. I haven't tried the 10D, but I have tried a 1Ds and I can tell you - no probs there.

Geir Ove said:
I expect a high level of flaming because I have the guts to
question the state of the current technology: I have noticed that
this is NOT popular around here: Worshipping is the way to go to
become popular: But I want to find out what the state of the
technolgoy is, and show Canon (in this case) that users are aware:
This is the only way we can go to make the manufactureres improve
the technology to everyones benefit: Not by blindly worshipping.

No flames from me. I think it's good to question the status quo - we progress that way. However I will say that a DSLR CAN be a great tool to have as it does offer you a level of control, usability and immediacy that is difficult to achieve with other platforms. Also married with a good lens, technique and post-processing skills some are capable of GREAT results.
I'm sure if you look for it you will find shining examples.

So I guess you need to questions your own wants and needs and say "do the benefits + limitations of a DSLR match them?"

Patrick Collins · Mar 25, 2003

Geir Ove said:
[snip]>
One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture. But where did this benefit go?

HUHHH? Hold it right there. Shallow depth of field with a smaller than full-frame sensor is an oxymoron. The so-called "multiplication" factor is in fact the inverse of a very real cropping factor. You're getting your photons from the center of the lens, as if it were stopped down. A major beef of many street photographers has been excessive DOF with digital cameras - they cannot isolate a subject like they can with film.

So what do you shoot? Nature? Then DSLRs should fit you perfectly. Portraits? Perhaps not. Street photography? Perhaps not.

But don't blame the lenses (or blame them for something else), blame the physics.

--
Pat

Nothing can defeat my supercharged drive to relax.

Geir Ove · Mar 25, 2003

Hello,

Thanks for answering.

You said: "If you're truly interested in shallow dof, get a macro lens and enjoy a DOF of fractions of a millimeter"

Will AF work properly when this level of accuracy is needed?

Geir Ove

Henrik Abelsson said:
Henrik Abelsson said:

I expect a high level of flaming because I have the guts to
question the state of the current technology

Click to expand...

heh. No, if i were you I'd expect a high lever of flaming because
you seem a bit ignorant on how a DSLR works in the real world.
Forget about the whiners here who takes pictures of news papers and
cereal boxes all day and go out and take some real photos instead.

Yes, it's true that most lenses are softer wide open. (it would be
very strange if they weren't). Yes, AF-inaccuracies are a problem.
Are they showstoppers? Hardly! Calling that "severe limitations" is
simply inaccurate. If you expect perfection you'll always be
dissapointed, learn how to work around the problems instead.

If you're truly interested in shallow dof, get a macro lens and
enjoy a DOF of fractions of a millimeter. (Not an artistic shot,
but

; illustrates a very
shallow DOF. The memory chip is less than a mm above the pcb)

Geir Ove · Mar 25, 2003

Hello,

Not alway that simple in all countries: Bad / slow service levels....

I understand that you can buy yourself out of the lens-softness problem (to a certain extent) but I would like to see more affordable lenses becom better: After all, they are not cheap (in my book)

Geir Ove

Tony Lodge2 said:
Tony Lodge144005 said:

First I started to investigate what lens to buy. I was quite
discouraged by my findings on the severe imiations even on some L
lenses! See below.

Click to expand...

Hey, no lenses are perfect, IME, it's (usually!) a sliding scale
between convenience (zooms) and quality/cost (high quality primes).
This has nothing to do with a decision to buy a DSLR tho, its
applicable to all cameras. I stick with primes as for any given
shoot I tend to know which focal lengths I'm going to need. Some L
zooms are pretty decent though.

Tony Lodge144005 said:

Then all the reports on the AF offsets started ticking in (Front /
Back focused).

Click to expand...

In my opinion, FF or BF = faulty. "Give me another camera Mr
retailer". V Simple.

Tony Lodge144005 said:

One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture. But where did this benefit go? It seems that
due to the current limitation on Lens Quality and low precision AF
we cannot take full advantage of the Shallow DOF. Here's why:

Click to expand...

