Reading mode: Light Dark

A DSLR warning...

Go to last post
First, Jason and Peter, this is not a complaint thread. And, did I say I was shooting with a 10D??? There really is no reason to get your undies in a bundle. I really am not complaining one bit, just helping to form expectations. But that's not the point.

My point is that people get excited about DSLR's for the low noise, especially at higher ISO's. But they also like to shoot handheld. But, in order to get a shot, whether a landscape or portrait, with a deep dof they need to move their ISO up. This essentially, for handheld shots, eliminates the benefit of the clean high ISOs. If you use a tripod, then you will be able to get much better images with the DSLR.

I'm estimating numbers. I'm about as far away from a measurebator as you can get, so I'm just going by what I think when I'm out in the field shooting. I will try and do some outside dof comparisons for the sake of continuing this discussion.

And Jason, this was not a low-light situation. But maybe that sums up what I'm saying. I don't think this was anywhere near a low-light situation, but I'm coming from a Sony 707 (the Dark Angel ;-) ) and you're coming from the position of a DSLR. You look at the light and say "too dark" because of just what I'm saying. You actually support my theory with that comment.

And Peter, and not a pro, but I do know how to use my 10D.










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...
--
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
 
I can't remember who asked this, maybe Joe...? But I think I was wrong in saying an IS lens wouldn't help. That's not true, I think it would have. I think back to a few weeks ago when I rented a 70-200 2.8 IS lens (a very yummy lens) and was able to use it in very dark conditions. But I did have to bump up the ISO to 800. Here are a couple examples from that... Oh, but I did intentionally way underexpose these so I could capture them at a fast enough shutter to avoid blur. They were actually taken after sunset. The originals are very dark.






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...
--
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
 
This is Jim we're talking about.

I don't know if you know him personally, but the man is a human being, with feelings. We just don't get to see that when looking at a forum full of text.

Jim has earned respect, even if we disagree with him or his conclusions. He's totally willing to try stuff and to learn how to do even more. Let's give him some benefit of the doubt even if we differ with him. :-)

Otherwise, it comes across as just getting elitist on the man, which I know none of us want to appear to do.

--

Ulysses
 
Shutter. said:
I can't remember who asked this, maybe Joe...? But I think I was
wrong in saying an IS lens wouldn't help. That's not true, I think
it would have.
Click to expand...
To some extent, I think you were right in saying the IS would not help here. Yes, slower shutter speeds are going to give you some camera shake, which IS will help with.

But, (anyone correct me if I'm wrong) motion blur because the shutter is open and the subject is moving is not something that IS is going to handle well. Mainly because the motion will likely be in multiple planes at the same time.

Either way, I understand what you are saying, Jim. I hope you get things worked out to where you have the camera you need in your hand when you need it. Somehow, it looks to me like you better get used to carrying two cameras with you at all times. Unless you're going on a specific type of photo trip. If so, you may want to replace some of your bike rides with weight lifting sessions. :-)

Have fun and keep showing us your good photos. Because your good photos are what any sane person would consider Great.

Joel
 
Jim, are these cropped, or are they reduced in size (or possibly both?)

I'm wondering about the noise levels.

Are they each ISO 800?
Shutter. said:
I can't remember who asked this, maybe Joe...? But I think I was
wrong in saying an IS lens wouldn't help. That's not true, I think
it would have. I think back to a few weeks ago when I rented a
70-200 2.8 IS lens (a very yummy lens) and was able to use it in
very dark conditions. But I did have to bump up the ISO to 800.
Here are a couple examples from that... Oh, but I did intentionally
way underexpose these so I could capture them at a fast enough
shutter to avoid blur. They were actually taken after sunset. The
originals are very dark.
Click to expand...
--

Ulysses
 
Sorry but a lot of posts lately have turned into ultra-defensive mis-information. I over-react when I see it for the Nth time.

This thread goes on about handholding a DSLR at 1/8 when a 707 would go to 1/90th. That is disingenuous at the very least.

Peter
Ulysses said:
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).
Member 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
Click to expand...
 
Shutter, Hi.

I really like the 4 colour pictures posted here, particularly the boy looking through the fence.

Maybe it has been answered elsewhere - but I was not sure whether these shots were with a DSLR or 7x7 ? If DSLR, could you elaborate on the focal length of the lenses ?

Many thanks.

Rgds, Dave.
Shutter. said:
My point is that people get excited about DSLR's for the low noise,
especially at higher ISO's. But they also like to shoot handheld.
But, in order to get a shot, whether a landscape or portrait, with
a deep dof they need to move their ISO up. This essentially, for
handheld shots, eliminates the benefit of the clean high ISOs. If
you use a tripod, then you will be able to get much better images
with the DSLR.

I'm estimating numbers. I'm about as far away from a measurebator
as you can get, so I'm just going by what I think when I'm out in
the field shooting. I will try and do some outside dof comparisons
for the sake of continuing this discussion.

