Reading mode: Light Dark

A DSLR warning...

Go to last post
Very good point.

We, STFers, know you well and respect you as a very talented photographer and your opinion with your cameras will be very credible to us. The CSTFer may not. Be prepared to get some nasty response.
Shutter. said:
Hi folks...

Okay, I'm first going to clarify by saying that I love a lot of
things about my 10D and newly obtained SD9... but... take a moment
to appreciate your S85, 505, 707, P45, P50, P93948309, 717, and
yearn for the 828...

BUT... you may yearn after the higher clean ISO's. That's good,
because you're going to need them. What do I mean? Well... the
Ziess lens has a 2.0-2.8. Yummy. Very fast. But not just fast, it
has a very forgiving depth of field. To some this is a negative.
It's very difficult to isolate or go for the really fine arty
photos with a "pro-sumer" (I still laugh about that term. I'd
rather have them label photographers as pro-sumer) camera's depth
of field, i.e., 2.8. A 2.8 on a 717 just isn't as thin as a 2.8 on
a 10D. So, if you want the whole kid's face in focus, you need to
go up to f8. To go up to f8 you need to go up to ISO 400, or even
800. Sorry, but ISO 800 on a 10D does not equal a 7x7 at ISO 100.

What does this mean? This means that you can handhold a 7x7 (and
more delictably an 828) in much lower light and expect a decent dof
than you can a dslr - using the same ISO.

Keep in mind this only matters if you're a handheld shooter. If
you shoot with a tripod all the time, then you're fine. But I'm
having a hard time shooting at 1/8th handhel at what would have
been 1/90th with my 707.

So, what woudl be an example? Take this shot. I was sitting out in
my yard with fellow STFer MikelJ when my neighbor came out with her
one-year-old. I leave all my cameras at ISO 100, because, well,
duh. No, not so. With a DSLR you're better off leaving it at ISO
400 to make sure you can get a shot with decent light without a
ridiculous dof. So, because of this, and set in aperture priority
at 5.6 on a dslr, I didn't have enough light to get this shot at
6:00 in the afternoon on a bright day without motion blur. My 707
would have captured this shot wonderfully. Easily. Even at it's
smallest aperture (f8). Instead, I have a person standing still a
little soft because I couldn't hold the camera still.

Sorry for the large photo, but you have to view it large to see
what I mean...



--
Jim Fuglestad
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.
-Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Click to expand...
 
Shutter. said:
I don't know who you are, so I'm not going to argue, but what I'm
saying is that under circumstances in this example I could have
taken out my 707 and captured this shot without motion blur.
Without a doubt, absolutely this shot would have been better with
the 707. At 2.8 I would have had a faster shutter speed and a
great dof than the dslr at 5.6.
Click to expand...
I have used a 707. It is a great camera but it does NOT have 14X zoom capability!

Regarding your main issue, I have taken many wonderful hand held shots (with a good depth of field) using a 10D in various lighting conditions. I simply do not share your experiences.

--
'There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees.'
 
They are so much fun and so easy to stir up though!

You done even have to slag of a C@non camera to get them going
TS said:
We, STFers, know you well and respect you as a very talented
photographer and your opinion with your cameras will be very
credible to us. The CSTFer may not. Be prepared to get some nasty
response.
Shutter. said:
Hi folks...

Okay, I'm first going to clarify by saying that I love a lot of
things about my 10D and newly obtained SD9... but... take a moment
to appreciate your S85, 505, 707, P45, P50, P93948309, 717, and
yearn for the 828...

BUT... you may yearn after the higher clean ISO's. That's good,
because you're going to need them. What do I mean? Well... the
Ziess lens has a 2.0-2.8. Yummy. Very fast. But not just fast, it
has a very forgiving depth of field. To some this is a negative.
It's very difficult to isolate or go for the really fine arty
photos with a "pro-sumer" (I still laugh about that term. I'd
rather have them label photographers as pro-sumer) camera's depth
of field, i.e., 2.8. A 2.8 on a 717 just isn't as thin as a 2.8 on
a 10D. So, if you want the whole kid's face in focus, you need to
go up to f8. To go up to f8 you need to go up to ISO 400, or even
800. Sorry, but ISO 800 on a 10D does not equal a 7x7 at ISO 100.

What does this mean? This means that you can handhold a 7x7 (and
more delictably an 828) in much lower light and expect a decent dof
than you can a dslr - using the same ISO.