Leaving out lens quality (as you CAN buy decent lenses), you have a
point with DOF and poor autofocus. I had a D60 and an 85mm f1.2.
That combo was a pig as at f1.2the D60's autofocus often let me
down as it was inconsistant. I haven't tried the 10D, but I have
tried a 1Ds and I can tell you - no probs there.

Tony Lodge144005 said:

I expect a high level of flaming because I have the guts to
question the state of the current technology: I have noticed that
this is NOT popular around here: Worshipping is the way to go to
become popular: But I want to find out what the state of the
technolgoy is, and show Canon (in this case) that users are aware:
This is the only way we can go to make the manufactureres improve
the technology to everyones benefit: Not by blindly worshipping.

Click to expand...

No flames from me. I think it's good to question the status quo -
we progress that way. However I will say that a DSLR CAN be a
great tool to have as it does offer you a level of control,
usability and immediacy that is difficult to achieve with other
platforms. Also married with a good lens, technique and
post-processing skills some are capable of GREAT results.
I'm sure if you look for it you will find shining examples.

So I guess you need to questions your own wants and needs and say
"do the benefits + limitations of a DSLR match them?"

Geir Ove · Mar 25, 2003

Does it matter yo YOU what I shoot??? I have more than 4000 digital pictures, and counting, and some of them even winning local contests.

Have a nice day you to.

Geir Ove

Patrick Collins said:
Geir Ove said:

[snip]>
One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture. But where did this benefit go?

Click to expand...

HUHHH? Hold it right there. Shallow depth of field with a smaller
than full-frame sensor is an oxymoron. The so-called
"multiplication" factor is in fact the inverse of a very real
cropping factor. You're getting your photons from the center of
the lens, as if it were stopped down. A major beef of many street
photographers has been excessive DOF with digital cameras - they
cannot isolate a subject like they can with film.

So what do you shoot? Nature? Then DSLRs should fit you perfectly.
Portraits? Perhaps not. Street photography? Perhaps not.

But don't blame the lenses (or blame them for something else),
blame the physics.

--
Pat

Nothing can defeat my supercharged drive to relax.

Henrik Abelsson · Mar 25, 2003

Geir Ove said:
You said: "If you're truly interested in shallow dof, get a macro
lens and enjoy a DOF of fractions of a millimeter"

Will AF work properly when this level of accuracy is needed?

No, but that is why God invented the manual focus switch.

Typically, when great accuracy is required, you should focus manually. Even the worlds best AF-cameras are significantly less accurate than a skilled photographer focusing manually.

Geir Ove · Mar 25, 2003

I am now learning a lot more about the real limitations: The story the manufacturers don't want to tell you.

I use MF a lot on my D7 due to its slow AF.

Geir Ove

Henrik Abelsson said:
Geir Ove said:

You said: "If you're truly interested in shallow dof, get a macro
lens and enjoy a DOF of fractions of a millimeter"

Will AF work properly when this level of accuracy is needed?

Click to expand...

No, but that is why God invented the manual focus switch.

Typically, when great accuracy is required, you should focus
manually. Even the worlds best AF-cameras are significantly less
accurate than a skilled photographer focusing manually.

GjB · Mar 25, 2003

I don't believe the front/back focus issues are significant or material. The 10D is excellent and significantly addresses all the key shortcomings of earlier family products. There is excessive nit-picking on this forum - the 10D is excellent. Period.

But even the D30/D60 offer advantages over shooting film. First and foremost (for an amateur especially) is the immediate feedback and lack of film/processing costs. You WILL take LOTS more photos with a DSLR than with a Film based one. And this will, in and of itself, help you to improve your photography.

Also, you have a degree of control over prints which could not have been achieved without darkroom and lots of expertise in printing. You will (probably) print less photos than before but the ones you do print will be exceptional and will be easier to print larger than before.