And Jason, this was not a low-light situation. But maybe that sums
up what I'm saying. I don't think this was anywhere near a
low-light situation, but I'm coming from a Sony 707 (the Dark Angel
;-) ) and you're coming from the position of a DSLR. You look at
the light and say "too dark" because of just what I'm saying. You
actually support my theory with that comment.

And Peter, and not a pro, but I do know how to use my 10D.
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... 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...
--
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...
 
I use both DSLR and 717. Both have their merits but the 717 wins hands down in low light.
Next you'll say - what about the noise ?
The image is what matters. Most people can't see noise even when you show them

Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz
Peter G said:
This thread goes on about handholding a DSLR at 1/8 when a 707
would go to 1/90th. That is disingenuous at the very least.

Peter
Ulysses said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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...
So why under any circumstance would use the same ISO?? ISO 400 is easily as good on the 10D as 100 on the Sony (some say ISO800 is).

Now if this thread is about the Sigma SD9. You might have something as its ISO performance is no better than a consumer camera.
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...
I think you need to back up these numbers. Since for the same DOF there is only a 2.5 * DOF adjustment necessary in the Fstop of the SLR. The numbers you quoted are over 3 stops difference. Also since typical SLR is at least 2 Stops cleaner. The number for the same clean shot should be just about equal in the specific worse case where you want exactly as much DOF as the small sensored digicam.
Shutter. said:
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...
Please explain how F8 on the 707 can possibly result in faster shutter speed than F5.6 on a DSLR??

Peter
 
Jason Hutchinson said:
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:
Jason Hutchinson 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,
Click to expand...
What does this mean? The DOF for a subject a 16 feet will be twice the DOF for a subject at 4 feet, all else being equal? What does that have to do with anything other than there should be more DOF for the subject at 50 feet, except of course how the different aperture changes things?
Jason Hutchinson said:
and the DOF in that shot would be
20 feet, plenty for a person I'd say.
Click to expand...
How can you simply calculate DOF without any other factors, the biggest one of which would be focal length?
Jason Hutchinson said:
Even his 8 foot example is
off, in all but the most extreme prints. Maybe he never tries this
stuff?

Jason
Click to expand...
--
TurboTed

(It's easier just being insane than acting insane)
 
I have to say that most of what is said here about the 7x7 being able to take a better picture in this example is rubbish. For one, the Sony lens only goes to 200mm - this was taken at about 450mm - so the Sony 7x7 wouldn't have been able to capture it anyway because something close to the focal length is not available.

Any experienced photographer knows you can't hand hold a 450mm lens with any certainty, unless perhaps it has IS AND you've had a lot of practice with it. It sounds like the original poster is too busy switching back and forth from his 7x7 to his DSLR, he hasn't really taken the time and discipline to learn this.

One last thing. He says the subjects were taken in "good light"? It's obvious THEY ARE IN THE SHADOWS. Take a look at his original post and you can see the strips of sunlight behind them. They also have no shadows.

Paul
Jason Hutchinson said:
Jason Hutchinson wrote:
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:
Jason Hutchinson 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
Click to expand...
 
Lloydy said:
I use both DSLR and 717. Both have their merits but the 717 wins
hands down in low light.
Next you'll say - what about the noise ?
The image is what matters. Most people can't see noise even when
you show them
Click to expand...
Since I am missing something vital. Will you please explain how?

If noise is not a factor, you can go to ISO 3200 on the 10D. If noise is a factor the 10D is AT LEAST 2 stops cleaner.

If it is that Bizzare case of I want at least as much DOF as a digicam, then the situation equalizes with larger Fstop eliminating the cleaner sensor performance.

Where does the 717 win "hands down"???

Peter
 
TurboTed said:
What does this mean? The DOF for a subject a 16 feet will be twice
the DOF for a subject at 4 feet, all else being equal?
Click to expand...
No, this means the DOF for a subject of 8 feet will be 4 times the DOF of a subject at 4 feet. This assumes all is kept constant except for framing of course, since changing the subject distance and not changing focal length gives you new framing.
TurboTed said:
What does
that have to do with anything other than there should be more DOF
for the subject at 50 feet, except of course how the different
aperture changes things?
Click to expand...
This factor is apparently skewing his assumptions about the DOF in a particular situation due to hearing a low f number. The point is since you've increased the subject distance a factor of 6, you now have 36x the DOF, which more than makes up for the aperture change from f/2.8 to f/1.8.
TurboTed said:
How can you simply calculate DOF without any other factors, the
biggest one of which would be focal length?
Click to expand...
The factors given were a subject distance, a camera ( gives an approximate CoC) focal length and aperture. These are all the things needed for DOF calculations.

jason
 
I don't doubt a DSLR is cleaner. Mine is - but my point is that taking images in low light, handheld, is a real forte of the 717.

Sure you get some noise but, again, my point is I would rather get the image and certainly the noise is not unacceptable.
As I mentioned, both have their merits and I use both in different situations.

Rgds, Dave
http://www.pixplanet.biz
Peter G said:
Lloydy said:
I use both DSLR and 717. Both have their merits but the 717 wins
hands down in low light.
Next you'll say - what about the noise ?
The image is what matters. Most people can't see noise even when
you show them
Click to expand...
Since I am missing something vital. Will you please explain how?