Keep in mind this only matters if you're a handheld shooter. If
you shoot with a tripod all the time, then you're fine. But I'm
having a hard time shooting at 1/8th handhel at what would have
been 1/90th with my 707.

So, what woudl be an example? Take this shot. I was sitting out in
my yard with fellow STFer MikelJ when my neighbor came out with her
one-year-old. I leave all my cameras at ISO 100, because, well,
duh. No, not so. With a DSLR you're better off leaving it at ISO
400 to make sure you can get a shot with decent light without a
ridiculous dof. So, because of this, and set in aperture priority
at 5.6 on a dslr, I didn't have enough light to get this shot at
6:00 in the afternoon on a bright day without motion blur. My 707
would have captured this shot wonderfully. Easily. Even at it's
smallest aperture (f8). Instead, I have a person standing still a
little soft because I couldn't hold the camera still.

Sorry for the large photo, but you have to view it large to see
what I mean...



--
Jim Fuglestad
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.
-Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://bradm.instantlogic.com ,
http://www.usefilm.com/browse.php?mode=port&data=13628
 
Travis wrote:
  • which turns out
Travis said:
to be an advantage (flexiblity in lens choice) and disadvantage
(you get what you pay for).
Click to expand...
The flexibility is also a burden; the extra weight you have to lug, the danger of dropping the lens into the dirt, the risk of letting dust into the sensor and the loss of photo opportunities while changing lenses.
 
Travis,

I'm not hear to argue about the virtues or pitfalls of either owning a DSLR or a 'prosumer' digital camera.

However, what you are referring to here is basic carelessness and yes, sometimes accident. Those are not things you should really be compairing because they are not a contant so to speak.

One does not change lenses every three minutes when using a DSLR or an SLR for that matter and, dropping a lens in the dirt is really a pretty rare occurance I would say, wouldnt' you? :-)

However, it's also VERY rare to fall, while standing on a jetty at the beach and slam your F707 and your BODY against the rocks, wouldn't you say that's a fair statement? Well, this happened to ME this last weekend....

bye bye F707, it was burried without fanfare.

Ok, are we in the real world now? lol

Mark J
TS said:
Travis wrote:
The flexibility is also a burden; the extra weight you have to lug,
the danger of dropping the lens into the dirt, the risk of letting
dust into the sensor and the loss of photo opportunities while
changing lenses.
Click to expand...
 
I think you are in a rare group of photographers who want everything in focus. Most of us digicam owners would prefer just the opposite, we want to throw out the background. You also seem to have exaggerated the shallowness of F4/5.6 at 400mm+. You certainly don't need F8 to get a human body in focus.
Shutter. said:
Hi folks...

Okay, I'm first going to clarify by saying that I love a lot of
things about my 10D and newly obtained SD9... but... take a moment
to appreciate your S85, 505, 707, P45, P50, P93948309, 717, and
yearn for the 828...

BUT... you may yearn after the higher clean ISO's. That's good,
because you're going to need them. What do I mean? Well... the
Ziess lens has a 2.0-2.8. Yummy. Very fast. But not just fast, it
has a very forgiving depth of field. To some this is a negative.
It's very difficult to isolate or go for the really fine arty
photos with a "pro-sumer" (I still laugh about that term. I'd
rather have them label photographers as pro-sumer) camera's depth
of field, i.e., 2.8. A 2.8 on a 717 just isn't as thin as a 2.8 on
a 10D. So, if you want the whole kid's face in focus, you need to
go up to f8. To go up to f8 you need to go up to ISO 400, or even
800. Sorry, but ISO 800 on a 10D does not equal a 7x7 at ISO 100.

What does this mean? This means that you can handhold a 7x7 (and
more delictably an 828) in much lower light and expect a decent dof
than you can a dslr - using the same ISO.

Keep in mind this only matters if you're a handheld shooter. If
you shoot with a tripod all the time, then you're fine. But I'm
having a hard time shooting at 1/8th handhel at what would have
been 1/90th with my 707.

So, what woudl be an example? Take this shot. I was sitting out in
my yard with fellow STFer MikelJ when my neighbor came out with her
one-year-old. I leave all my cameras at ISO 100, because, well,
duh. No, not so. With a DSLR you're better off leaving it at ISO
400 to make sure you can get a shot with decent light without a
ridiculous dof. So, because of this, and set in aperture priority
at 5.6 on a dslr, I didn't have enough light to get this shot at
6:00 in the afternoon on a bright day without motion blur. My 707
would have captured this shot wonderfully. Easily. Even at it's
smallest aperture (f8). Instead, I have a person standing still a
little soft because I couldn't hold the camera still.

