Reading mode: Light Dark

A DSLR warning...

Go to last post
Hi Uly, I'll have to check when I get home. I think the one holding the baby was cropped but not the other one. They were very dark in order to get a shutter fast enough to avoid blur (ummm, the Sony would have been easier in this case ;-) ) and then brightened in post.

I'll check on these tonight and show you the originals. But they're a little embarrassing if you don't know that they were taken that way intentionally.

Jim
Ulysses said:
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
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've spent zillions on glass over the years (30 + years) but my first choice for any shot is the 717.

It's practicality, size, weight and VERY good quality output from the CZ lens is more than sufficient for most situations.

Rgds, Dave.
http://www.pixplanet.biz
Shutter. said:
johnd1 said:
From my POV, and for these reasons there is no sense in buying
inexpensive slow glass for a dslr. Might as well stay with the
717/828.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, John. The Zeiss IS good glass. Peter and Jason have
no comprehension of that.
Click to expand...
 
Shutter. said:
Right. That's all I'm saying, too.

The point of this was just a heads up for those blinded by the
thought of clean high ISO's. I expected to shoot wide open and
still get the dof that I wanted at ISO 100.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you can find a few sets of circumstances where the Sony has the advantage, given it's approximately two stop loss in ISO abilities, it's lack of IS that are countered by advantage of a wide range/fast lens. For a well armed DSLR, these instances are few and far between unless you're the most anal about DOF. My 20f/1.8 (nice usable 32f/1.8 FOV) has gobs of DOF for my landscape shots even wide open.
Shutter. said:
I learned you can't.
Not knocking it, because overall it does allow great flexibility
and better images if you use a tripod.
Click to expand...
This idea that you have to use a tripod all the time is B.S. Lenses like the 28-135IS combined with a 10D make stunning low light indoor cathedral shot that'd require skill to even match on the 7x7.
Shutter. said:
It's also nice to have the
thin dof when you want it. But you don't always want it.
Click to expand...
I can think of some situations, but I'd like to see one example of such a picture from you that you think a 707 exceeds the 10D's capabilities, as your first example certainly wasn't one. There is no doubt that a full set of lenses to handle these situations is expensive, and if that was your point I'd agree with at least that.

Jason
 
Just about any do better at ISO 400 than the Sony at ISO100. The SD9 is comparable at ISO 400. Any of the Canon's or Nikons, or Fuji's are much better.

Paul
Peter G said:
LanceD said:
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...
--
Lance
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Shutter. said:
I didn't say that either. It's irrelevant which camera you use,
the dof/aperture principles are the same.

And the SD9 takes better images under good conditions than the 10D
does. It does fall off at the extremes, however, for reasons you
mentioned.
Click to expand...
I can see no other Sane reason to lock a DSLR at ISO 100, stop down to increase DOF and then claim you can't hand-hold a DSLR and capture DOF equivialent to a small senor camera.

Why not go to ISO 400? It is still cleaner than ISO 100 on the 707? Heck 800 is close enough that you could beat the DOF of the 707.

You are imposing limitations that don't exist. And using that as an excuse to warn people about the travails of using an SLR...
 
LanceD said:
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...
--
Lance
Click to expand...
 
Peter G said:
Now if this thread is about the Sigma SD9. You might have something
as its ISO performance is no better than a consumer camera.
Click to expand...
This thread isn't about a specific camera. It's about dof differences between the 717 and any DSLR. I didn't say this was with an SD9. And you're basing the SD9 comment from your own experience?
Peter G said:
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.
Click to expand...
I've mentioned in a couple other threads that I shouldn't have mentioned these numbers. I was thinking in my head about what I would expect to have to do which leads me to how I take my shots. I don't measurebate at all, and actually can't stand to look at ruler tests or dof charts. So, I apologize for that, as the numbers were me thinking in my head.
Peter G said:
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??
Click to expand...
It doesn't, necessarily. What I'm saying is that I can get away with using faster apertures with the 707 because the dof isn't as thin. Handheld, getting comparable shots trying to get the same DOF would require a much smaller aperture with a DSLR, meaning a longer shutter, meaning more opportunity for camera shake and/or motion blur. Sure you can bump up the ISO, but then you begin to equalize the cameras, and to get the equivalent I think you'd need to bump up the ISO on the dslr to the point where it's actually noisier than the 7x7. That could be arguable, however, as I don't have proof of that.