If noise is not a factor, you can go to ISO 3200 on the 10D. If
noise is a factor the 10D is AT LEAST 2 stops cleaner.

If it is that Bizzare case of I want at least as much DOF as a
digicam, then the situation equalizes with larger Fstop eliminating
the cleaner sensor performance.

Where does the 717 win "hands down"???

Peter
Click to expand...
 
Shutter. said:
First, Jason and Peter, this is not a complaint thread. And, did I
say I was shooting with a 10D???
Click to expand...
Now it makes sense. The SD9 has sensor performance about equal to a tiny consumer senor, so thus the need to maintain ISO 100.

Yep I agree. If you shoot with a SD9 in low light and you want small sensor digicam like DOF you will have problems...

Peter
 
Lloydy said:
I don't doubt a DSLR is cleaner. Mine is - but my point is that
taking images in low light, handheld, is a real forte of the 717.
Sure you get some noise but, again, my point is I would rather get
the image and certainly the noise is not unacceptable.
As I mentioned, both have their merits and I use both in different
situations.
Click to expand...
So if the SLR is on ISO 1600-3200, why will it miss the shot? What gives the 717 the advantage???
 
One lens - wide to medium telephoto with f2.0 to f2.4, light weight, etc., etc.

I will restate my point that both have their merits. I am not bagging DSLR as I also use one.

I am not defending either over the other. It's all about the right tool for the application.
Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz

Take photos - not potshots.
Peter G said:
Lloydy said:
I don't doubt a DSLR is cleaner. Mine is - but my point is that
taking images in low light, handheld, is a real forte of the 717.
Sure you get some noise but, again, my point is I would rather get
the image and certainly the noise is not unacceptable.
As I mentioned, both have their merits and I use both in different
situations.
Click to expand...
So if the SLR is on ISO 1600-3200, why will it miss the shot? What
gives the 717 the advantage???
Click to expand...
 
I don't think he wants calm. He seems to busy trying too hard to get others convinced of his preference.

Facts: Sony doesn't have 450mm equivelant focal length (used for the pic), so lets compare at 200mm:

Sony has a 2.4 aperture at 200mm
DSLR has a 4.5 aperture at 200mm (on his 3.5-5.6 zoom lens)
That's about a 2 stop difference.

That means if he uses ISO100 on his Sony he can use ISO400 on the DSLR and get the same shutter speed on his DSLR. This is a FACT. And if it's a 10D/300D DSLR his ISO400 shot will be much cleaner (less noise, better color, less artifacting) than the Sony ISO 100 shot.

Just because HE can't hand hold his DSLR, doesn't mean he should be telling everyone else they can't either. The DSLR also has a few tricks available too improve this comparison:
He could buy an IS lens
He could buy a faster lens
You can't do either with the Sony.

If he can afford a 10D, SD9, and Sony 7x7 (some reference to this in his threads) I think he could afford to buy a not too comparatively expensive 75-300 IS lens for the 10D if he really wants to be able to take some good shots in these conditions (subjects in the shade at full telephoto).

Paul
Peter G said:
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...
So why under any circumstance would use the same ISO?? ISO 400 is
easily as good on the 10D as 100 on the Sony (some say ISO800 is).

Now if this thread is about the Sigma SD9. You might have something
as its ISO performance is no better than a consumer camera.
Peter G 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...
I think you need to back up these numbers. Since for the same DOF
there is only a 2.5 * DOF adjustment necessary in the Fstop of the
SLR. The numbers you quoted are over 3 stops difference. Also since
typical SLR is at least 2 Stops cleaner. The number for the same
clean shot should be just about equal in the specific worse case
where you want exactly as much DOF as the small sensored digicam.
Peter G said:
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...
Please explain how F8 on the 707 can possibly result in faster
shutter speed than F5.6 on a DSLR??

Peter
Click to expand...
 
I think Shutter failed to mention that he had also just finished off a handle of vodka before the shot. Not that it would have anything to do with the camera shake... When I drink heavily before a photo shoot, I use an IS lens. :)
Peter G said:
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...
So why under any circumstance would use the same ISO?? ISO 400 is
easily as good on the 10D as 100 on the Sony (some say ISO800 is).

Now if this thread is about the Sigma SD9. You might have something
as its ISO performance is no better than a consumer camera.
Peter G 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...
I think you need to back up these numbers. Since for the same DOF
there is only a 2.5 * DOF adjustment necessary in the Fstop of the
SLR. The numbers you quoted are over 3 stops difference. Also since
typical SLR is at least 2 Stops cleaner. The number for the same
clean shot should be just about equal in the specific worse case
where you want exactly as much DOF as the small sensored digicam.
Peter G said:
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...
Please explain how F8 on the 707 can possibly result in faster
shutter speed than F5.6 on a DSLR??

Peter
Click to expand...
--
Camera Slug
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/cameraslug
 
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