Sorry for the large photo, but you have to view it large to see
what I mean...



--
Jim Fuglestad
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.
-Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/agent2099
 
image than DOF issue.
But I understand your DOF in relation to aperture and shutter speed points.
John
Shutter. said:
Hi folks...

Okay, I'm first going to clarify by saying that I love a lot of
things about my 10D and newly obtained SD9... but... take a moment
to appreciate your S85, 505, 707, P45, P50, P93948309, 717, and
yearn for the 828...

BUT... you may yearn after the higher clean ISO's. That's good,
because you're going to need them. What do I mean? Well... the
Ziess lens has a 2.0-2.8. Yummy. Very fast. But not just fast, it
has a very forgiving depth of field. To some this is a negative.
It's very difficult to isolate or go for the really fine arty
photos with a "pro-sumer" (I still laugh about that term. I'd
rather have them label photographers as pro-sumer) camera's depth
of field, i.e., 2.8. A 2.8 on a 717 just isn't as thin as a 2.8 on
a 10D. So, if you want the whole kid's face in focus, you need to
go up to f8. To go up to f8 you need to go up to ISO 400, or even
800. Sorry, but ISO 800 on a 10D does not equal a 7x7 at ISO 100.

What does this mean? This means that you can handhold a 7x7 (and
more delictably an 828) in much lower light and expect a decent dof
than you can a dslr - using the same ISO.

Keep in mind this only matters if you're a handheld shooter. If
you shoot with a tripod all the time, then you're fine. But I'm
having a hard time shooting at 1/8th handhel at what would have
been 1/90th with my 707.

So, what woudl be an example? Take this shot. I was sitting out in
my yard with fellow STFer MikelJ when my neighbor came out with her
one-year-old. I leave all my cameras at ISO 100, because, well,
duh. No, not so. With a DSLR you're better off leaving it at ISO
400 to make sure you can get a shot with decent light without a
ridiculous dof. So, because of this, and set in aperture priority
at 5.6 on a dslr, I didn't have enough light to get this shot at
6:00 in the afternoon on a bright day without motion blur. My 707
would have captured this shot wonderfully. Easily. Even at it's
smallest aperture (f8). Instead, I have a person standing still a
little soft because I couldn't hold the camera still.

Sorry for the large photo, but you have to view it large to see
what I mean...



--
Jim Fuglestad
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.
-Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Click to expand...
 
Wow, what a silly post. 480mm FOV shot at ISO 100 under apparently poor light and you're complaining. Do you know how many photographers on the Olympus forum take a long time to get sharp shots with their 420mm TCON setups? Sounds like a case of lazy photographer to me... too lazy to either get a little closer or move the ISO up. About all this proves is that a decent camera still needs brains behind it at the controls.

Then the comments about IS not helping in this situation, give me a break. I've got 900mm handheld shots @ 1/10th of a second that are way sharper than this, and I consume way too much caffeine.
Shutter. said:
Hi folks...

Okay, I'm first going to clarify by saying that I love a lot of
things about my 10D and newly obtained SD9... but... take a moment
to appreciate your S85, 505, 707, P45, P50, P93948309, 717, and
yearn for the 828...

BUT... you may yearn after the higher clean ISO's. That's good,
because you're going to need them. What do I mean? Well... the
Ziess lens has a 2.0-2.8. Yummy. Very fast. But not just fast, it
has a very forgiving depth of field. To some this is a negative.
It's very difficult to isolate or go for the really fine arty
photos with a "pro-sumer" (I still laugh about that term. I'd
rather have them label photographers as pro-sumer) camera's depth
of field, i.e., 2.8. A 2.8 on a 717 just isn't as thin as a 2.8 on
a 10D. So, if you want the whole kid's face in focus, you need to
go up to f8. To go up to f8 you need to go up to ISO 400, or even
800. Sorry, but ISO 800 on a 10D does not equal a 7x7 at ISO 100.

What does this mean? This means that you can handhold a 7x7 (and
more delictably an 828) in much lower light and expect a decent dof
than you can a dslr - using the same ISO.

Keep in mind this only matters if you're a handheld shooter. If
you shoot with a tripod all the time, then you're fine. But I'm
having a hard time shooting at 1/8th handhel at what would have
been 1/90th with my 707.