You do not NEED 'L' lenses - the 50m 1.8 is an excellent starter lens but it will act 'like' an 80mm on a 10D. It would probably make sense to get a 28 or 35mm lens to complement the 50mm and the former would be very close to the focal length you are used to shooting.

DSLR images are 'soft' for a reason - the unprocessed raw images are deliberately left as 'natural' as possible to enable the maximum range/flexibility in post processing (on your PC where you have lots of memory, power and sophisticated software) to achieve best results. There is no fundamental sharpness issue with DSLRs. However, the 'quality' of CMOS sensors is such that you do need reasonable quality lenses to achieve the true potential - but the same issue exists with film excepting that it is possibly a little more forgiving. Also negatives are not subject to the same 'scientific' scrutiny that everybody seems to be so hung up on here. Bottom line - the 10D will take outstanding photos the equal and better of anything you are achieving at present.

Shallow DOF is not a universal blessing. In fact, in many cases it highlights any lack of sharpness (out of focus) on the main subject.

The benefits of Digital over film so seem to be universally accepted and once you make the switch you are unlikely ever to want to go back to shooting film.

Tom Crowning · Mar 25, 2003

in this forum there is a way over proportional rate of people whining about limitations they'd never notice in a real live photo

analog cameras have the same limitations, but people do not see them on the standard 8x10 print

happy people do very seldom post messages about their working camera (# compared to the rest of messages).

with all these cameras photos are still possible. If you read this forum for a week you'll get insane.

tc

--
http://www.tom-crowning.com

John Mankos · Mar 25, 2003

Geir Ove said:
Hello,

I have for a long time been planning on buying a DSLR. I currently
have a Richo Film SLR with a 1.4 50 mm lens. No AF. I also have a
Dimage 7 DSLR that I enjoy, but it has its limitations: Very slow
AF and quite noisy.

I skipped the D60 due its slow (fast compared to the D7, but even
so) AF especially in dim lighting: Yes I have tried the D60 and the
D30 at several occasions.

And you probably missed alot of pictures that the D7 simply couldn't get that the D60 could have.

Geir Ove said:
When the 10D was released I thought: This is it! I will buy it.

First I started to investigate what lens to buy. I was quite
discouraged by my findings on the severe imiations even on some L
lenses! See below.

What 'imitations'?

Geir Ove said:
Then all the reports on the AF offsets started ticking in (Front /
Back focused).

One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture. But where did this benefit go? It seems that
due to the current limitation on Lens Quality and low precision AF
we cannot take full advantage of the Shallow DOF. Here's why:

Cameras and lenses are mass-produced items. An SLR could possibly be used with hundreds of different lens combinations. Unfortunately....its impossible for a camera manufacturer to 'calibrate' every camera/lens combination out there, especially since cameras and lenses are not made in the same production lines. So they shoot for a 'general' calibration of the AF system that 'should' work with 'most' combinations. This is the real world. This is what happens if you want a high speed AF system. Guess what? If your lens/camera combo isn't up to par, you send the Camera in to the Camera manufacturer for adjustment, or get the CD and do it yourself. If that doesn't work, as long as you have canon lenses, you send the camera and lens to canon for calibration.

Geir Ove said:
1) The lenses are too soft at large aperture openings,you have to
"stop them down" to get sharp pictures => Shallow DOF is gone.

This is the case with almost ALL wide aperture lenses. Almost every lens made, regardless of manufacturer, is sharper two stops down from wide open than it is wide open.

Geir Ove said:
2) The AF on many D60 and 10D are, according to user reports here,
offset / not accurate enough: (Front / Back Foucused Thus, to get a
sharp picture, you need to "stop down" the lens again!

This was also true of the $5000 1D

Geir Ove said:
I expect a high level of flaming

So you freely admit you're baiting????

Geir Ove said:
because I have the guts to
question the state of the current technology: I have noticed that
this is NOT popular around here: Worshipping is the way to go to
become popular: But I want to find out what the state of the
technolgoy is, and show Canon (in this case) that users are aware:
This is the only way we can go to make the manufactureres improve
the technology to everyones benefit: Not by blindly worshipping.

