|
You could put a 5d mkII sensor in a camera phone and it still wouldn't make dslr's obsolete, sure it would give you better quality pictures out of your camera phone but that doesn't mean everyone is going to give up there fully functioning camera. Sure, my iphone, 7d and eos 3 are all cameras, but there's a reason I always have my real cameras with me. I don't need to explain why either because anyone reading this already knows the massive difference there is between the formats. I cant see any pro or serious amateur using anything other than an slr (also range finder/mf/lf etc.) because even if the camera phone had a great sensor, full manual controls and hotshoe, its still a loving phone with a camera.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
fronkpies posted:You could put a 5d mkII sensor in a camera phone and it still wouldn't make dslr's obsolete, sure it would give you better quality pictures out of your camera phone but that doesn't mean everyone is going to give up there fully functioning camera. I propose an organic photo sensor, we can plant it in our heads, right above the nose (make it two, so we can do stereoscopic imaging) and a massive storage system for the full size images (put that behind the sensors). We just need a way to get those images out of the storage medium. Maybe paint brushes and canvas?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 14:08
|
|
|
The Nokia guy thinks on the same level of my friends who's first question about my camera is how many megapixels is it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 14:26
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:It's not the DSLR market Nokia should be aiming for either, it's the compact market. Clearly more megapickles will help Nokia take back the market from iPhone and Android.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
Do those Nokia phones have actual shutters or do they use the same like, line rendering sensors that other phones use?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 15:43
|
|
|
I can certainly see the day when cameraphones replace the generic P&S, for many, myself included, that day has already come. But thinking that your iPhone or whatever will replace a DSLR is ridiculous on so many levels. It really just proves that he doesnt know much about the higher end of the photography world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
wow, some people just dont know anything about physics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 18:08
|
|
|
HPL posted:Clearly more megapickles will help Nokia take back the market from iPhone and Android.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/merkley/2574314441/
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 19:35
|
|
|
The only line in there that you really need to read is quote:a high-quality glass lens I mean, his metric for what makes a good lens is "it's made of glass instead of molded plastic". What makes a good sensor is "50 megapixels in a space the size of your fingernail". He's obviously just a stuffed suit who grew out of marketing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
e: /\/\/\/\/\ Carl Zeiss, baby! Now, to be fair, I'm sure he gets paid to make sweeping statements exactly like that. That's called "visionary innovation", I believe. spf3million posted:They already have in China. Everyone here has phones with real actual, respectable lenses, optical zooms and all. They're about the size of a Canon SD1300. A little thick, but still easily pocketable and not much bigger than a blackberry. I'm guessing these are mid-range to high-end phones? The cheap, tiny phones with tiny cameras will still probably be popular, but cheap compacts are in huge trouble.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
Yeah I'm probably going to end up selling my S90 because I haven't really used it since I got my 40D, and it wasn't cheap. Also something inside has dust on it from being in the Grand Canyon and it really sucks. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Yeah I'm probably going to end up selling my S90 because I haven't really used it since I got my 40D, and it wasn't cheap. My contact info is bjmfoto at gmail dot com if you decide to sell the s90, let me know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Do those Nokia phones have actual shutters or do they use the same like, line rendering sensors that other phones use? Not sure about the newer models, but I definitely hear a little shutter clicking inside my n73.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2010 01:23
|
|
|
a 50mm lens is not a good primary lens on a crop-sensor DSLR Sorry, this is something that has been bugging me for a while that I finally need to rant about. What finally set me off was someone in the Canon thread saying he got his mother a Rebel with the 50/1.8 because he just couldn't let her shoot with the kit lens. I do not understand this attitude. First of all, a 50mm lens is the wrong length on a crop body for about 80% of situations (caveat: yes, you can use nearly any lens for any shot if you're creative, but you know what I mean). It works great for traditional portraits or still lifes, but it's too long for group shots or interior shots, too short for wildlife, and just long enough to feel cramped when doing candids at a comfortable working distance. The reason that 50s are so cheap is because it is an extremely versatile and natural-looking length on a 135-sized format, and every manufacturer worth its salt has made dozens of versions of them. On a crop body, a lens in the 28-35mm range mimics the angle of view, and would be far more useful. Second, what is so terrible about the kit lenses? No, they're not especially sharp wide-open. Yes, they are kind of slow (optically and the autofocus). But you know what they have? A real wide end on a crop body, and a versatile zoom range. People upgrading from a point-and-shoot will be far happier with a slower zoom lens than with a fast prime in a focal length they can't really use. Your 16-year-old cousin, your mother, your friend who's just getting into photography -- they don't want to miss a shot