So, what woudl be an example? Take this shot. I was sitting out in
my yard with fellow STFer MikelJ when my neighbor came out with her
one-year-old. I leave all my cameras at ISO 100, because, well,
duh. No, not so. With a DSLR you're better off leaving it at ISO
400 to make sure you can get a shot with decent light without a
ridiculous dof. So, because of this, and set in aperture priority
at 5.6 on a dslr, I didn't have enough light to get this shot at
6:00 in the afternoon on a bright day without motion blur. My 707
would have captured this shot wonderfully. Easily. Even at it's
smallest aperture (f8). Instead, I have a person standing still a
little soft because I couldn't hold the camera still.

Sorry for the large photo, but you have to view it large to see
what I mean...



--
Jim Fuglestad
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.
-Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Click to expand...
 
Jason Hutchinson said:
Then the comments about IS not helping in this situation, give me a
break. I've got 900mm handheld shots @ 1/10th of a second that are
way sharper than this, and I consume way too much caffeine.
Shutter. said:
Hi folks...

Okay, I'm first going to clarify by saying that I love a lot of
things about my 10D and newly obtained SD9... but... take a moment
to appreciate your S85, 505, 707, P45, P50, P93948309, 717, and
yearn for the 828...

BUT... you may yearn after the higher clean ISO's. That's good,
because you're going to need them. What do I mean? Well... the
Ziess lens has a 2.0-2.8. Yummy. Very fast. But not just fast, it
has a very forgiving depth of field. To some this is a negative.
It's very difficult to isolate or go for the really fine arty
photos with a "pro-sumer" (I still laugh about that term. I'd
rather have them label photographers as pro-sumer) camera's depth
of field, i.e., 2.8. A 2.8 on a 717 just isn't as thin as a 2.8 on
a 10D. So, if you want the whole kid's face in focus, you need to
go up to f8. To go up to f8 you need to go up to ISO 400, or even
800. Sorry, but ISO 800 on a 10D does not equal a 7x7 at ISO 100.

What does this mean? This means that you can handhold a 7x7 (and
more delictably an 828) in much lower light and expect a decent dof
than you can a dslr - using the same ISO.

Keep in mind this only matters if you're a handheld shooter. If
you shoot with a tripod all the time, then you're fine. But I'm
having a hard time shooting at 1/8th handhel at what would have
been 1/90th with my 707.

So, what woudl be an example? Take this shot. I was sitting out in
my yard with fellow STFer MikelJ when my neighbor came out with her
one-year-old. I leave all my cameras at ISO 100, because, well,
duh. No, not so. With a DSLR you're better off leaving it at ISO
400 to make sure you can get a shot with decent light without a
ridiculous dof. So, because of this, and set in aperture priority
at 5.6 on a dslr, I didn't have enough light to get this shot at
6:00 in the afternoon on a bright day without motion blur. My 707
would have captured this shot wonderfully. Easily. Even at it's
smallest aperture (f8). Instead, I have a person standing still a
little soft because I couldn't hold the camera still.

Sorry for the large photo, but you have to view it large to see
what I mean...



--
Jim Fuglestad
Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase.
-Percy W. Harris
Our existence is determined by the truths we tell.
Why simply live and let live? Live and help live.
http://www.pbase.com/jfuglestad/galleries
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
I would like to see it, please.

Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
 
Greg Gebhardt said:
Jason Hutchinson wrote:
I've got 900mm handheld shots @ 1/10th of a second that are
way sharper than this, and I consume way too much caffeine.
Click to expand...
WOW!
Greg Gebhardt said:
I would like to see it, please.

Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
Click to expand...
Me too. I have always wanted that kind of steady control. Perhaps you could lend some instruction on how it is done.

Rob Flanery
 
thanks, jim. have you tried cross-posting in one of those canon forums (not sure which one now--they seem to change daily)? i'll bet you'll be flamed faster than you can say "iso 400" for "user error."
 