It's not blind worship. It's real-world common sense. Those who can't accept that there will be variations from the norm aren't living in reality. My first 10D was a lemon. Wouln't meter for $hit five minutes after startup. Did I whine about it? No, I posted here to see if there was something I could have been doing wrong....and although I got a few wisecracks from the forum wiseguys (which is also a reality in life, btw, deal with it) I found others who had the same problem as I. I simply sent the camera back to the dealer, found another camera, and moved on? That was a pretty damn simple solution.

Did I feel cheated? Slighted? NO! Because this is how mass production works. Defects slip through the system. If you get one...the manufacturer isn't out to get you...you just return it and get another, or send the defect in for repair. That's why there's warranties. It's a simple solution, really.

Another example...though not quite the exact same subject, it is relevant. I've had bad luck with Sony camcorders. I went through three of them that failed within a year. Did that mean that ALL Sony's camcorders are cr*p? No, I just had bad luck with those three. If I would have let that deter me from buying Sony, I wouldn't have the marvelous DV machine I have now.

Geir Ove said:
Well founded arguments are of course welcome.

It doesn't get more well founded than that. That's reality. Now deal with it and give it a rest.

Geir Ove said:
Here are several links to qualify my findings:

Some Front Focus threads:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4676075

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4653382

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4700719

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4693042

"Newspaper" Lens Tests

Canon 28-105 vs. Canon 28-135;
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm

"Conclusions. For me, image sharpness is important. Because I
wouldn't want to use these lenses at much less than F11,"

Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 vs. Canon 50 F1.8 Lens Test
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm

"The 50mm lens is the clear winner in terms of sharpness.
At F1.8-2.5, the 50mm lens is soft, but a soft picture is better
than no picture (the 28-105mm lens cannot open up this wide).
Despite their softness, these images are still better than the
Canon 28-105mm lens at F4. "

More Lens Tests here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tderousie/mi/lens_resolution_test.htm

Geir Ove

--
John
http://www.pbase.com/mankman
Canon EOS 10D

Per Inge Oestmoen · Mar 25, 2003

Geir Ove said:
I have for a long time been planning on buying a DSLR. I currently
have a Richo Film SLR with a 1.4 50 mm lens. No AF. I also have a
Dimage 7 DSLR that I enjoy, but it has its limitations: Very slow
AF and quite noisy.

The fundamental flaw of the Dimage 7 and all other compact digitals is that they have too smalll sensors. In addition they lack interchangeable lenses. Low quality images, less versatility and a relatively high price. In fact, I find that the quality I get from my D60 is so much higher that the $2000 price tag was justified.

Geir Ove said:
I skipped the D60 due its slow (fast compared to the D7, but even
so) AF especially in dim lighting: Yes I have tried the D60 and the
D30 at several occasions.

I have no problems with my D60. Unfortunately it cannot focus well in dim light, but during dusk and dawn one will need a tripod anyway, and then I focus manually.

Geir Ove said:
One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture.

Well, for me the most important is the possibility of interchangeable lenses and much higher technical quality. I never saw any reason to buy a compact camera.

Geir Ove said:
Some Front Focus threads:

I can only say that I have not experienced any focus problems with my D60, even not at large apertures. I however have to confess that since I primarily shoot sceneries and landscapes, I generally want the greatest DOF possible, and therefore mostly use 5.6-8. Still I have made enough portraits to know it if there was a focus problem.

Geir Ove said:
"Newspaper" Lens Tests

Geir Ove said:
Canon 28-105 vs. Canon 28-135;
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm
"Conclusions. For me, image sharpness is important. Because I
wouldn't want to use these lenses at much less than F11,"

But then, why would you want to buy these less capable zooms in the first place, when you know or should know that prime lenses are vastly better and will give you that quality you want?