because they needed to run 20 feet backwards to get the whole thing in the frame, and they certainly don't want a lens that can't take family photos indoors. The kit zoom will simply be way more useful to 90% of the people buying entry-level DSLRs. It's not like you can't upgrade later! And to the people saying "well the kit lenses simply aren't good enough quality for me  " : take your pick. Just like with everything else, some are crappy and some are amazing. How many times around here do we hear "the gear doesn't make the photo"?I'm not saying the nifty fifty is a bad lens at all. I think there's no excuse for anyone not to own one, except if they already own something faster in the same length, and those 2-4 stops over a kit lens can be super useful at night. But, unless you have a 135-format camera, it should always be in addition to something in a more useful focal length. I just cannot understand these people owning a 40D and a 50/1.8 and nothing else, especially when you can get an 18-55 IS for like a hundred dollars and have something you can use in, I don't know, every situation where a short telephoto is too long. </rant>
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
BUT MY SHALLOW DOF 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 00:16
|
|
|
orange lime posted:You're preaching to the choir man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Can that be the OP for every thread? It's a great lens but, drat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
Just say the Sigma 30 f/1.4 is the perfect prime for a crop body 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 03:16
|
|
|
Ya but there is no nifty thirty so what am I supposed to do? fake edit: the sigma isn't nifty
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
I think the 35mm f/2 is pretty nifty myself. It's also cheaper than the sigma and wide enough for a crop body. Plus the AF sounds like an angry hornet! EDIT: I know it's not quite as wide and a lot more than 80 bucks. Still my favorite walk around prime for a crop body. Wooten fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Apr 25, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
I light fires posted:Ya but there is no nifty thirty so what am I supposed to do? yea it kinda is hth
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 07:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 07:24
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I think the 35mm f/2 is pretty nifty myself. It's also cheaper than the sigma and wide enough for a crop body. Plus the AF sounds like an angry hornet!
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:And the 35 f2 is great on full frame for how small it is. Small, full-frame, 35mm f/2 you say?  Waiting for the inevitable rangefinder goon to come in and post his tiny 35/2 Summilux or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 10:27
|
|
|
It's not a good primary lens on a crop body but it is a good lens. It's worth the $$ rather than the $$$ you'd spend on anything else. That being said I use the sigma 30mm which is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
orange lime posted:a 50mm lens is not a good primary lens on a crop-sensor DSLR
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 16:44
|
|
|
You know, the picture below is nothing special, just another shot of the boy at the park (just before he tried to get down from there and fell and hit his head on the concrete apron...no injury, but oh the crying). But, I was putting the pictures up on flickr and noticed it looked really sharp, and I thought I had shot wide open. I checked, and I had, in fact, shot wide open. 85mm f/1.8 at 1.8. Just a great lens. I love this lens. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 20:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I've been carrying my 85 f/1.8 around more often lately because of just this. It's funny how you can begin to spot certain lenses or perhaps just focal lengths & apertures. The 85 seems have have its own signature.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:You know, the picture below is nothing special, just another shot of the boy at the park (just before he tried to get down from there and fell and hit his head on the concrete apron...no injury, but oh the crying). But, I was putting the pictures up on flickr and noticed it looked really sharp, and I thought I had shot wide open. I checked, and I had, in fact, shot wide open. 85mm f/1.8 at 1.8. Just a great lens. I love this lens. God I want one so bad, but on a crop a wide angle must come first.  You should shoot some wide open full face portraits with that thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
I've been practicing with the 85 1.2 lately. It's such a huge challenge to get anything usable out of it when it's wide open. It's also extremely slow to auto focus, and forget trying to manual focus. It makes it feel really easy to get the focus with every other lens I own. I just love it so much though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
Wooten posted:I've been practicing with the 85 1.2 lately. It's such a huge challenge to get anything usable out of it when it's wide open. It's also extremely slow to auto focus, and forget trying to manual focus. It makes it feel really easy to get the focus with every other lens I own. One thing about the 1.2, it's only real tangible benefit is the stop of light. The extra DOF is overkill. With 1.8 I can blur out and isolate just fine, I never feel like it it were more it would be better. The 1.8 is lighter, cheaper, and faster focusing and just as sharp at almost all apertures. Unless someone routinely finds themselves without enough light for portraits (maybe wedding photographers?) it's really a waste. The money difference between 85 1.8 and 1.2 would go a lot further to bring quality at other focal ranges. The difference between the 35mm f/2 and 1.4 for instance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 00:32