Shutter. said:
Okay, I'm first going to clarify by saying that I love a lot of
things about my 10D and newly obtained SD9...
Click to expand...
WHAT???? When did the SD9 happen? Hahahahahahahahah!!! You surprised me with this one. Is the disappointment with the 10D that acute? :-)
Shutter. said:
BUT... you may yearn after the higher clean ISO's. That's good,
because you're going to need them. What do I mean? Well... the
Ziess lens has a 2.0-2.8. Yummy. Very fast. But not just fast, it
has a very forgiving depth of field. To some this is a negative.
Click to expand...
I've always argued that it's a positive if you use it correctly.
Shutter. said:
It's very difficult to isolate or go for the really fine arty
photos with a "pro-sumer" (I still laugh about that term. I'd
rather have them label photographers as pro-sumer)
Click to expand...
Yeah, but most people here in the forum know what you mean in a camera: It's not a point-n-shoot (like the P10 or like the Canon S400), but it's not a dSLR either. It's a high-end, nearly $1000-class of camera.
Shutter. said:
What does this mean? This means that you can handhold a 7x7 (and
more delictably an 828) in much lower light and expect a decent dof
than you can a dslr - using the same ISO.
Click to expand...
But to be fair, here's the problem that I see with this type of described situation: At ISO 100, in low light, your shutter speeds are going to be rather slow OR your subject is likely to move. Either situation causing you a lot of blur in the scene. Result? You need to bump the prosumer ISO up, and then things start to get ugly all over again. :-(
Shutter. said:
With a DSLR you're better off leaving it at ISO
400 to make sure you can get a shot with decent light without a
ridiculous dof. So, because of this, and set in aperture priority
at 5.6 on a dslr, I didn't have enough light to get this shot at
6:00 in the afternoon on a bright day without motion blur. My 707
would have captured this shot wonderfully. Easily. Even at it's
smallest aperture (f8).
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about this. I know I definitely would not have gotten it at F8 in an F717 or a G3. Additionally, at the wider aperture, you're risking CA and flaring. I guess it depends upon what you want and what you're shooting. Your points are well taken.

I just tried a shot to see what would happen. It's 8am, and I have two large windows behind me allowing shaded morning sunlight come into the room. I took these two samples in Av mode. The first sample show below(upper image) at F3.0 exposed at 1/5 second. The second (lower image) at F8.0 exposed at 1 second. No way were either of these really do-able handheld. This is why I'd say that in either camera at those light levels you're going to have some trouble. But at least the ISO 400 on the dSLR is going to be VERY usable, where even the ISO 100 on the F717 (at least in my samples here) is going to be blurry.



Again, your point is well made in that users have to make choices. But I don't know that this shot would have been great handheld even with an F717 in those conditions. And almost certainly not doable at F8. I could be wrong. :-)

--

Ulysses
 
Matthew,

Most folks have a tougher time holding light cameras steady. There were a number of posts about this in reference to the V1. I had always thought it would be harder to hold something heavier still but my experience with the D100 is showing me otherwise.

Harry
 
Greg Gebhardt said:
I would like to see it, please.
Click to expand...
I'm not very steady really, without IS I'm really bad. However a week ago I stopped drinking cokes, hopefully that will help.

I'm at work right now, and I leave directly after work for San Diego, CA, so I don't have access to all my photos. I do happen to have a 900mm 1/25th shot here I can post.

Anyway, here is a 38mm FOV shot which shows the bird I spotted (first black crowned night heron I'd ever seen) in the middle left.



Then I zoomed in at 896mm (on a very windy day) to take this at 1/25th of a second, handheld, manual focus (before I learned to focus well), ISO 800 (about like 1600 on the 10d).



The full size unedited image is here:

http://www.projectrun.com/examplepics/img_6169.jpg

An example of what a better lens (1120mm) and a good tripod (although windy) can do at about 1/8th of a second under the same situation is here:



Jason
 
Shutter. said:
of field, i.e., 2.8. A 2.8 on a 717 just isn't as thin as a 2.8 on
a 10D. So, if you want the whole kid's face in focus, you need to
go up to f8. To go up to f8 you need to go up to ISO 400, or even
800. Sorry, but ISO 800 on a 10D does not equal a 7x7 at ISO 100.
Click to expand...
Jim,

I have plenty of respect for your photography, but a hard time following this.

I shoot a 100/2.8 with my film SLR at f2.8 for portraits all the time. When you get into something like an 85/1.4, then you start talking about only getting an eye in focus, but at f2.8 or maybe stopped down a little bit (depending on how much you're trying to get in the frame - a head shot requires more magnification - but a shot like you posted should have had plenty of DOF for the subjects at f2.8).

And that's full frame ! On a DSLR with a smaller-than-full-frame sensor, you've got more DOF because you're magnifying the subject less to get the same relative image size on the sensor - with a 100mm you're getting further back; or use a 50 (equiv of 75 or 80) ... either way, I'd be happy shooting f2.8.