Geir Ove said:
Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 vs. Canon 50 F1.8 Lens Test
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm
"The 50mm lens is the clear winner in terms of sharpness.
At F1.8-2.5, the 50mm lens is soft, but a soft picture is better
than no picture (the 28-105mm lens cannot open up this wide).
Despite their softness, these images are still better than the
Canon 28-105mm lens at F4. "

1. Be aware that there is a significant difference in quality between the 50mm 1.8 II (The plasticky one) and the 50mm 1.4 USM. The 1.8 II is not sharp until 5.6, whereas the 1.4 is very good at 2.8.

2. The 28-105 F3.5-4.5 is a zoom lens, and it is a consumer grade zoom at that. How could anyone in his or her right mind every expect it to perform brilliantly? It should come as no surprise that it does not measure up even to a prime that is a clear downgrade from Canon's former 50mm 1.8 I.

Geir Ove said:
More Lens Tests here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tderousie/mi/lens_resolution_test.htm

Yes, and the test on this page shows the truth:

http://www.modernimaging.com/50mm_resolution.htm

A high-quality prime is vastly better than a "normal-grade" zoom. Should that not be considered a foregone conclusion? I have worked with optics (mainly Swarovski, Zeiss and Nikon binoculars and telescopes) for many years, and I know very well that there is simply no way that a zoom construction could yield the same optical quality as a fixed focal length one. This is nothing sensational.

I just wonder why so many are seemingly oblivious of this simple fact. It is simple physics. A zoom construction is much more complicated, hence it needs to be incredibly accurate and the quality of the glass elements must be outstanding if the lens or telescope is to give anything close to reasonable quality. If a zoom construction is to be as good as the best fixed focal length equivalents, it will have to be prohibitively expensive.

I have also been into photography for more than 15 years. Never has it occurred to me that I should buy a zoom lens. I use a Canon D60 and today I have these lenses:

The 20mm 2.8 USM
The 28mm 2.8
The 35mm 2.0
The 50mm 1.4 USM
The 100mm 2.8 Macro USM

Not a single zoom lens. Why should I buy zooms? The most expensive "L"-zooms are good, but not as good as they would have been if they had been primes. More importantly, "L"-zooms are frighteningly expensive.

Here the superiority of the prime is also shown very clearly:

http://www.modernimaging.com/105mm_resolution.htm

Frankly, this is a matter of course. If you want quality, buy primes.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

davidhood · Mar 25, 2003

This guy will never be happy not matter what you say so don't waste your time typing a reply.

Geir Ove said:
Hello,

I have for a long time been planning on buying a DSLR. I currently
have a Richo Film SLR with a 1.4 50 mm lens. No AF. I also have a
Dimage 7 DSLR that I enjoy, but it has its limitations: Very slow
AF and quite noisy.

I skipped the D60 due its slow (fast compared to the D7, but even
so) AF especially in dim lighting: Yes I have tried the D60 and the
D30 at several occasions.

When the 10D was released I thought: This is it! I will buy it.

First I started to investigate what lens to buy. I was quite
discouraged by my findings on the severe imiations even on some L
lenses! See below.

Then all the reports on the AF offsets started ticking in (Front /
Back focused).

One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture. But where did this benefit go? It seems that
due to the current limitation on Lens Quality and low precision AF
we cannot take full advantage of the Shallow DOF. Here's why:

1) The lenses are too soft at large aperture openings,you have to
"stop them down" to get sharp pictures => Shallow DOF is gone.

2) The AF on many D60 and 10D are, according to user reports here,
offset / not accurate enough: (Front / Back Foucused Thus, to get a
sharp picture, you need to "stop down" the lens again!

I expect a high level of flaming because I have the guts to
question the state of the current technology: I have noticed that
this is NOT popular around here: Worshipping is the way to go to
become popular: But I want to find out what the state of the
technolgoy is, and show Canon (in this case) that users are aware:
This is the only way we can go to make the manufactureres improve
the technology to everyones benefit: Not by blindly worshipping.

Well founded arguments are of course welcome.