Jim

--
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
 
300mm focal length, but when you count the extra 1.6x enlargement of the negative that needs to occur to over a full 35mm frame (about which many/most reference their lenses to) the "typical" handhold speed rule of thumb is 1/480th.

Jason
lck0925 said:
T
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...
--
T
Sony F717, Canon S110, Sunpak 383 Super
Click to expand...
 
One thing...and this is a bit off topic. I was just sitting on my deck and decided to blow cigarette smoke in the face of an ant that was walking by on the railing. He didn't like it at all. Thus, proving that ants indeed do have noses.

Carry on.
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...
--
Camera Slug
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/cameraslug
 
What 450mm shot are you talking about? I don't even own a 450 lens.

And in regards to the cameras, the only one I purchased was my original 707 and the 10D. The Sigma was given to me on loan to test, and the 717 was given to me as part of compensation for using my photos at PMA.

And I'm not in defense of any of the cameras in this thread at all. I love my 10D (except for the focus issues). It's operation is awesome. I don't know where you reading that I don't like it (in this thread, anyway). In my clarification post in this thread I posted photos showing why I like it.

I don't compare numbers, only impressions.

But thanks for joining the party.

Jim
PDM said:
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.
PDM 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.
PDM 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...
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
 
My impressions are true for both DSLR's I've used.

Jim
LanceD said:
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...
--
Lance
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
 
Shutter. said:
Do you shoot digicams at all? I wish you could shoot a 717 for a
bit to see what we mean.
Click to expand...
I bought an F717 for low light, and end up using it primarily only in bright light, because I really can't do much with it in low light without getting really noisy or blurry images that require post-processing that I don't have time to do ... so I pop in faster film into my film cameras instead.
Shutter. said:
Where the advantage is is in the depth of field. At dusk, say, you
want to take a landscape shot.
Click to expand...
If you're shooting landscapes handheld, then you're clearly in the point & shoot market segment anyway. Shoot the digicam at f2; stop down the DSLR and set the ISO to 400, and you're looking at a narrow window of opportunity where the shutter speed on the DSLR is too slow before the shutter speed on the digicam also gets too slow. A little brighter and either one does the job; a little darker and you'd better have a tripod. Either way a tripod will improve your sharpness at slow shutter speeds, and the DSLR starts to have the low light advantages once you don't need great DOF.
Shutter. said:
Until you've shot a 7x7 you won't understand what we're saying.
Click to expand...
I have. I'm not impressed. It has great low light performance for a digicam - blows away my older Kodak - but I now prefer my SLRs even though they have even less DOF than a partial-frame sensor DSLR.

Which isn't to say I don't like my F717 ... it's a great digicam, and only the 828 and/or A1 look any better at this point. But I am disappointed in its low light performance and prefer a film SLR, and can only see a DSLR being better still.
  • Dennis
 
If you weren't so defensive you'd see that I'm not bashing anything, just giving users a heads up as they look into the DSLR world.

Do you really feel that threatened? It's the end result that matters, not the camera.

I'd love to see some of your work.

Jim
Peter G said:
LanceD said:
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...
--
Lance
Click to expand...
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
 
have you started already? lol
Camera Slug said:
Carry on.
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...
--
Camera Slug
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/cameraslug
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 don't know about ant noses. But they do have eyes. Maybe the smoke stung his eyes. They don't have eyelids. :->

--

Ulysses
 
Compare the noise data in Phils reviews between the 717 and the 10D. At ISO 800 the 10D has a little more noise than the 717 at ISO 100. With a little post processing that difference would no longer exist. At the very least, the 10D ISO 400 beats the 717 ISO 100. Put an IS on the 10D and you've got your shot.
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...
--
Matt
 
Okay, maybe this will help get this back on track. I think the "Sunny 16" says that you should be able to shoot at f16 on a sunny day to get a shot generally in the dof. What is the rule for a 7x7? It can't be the same, it only goes up to f8. I'd suggest f4ish. So, would that suggest better low-light performance?
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
 
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