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:One thing about the 1.2, it's only real tangible benefit is the stop of light. The extra DOF is overkill. With 1.8 I can blur out and isolate just fine, I never feel like it it were more it would be better. The 1.8 is lighter, cheaper, and faster focusing and just as sharp at almost all apertures. Unless someone routinely finds themselves without enough light for portraits (maybe wedding photographers?) it's really a waste. The money difference between 85 1.8 and 1.2 would go a lot further to bring quality at other focal ranges. The difference between the 35mm f/2 and 1.4 for instance. Candle-lit scenes in old English castles?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
I'm not saying its a useful lens for 90% of people. I was just commenting on how much I like the focal length and the ridiculously shallow depth of field. I actually did get it just because I shoot weddings and my biggest fear is dark churches. I wouldn't recommend buying it unless you have an actual need for it. The 1.8 is much more reasonably priced and also MUCH lighter. I still have no regrets about the 1.2, it's the most challenging lens I've ever used and it makes such pretty portraits. It's also crazy sharp if you stop it down even a little (which is true for the 1.8 as well).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 01:15
|
|
|
Can someone explain to me how exactly fixed aperture zoom lenses work? It boggles the mind. Like, it seems that logically if a lens has a max aperture X at its longest focal length, then the max aperture at any shorter focal length should be greater than X. But obviously that's not the case. Bouillon Rube fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Apr 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 03:00
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:Can someone explain to me how exactly fixed aperture zoom lenses work? It boggles the mind. I'm not an optics expert but I've been given to understand that on a lens that is fixed aperture numerically, the opening shifts as you zoom. If you look down, say, a 70-200 as it zooms, you can see that the diaphragm shifts. But I could be off on this, so do your own research.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 05:20
|
|
|
The f-stop number isn't based solely on size of the aperture, it's some formula for the amount of light that is let in and gets past the optics to the sensor/film. It's not just as easy as keeping the aperture blades at the same size opening. Otherwise making a 10-600mm f/1.0 terrorzoom would be trivial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 05:56
|
|
|
pwn posted:The f-stop number isn't based solely on size of the aperture, it's some formula for the amount of light that is let in and gets past the optics to the sensor/film. It's not just as easy as keeping the aperture blades at the same size opening. Otherwise making a 10-600mm f/1.0 terrorzoom would be trivial. I'm pretty sure it's the distance to focal point divided by the size of the opening. So f/1.0 would have an opening with the same diameter as the distance to the focal point from the focal plane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 06:08
|
|
|
pwn posted:The f-stop number isn't based solely on size of the aperture, it's some formula for the amount of light that is let in and gets past the optics to the sensor/film. It's not just as easy as keeping the aperture blades at the same size opening. Otherwise making a 10-600mm f/1.0 terrorzoom would be trivial.  No, the poster above me has it right. The f/number is a mathematical ratio comparing the physical diameter of the aperture to the focal length of the lens (f). An f/2 lens has a numerical aperture of half the focal length, and so on -- a 100mm f/4 has a 25mm diameter aperture. Light falls off with the square of the distance it travels, but the area of the aperture increases with the square of the diameter*, so the ultimate effect is that any lens set to f/2 will cast the same amount of light onto the film plane -- whether it's a fisheye or a normal lens or a super-telephoto. Light falloff through the optics is a factor in the actual amount of light reaching the film plane but most of the time it's negligible. The reason that we can't make 10-600mm terrorzooms is because each end of that focal length range requires vastly different optics, many of which work at cross purposes to each other -- nothing to do with the aperture. The reason we can't easily make f/1.0 lenses (besides the progressively larger pieces of glass you require) is primarily because of spherical aberration that goes absolutely nuts when you start using the outer edges of a lens. Most zoom lenses have a smaller maximum aperture at the long end because the aperture can't open beyond a certain size, which is a smaller fraction of the focal length at the long end than at the short end. With lenses that maintain a constant aperture, what is actually occurring is that the designers have made a conscious choice to limit the aperture's opening at the short end in the interests of sharpness. Your 70-200 f/2.8 could theoretically be a 1.4 at the short end, but it would be hazy and soft if not outright uncorrected. </optics rant> *If you remember high school math, you will be saying "but the formula is pi(r)^2!" Yes, area actually increases with the square of the radius. The diameter is of course twice the radius, and this is why full stops are separated by the factor of sqrt(2) = 1.4. Ie., each time you increase a stop and halve the light, you are dividing the diameter (multiplying the f/ value) by a factor of 1.4: 1 1.4 2 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 ... 
orange lime fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Apr 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
 Awesome, thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
orange lime posted:With lenses that maintain a constant aperture, what is actually occurring is that the designers have made a conscious choice to limit the aperture's opening at the short end in the interests of sharpness. Your 70-200 f/2.8 could theoretically be a 1.4 at the short end, but it would be hazy and soft if not outright uncorrected.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2010 07:03
|
|