Here are several links to qualify my findings:

Some Front Focus threads:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4676075

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4653382

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4700719

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4693042

"Newspaper" Lens Tests

Canon 28-105 vs. Canon 28-135;
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm

"Conclusions. For me, image sharpness is important. Because I
wouldn't want to use these lenses at much less than F11,"

Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 vs. Canon 50 F1.8 Lens Test
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm

"The 50mm lens is the clear winner in terms of sharpness.
At F1.8-2.5, the 50mm lens is soft, but a soft picture is better
than no picture (the 28-105mm lens cannot open up this wide).
Despite their softness, these images are still better than the
Canon 28-105mm lens at F4. "

More Lens Tests here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tderousie/mi/lens_resolution_test.htm

Geir Ove

Tony Collins · Mar 25, 2003

Patrick Collins said:
HUHHH? Hold it right there. Shallow depth of field with a smaller
than full-frame sensor is an oxymoron. The so-called

Patrick

That's like saying you cant get shallow depth of field with 35mm because it is smaller than medium format.

DLSR's such as the D30, D60 and D10 with a 1.6 crop can easliy achieve selctive focus (shallow DOF), just not quite so much as 35mm, if you use "equivalent focal lenght" lenses. In fact a 100mm lens on a D60 will give shallower DOF than the same 100mm lens on a 35mm slr (because the sensor image is enlarged more to a standard sized print). It will however give less DOF than the EQUIVALENT 160mm lens on a 35mm slr.

However when we talk about equivalent focal lenghts, a D30 gives much narrower DOF than a consumer digital camera with a sensor crop factor of around 5 times.

--
Tony Collins
[email protected]

gpb11 · Mar 25, 2003

You come across as having a big chip on your shoulder and pose your questions in a very critical manner.

If you are actually seeking help, you might consider changing your tactics.

-- Lew

Geir Ove said:
Hello,

I have for a long time been planning on buying a DSLR. I currently
have a Richo Film SLR with a 1.4 50 mm lens. No AF. I also have a
Dimage 7 DSLR that I enjoy, but it has its limitations: Very slow
AF and quite noisy.

I skipped the D60 due its slow (fast compared to the D7, but even
so) AF especially in dim lighting: Yes I have tried the D60 and the
D30 at several occasions.

When the 10D was released I thought: This is it! I will buy it.

First I started to investigate what lens to buy. I was quite
discouraged by my findings on the severe imiations even on some L
lenses! See below.

Then all the reports on the AF offsets started ticking in (Front /
Back focused).

One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture. But where did this benefit go? It seems that
due to the current limitation on Lens Quality and low precision AF
we cannot take full advantage of the Shallow DOF. Here's why:

1) The lenses are too soft at large aperture openings,you have to
"stop them down" to get sharp pictures => Shallow DOF is gone.

2) The AF on many D60 and 10D are, according to user reports here,
offset / not accurate enough: (Front / Back Foucused Thus, to get a
sharp picture, you need to "stop down" the lens again!

I expect a high level of flaming because I have the guts to
question the state of the current technology: I have noticed that
this is NOT popular around here: Worshipping is the way to go to
become popular: But I want to find out what the state of the
technolgoy is, and show Canon (in this case) that users are aware:
This is the only way we can go to make the manufactureres improve
the technology to everyones benefit: Not by blindly worshipping.

Well founded arguments are of course welcome.

Here are several links to qualify my findings:

Some Front Focus threads:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4676075

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4653382

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4700719

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4693042

"Newspaper" Lens Tests

Canon 28-105 vs. Canon 28-135;
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm

"Conclusions. For me, image sharpness is important. Because I
wouldn't want to use these lenses at much less than F11,"

Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 vs. Canon 50 F1.8 Lens Test
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm

"The 50mm lens is the clear winner in terms of sharpness.
At F1.8-2.5, the 50mm lens is soft, but a soft picture is better
than no picture (the 28-105mm lens cannot open up this wide).
Despite their softness, these images are still better than the
Canon 28-105mm lens at F4. "

More Lens Tests here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tderousie/mi/lens_resolution_test.htm

Geir Ove

--
Any DSLR beats unexposed film.

orlandoom · Mar 25, 2003

The biggest advantage if you stick with film based camera is this forum will not have any of your useless troll posts.
Orlando

PS; The benefits of digital vs film has only been discussed a gazillion times on this site...