I find that on the F717, there are far too many times I'm shooting wide open (around 100mm equivalent, f2.4) at 1/30 or slower and getting soft images. I'd love to have an f2.8 lens on an SLR at ISO 400 or 800 in those cases.
Shutter. said:
What does this mean? This means that you can handhold a 7x7 (and
more delictably an 828) in much lower light and expect a decent dof
than you can a dslr - using the same ISO.
Click to expand...
I'd have to really think hard about the A1 versus the 828 if I were considering another digicam ... both have ttl flash metering (a feature I sorely miss on the F717 now that I see the limitations of shooting high ISO in low light conditions) ... I've done bounce flash w/o ttl flash metering in the past, but after using Maxxum SLRs for over ten years, I can't go back :) The 828 doesn't buy any more lens speed over the F717 (though it is faster than the A1). But anti-shake at least helps in situations where the subject isn't moving too fast for slow shutter speeds.
Shutter. said:
Keep in mind this only matters if you're a handheld shooter. If
you shoot with a tripod all the time, then you're fine.
Click to expand...
Well - even then, there are some subjects that demand a faster shutter speed.
  • Dennis
 
Alarmist Nonesense.

Some basics.
DOF factor between the 707 and 10D is precisely 2.5.
ISO noise advantage is between 2 and 3 stops...

So in the absolute worse case with your SLR (LOW light, you require digicams like DOF) you should still get the same handhold speed.
Shutter. said:
Keep in mind this only matters if you're a handheld shooter. If
you shoot with a tripod all the time, then you're fine. But I'm
having a hard time shooting at 1/8th handhel at what would have
been 1/90th with my 707.
Click to expand...
Where the heck do these number come from? That is more than 3 stop difference. You really need to learn how to use a 10D.
Shutter. said:
So, what woudl be an example? Take this shot. I was sitting out in
my yard with fellow STFer MikelJ when my neighbor came out with her
one-year-old. I leave all my cameras at ISO 100, because, well,
duh. No, not so. With a DSLR you're better off leaving it at ISO
400 to make sure you can get a shot with decent light without a
ridiculous dof. So, because of this, and set in aperture priority
at 5.6 on a dslr, I didn't have enough light to get this shot at
6:00 in the afternoon on a bright day without motion blur. My 707
would have captured this shot wonderfully. Easily. Even at it's
smallest aperture (f8). Instead, I have a person standing still a
little soft because I couldn't hold the camera still.
Click to expand...
Again this makes no sense whatsoever. ISO 400 and F5.6 with the SLR gives a slower shutter speed than F8 and ISO 100 on your 707???

Please clarify this paragraph because it is nonesense. Even if you were at ISO 100 (which would be incredibly dumb if you have low shutter speeds), please explain how F8 on the Sony is going to get faster shutter speed than F5.6 on the DSLR.

Peter
 
Peter G said:
Alarmist Nonesense.
Click to expand...
In fairness to Jim, I've never known him to be "alarmist". That may have been uncalled for as far as this post is concerned. Although I'm not so sure I agree with his resultant comments, I do agree with him in that there are tradeoffs with each of the formats (prosumer or dSLR).
Peter G said:
So in the absolute worse case with your SLR (LOW light, you require
digicams like DOF) you should still get the same handhold speed.
Click to expand...
That's more or less what I was thinking. But I'm terrible at running the numbers. :-)

At any rate, don't get so excited. You almost sound angry with Shutter. ;-)

Maybe with more data and/or samples from him, we'll get to understand better what he's trying to describe.

It may be that he simply has found that he prefers the deeper DOF of a prosumer camera in general. That's more or less the relevant point that I got from his post, regardless of the numbers and samples he used.

--

Ulysses
 
Peter G said:
DOF factor between the 707 and 10D is precisely 2.5.
Click to expand...
To be precise it goes up a bit further at the hyperfocal and macro range, although neither of those cases apply to this shot for sure.

The really funny thing he wrote was:
Peter G said:
I can't even get a whole face in the dof at 2.8 at 8 feet let alone at 1.8 > from 50 feet!
Click to expand...
Apparently he doesn't realize that DOF is proportional to the square of the subject distance, and the DOF in that shot would be 20 feet, plenty for a person I'd say. Even his 8 foot example is off, in all but the most extreme prints. Maybe he never tries this stuff?

Jason
 
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