Geir Ove · Mar 25, 2003

orlandoom said:
The biggest advantage if you stick with film based camera is this
forum will not have any of your useless troll posts.
Orlando
PS; The benefits of digital vs film has only been discussed a
gazillion times on this site...

Geir Ove · Mar 25, 2003

David Hood said:
Geir Ove said:

Hello,

I have for a long time been planning on buying a DSLR. I currently
have a Richo Film SLR with a 1.4 50 mm lens. No AF. I also have a
Dimage 7 DSLR that I enjoy, but it has its limitations: Very slow
AF and quite noisy.

I skipped the D60 due its slow (fast compared to the D7, but even
so) AF especially in dim lighting: Yes I have tried the D60 and the
D30 at several occasions.

When the 10D was released I thought: This is it! I will buy it.

First I started to investigate what lens to buy. I was quite
discouraged by my findings on the severe imiations even on some L
lenses! See below.

Then all the reports on the AF offsets started ticking in (Front /
Back focused).

One of the great benefits of a DSLR was thought to be the Shallow
DOF (Depth of Field) that one can use to ones advantage in
composing a picture. But where did this benefit go? It seems that
due to the current limitation on Lens Quality and low precision AF
we cannot take full advantage of the Shallow DOF. Here's why:

1) The lenses are too soft at large aperture openings,you have to
"stop them down" to get sharp pictures => Shallow DOF is gone.

2) The AF on many D60 and 10D are, according to user reports here,
offset / not accurate enough: (Front / Back Foucused Thus, to get a
sharp picture, you need to "stop down" the lens again!

I expect a high level of flaming because I have the guts to
question the state of the current technology: I have noticed that
this is NOT popular around here: Worshipping is the way to go to
become popular: But I want to find out what the state of the
technolgoy is, and show Canon (in this case) that users are aware:
This is the only way we can go to make the manufactureres improve
the technology to everyones benefit: Not by blindly worshipping.

Well founded arguments are of course welcome.

Here are several links to qualify my findings:

Some Front Focus threads:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4676075

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4653382

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4700719

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4693042

"Newspaper" Lens Tests

Canon 28-105 vs. Canon 28-135;
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm

"Conclusions. For me, image sharpness is important. Because I
wouldn't want to use these lenses at much less than F11,"

Canon 28-105 F3.5-4.5 vs. Canon 50 F1.8 Lens Test
http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test2.htm

"The 50mm lens is the clear winner in terms of sharpness.
At F1.8-2.5, the 50mm lens is soft, but a soft picture is better
than no picture (the 28-105mm lens cannot open up this wide).
Despite their softness, these images are still better than the
Canon 28-105mm lens at F4. "

More Lens Tests here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tderousie/mi/lens_resolution_test.htm

Geir Ove

Click to expand...

Jack O'Neill · Mar 25, 2003

Hi Geir,

I own all three camera D30,60,10D they all focus very well. The reports of back/front focus have been around for a long time. about 1/2 of the reports are user error. They have the default 7 point AF enabled and the highest contrast happens to be on AF point that is at a different distance than the subject. The other half are probably real focus issues that are quickly fixed by sending the camera in. Remember there are now perhaps 20-30k 10D in use, the fact that a few dozen were not adjusted properly is no big deal, just get it fixed if it is a problem.

I don't understand where you are coming from, 1st you say you want "shallow DOF to take advantage of composition" then you say you would want to use these lens at f11??? f11 will give no DOF at all.

If your shooting plan are f11 and above, go for the D30 as the D60/10D will begin to suffer from defraction limiting at f11 and above. theis does come into play for the D30 until much higher.

Jack

--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill

The benefits of a DSLR are ??

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Tony Collins

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Jack O'Neill

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts