|
Remo posted:I saw some charts where people test the actual ISO vs the stated ISO of cameras, and there are some cameras which have slight deviations. E.g. the camera's 12,800 ISO ends up being only 10,000 ISO. Basically its the manufacturer fudging the numbers. Not very noticeable in real life generally though. According to DXO, some cameras are off by more than a full stop. Nikons are generally accurate.
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Nikons are generally accurate.  http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D800 Not that I care too much about what synthetic camera benchmarks say (I know the D800 is a great camera), I'm just curious if this is still considered quite good for this test.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:18
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:What's considered inaccurate? I just took a look at the D800 and it seems to miss the mark quite a bit, unless I'm reading the chart incorrectly: I don’t know how sound DXO’s methodology is, but that’s no better than the Canon cameras I looked at. It’s a logarithmic scale, so the discrepancy is worse than it may appear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Thank you for the excellent responses, I was under the impression that an APC's 400 ISO would be around a CMOS ISO 200 or something. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll play with it outside and see how I do, also looking locally for that 35mm f/1.8 lens, actually have been trying to keep my eye out for that one since I bought the camera. It's called ISO sensitivity because it's sensitivity measured according to a standard put out by the International Standards Organization 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 11:48
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:It’s a logarithmic scale, so the discrepancy is worse than it may appear. Isn't ISO logarithmic anyway? 2/3 of a stop should have the same effect whether it's between 200 and 400 or 12,800 and 25,600.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Isn't ISO logarithmic anyway? 2/3 of a stop should have the same effect whether it's between 200 and 400 or 12,800 and 25,600. You only think it’s logarithmic because you think of it in terms of stops. Notice how on that chart 12800 is right below 25600, whereas numerically 12800 is halfway between 0 and 25600. ISO actually defines two scales for film speed, but no one uses the logarithmic scale. ISO 100 on the linear scale corresponds to ISO 21° on the logarithmic scale, with every third of a stop being one degree. ISO 200 = ISO 24°, ISO 400 = ISO 27°, and so on. In the age of digital cameras, the linear scale gets kind of ridiculous. The D4 has ISO 204800. Wouldn’t “ISO 54°” be simpler? I think so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:The last reliable autism I heard about eyes was tldr, 32mm, f/3.5, ISO 800, maximum exposure (actually integration) time of fifteen seconds. This would be a terrible camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:What's considered inaccurate? I just took a look at the D800 and it seems to miss the mark quite a bit, unless I'm reading the chart incorrectly: Well, everything's relative. Last time I was 'spergin over these charts I didn't include a Canon, so I included one below and what do you know: it's more accurate than the Nikon. Anyways, when I said Nikon were accurate, I meant compared to some other cameras I saw such as the OM-D below, which is over one stop slower than advertised. Also, a completely different site said the line of Fuji mirrorless were a stop slower than rated also, so I think it's a fairly common practice to over rate your sensors.  Overall, when shooting in any mode other than manual, it won't matter, other than maybe getting a slower shutter speed than you expected. And even shooting manual, you'd be chimping on the LCD and making adjustments as necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You only think it’s logarithmic because you think of it in terms of stops. Notice how on that chart 12800 is right below 25600, whereas numerically 12800 is halfway between 0 and 25600. Lol Musket posted:This would be a terrible camera. It'd be a Leica.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Remo posted:I saw some charts where people test the actual ISO vs the stated ISO of cameras, and there are some cameras which have slight deviations. E.g. the camera's 12,800 ISO ends up being only 10,000 ISO. Basically its the manufacturer fudging the numbers. Not very noticeable in real life generally though. The highest actual tested and assigned ISO is 10,000. Anything higher is a manufacturer extrapolated number.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
**This is an abstract question with many variables** Is there a generally agreed upon value for how many full stops worth of shutter speed difference VR typically makes on a lens? Assuming an average degree of steadiness holding the camera. I ask just out of curiosity as I've been playing with VR and haven't noticed a huge difference at any focal length. If the general wisdom is that you can't really shoot effectively slower than 1/60 while steadying the camera with your hand, are you expected to be able to get away with 1/30 with VR at around 200mm? What have people's experience been with this? I've heard enough praise for the VR lenses to assume that it's not entirely marketing hype.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:**This is an abstract question with many variables** Assume about a stop less than whatever the manufacturer claims  And yes, VR lenses own, although of course they won't fix subject movement, and with some practice you can handhold speeds a drat sight lower than 1/60 (at reasonable focal lengths). How much benefit you get from it really depends on how steady your hands are to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
Manufacturers normally report how good their system is by saying "x stops of compensation". Generally the rule is 1/focal length for handholding, although it depends on the user. It also depends on what you're shooting, I mean if you're shooting something that's moving all the VR in the world isn't going to make it look sharp. It's also not perfect, if I'm worried about getting a sharp shot I'll normally go into burst mode and take 3-5 shots, just to be safe. This was handheld with a Tamron 70-300mm VC lens (at 300mm) on a d5000, 1/20 of a second shutter speed.  DSC_0513.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr With wider lenses you can get away with even more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:What's considered inaccurate? I just took a look at the D800 and it seems to miss the mark quite a bit, unless I'm reading the chart incorrectly: Throw away the ISO 50 data point there (it's just ISO 100 with software fudging, so unsurprisingly is the same as the ISO 100 data point) there and I'm not asurprised, it looks like the roughly 1/3 stop underexposure that I've been correcting for all along. What is more important than the closeness to the line, is the closeness of the slopes, IMO, since once you correct (relatively; ie using a number of stops) then as long as the slope is accurate then your exposure should remain right-ish along any ISO on the line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:**This is an abstract question with many variables** VR1 is 2-3 stops, but really its closer to 2. The 80-400 being the weakest VR. 200mm with Vr and 1/30th are not going to work. You wont stop any motion at all but hey, stationary objects wont be too blurry. VRII is accepted as roughly 4 stops. The only lens I owned with VR2 was the 70-200. Its good, but nothing with VR in it will stop motion or violate the 1/focal length rule. All you are obtaining is the ability to handhold against stationary objects a few extra stops. I notice VR when im shooting between 18mm and 55mm. Wider angles will benefit from VR more than narrow ones. I can handhold down to 1/4th at 18mm with 4stops of VR (i also have no mirror so that helps too). I cant do that at the 200mm end. Musket fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Jun 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
Musket posted:VR1 is 2-3 stops, but really its closer to 2. The 80-400 being the weakest VR. 200mm with Vr and 1/30th are not going to work. You wont stop any motion at all but hey, stationary objects wont be too blurry. Look at Mr. Shakeyhands here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:15
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Look at Mr. Shakeyhands here. Try the Shakes - MJF 1982
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
VRII makes a big, noticeable difference. Take a 300mm with VRII and shoot w/ VR turned off and on using the same settings. Perfect, crisp shot vs jittery mess. VRI is much less noticeable except for the the space machine sounds some of the lenses make when it's turned on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
I have heard amazing things about the VRIII in the new 70-200 f4. Personally I have a 70-200 f2.8 vrI, you can see the VR effect through the viewfinder but I can at most handhold it 1 stop slower than 1/fl. I do have extremely shaky hands though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
I don't have the 70-200 VRII anymore, but with the VR on I could get down to about 1/40 1/60 at 200mm and still get decent shots if I ripped off two or three frames in a row.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
I spotted a used Nikon 24-50/3.5-4.5 AF in a store today. Is that worth anything?
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I spotted a used Nikon 24-50/3.5-4.5 AF in a store today. Is that worth anything? Keh.com is your friend for these sorts of questions. http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA07999022192N?r=FE or (depending on which version you saw). http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Autofocus-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-NA070090313380?r=FE Look it up there for a good starting price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
I got an old 28-85 3.5-4.5 macro for $40 including shipping from KEH, that seems like a much better buy to me. Condition was listed as BGN but the glass is clean and there were just some scratches on the zoom barrel (all metal construction). If you can find one of those you should get it instead, because it's a cheap and awesome walkaround lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
Just bought my first dslr camera. A Nikon d7000 with an 18-55 1:3.5-5.6G lens. Body is perfect condition, 4000 actuations. Will be taking it on my trip to Honduras in July so i figure that lens will do for now until I get more used to the camera. Will post cat pics in a couple of days. No manual, so playing with user settings to see how the exposure looks. Paid $600 for it.
Shiv Katall fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
That's a shitload of camera for $600, have fun!
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 11:49
|
|
|
Thanks. I am very excited with it and can't wait to get different lenses. I had to go to LA to get it and when I finally got home to really get into it, I was overwhelmed with how much I have to learn.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Die Zombie Die posted:Thanks. I am very excited with it and can't wait to get different lenses. I had to go to LA to get it and when I finally got home to really get into it, I was overwhelmed with how much I have to learn. Your first lens purchase should be either the 50m or 35mm 1.8.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Ok, I will take a look and see what I can find in those sizes. We don't have very many camera shops down here in coachella valley, so i will probably head up into san bernardino. My next immediate purchase will be a bag/backpack for the trip.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Those lenses are both $200 new and should be super easy to find. They're also both super great. I've got the D5100 and 35mm is perfect for cat pictures, on your body the 50mm should be the same equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
Die Zombie Die posted:Ok, I will take a look and see what I can find in those sizes. We don't have very many camera shops down here in coachella valley, so i will probably head up into san bernardino. My next immediate purchase will be a bag/backpack for the trip. The internet is full of camera shops that will ship to the coachella valley  Places like BestBuy probably carry the 35 too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Those lenses are both $200 new and should be super easy to find. They're also both super great. I've got the D5100 and 35mm is perfect for cat pictures, on your body the 50mm should be the same equivalent. On the D7000 the 50mm is not a 35mm equivalent. Like the D5100, the D7000 has a crop sensor. However, unlike the D5100 the D7000 has an AF motor so the 50mm will autofocus on the D7000.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Waaaat, I thought D7000 was full frame. And AF doesn't matter, the 50/1.8 and the 35/1.8 both autofocus on any body, unless you get an older model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Waaaat, I thought D7000 was full frame. The AF-D 50mm is still made and sold new, for half the price of the G model. This is the one that won't AF on the 5x00 and 3x00 bodies: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1371750005&sr=8-1&keywords=nikon+50mm This one will AF on all the dslrs http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1371750208&sr=8-2&keywords=nikon+50mm The 35mm is more useful on crop bodies I'd say though. Dr. Despair fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jun 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Nah , it's a crop. The 50 has AF and AF-S flavors, the difference being the AF does not do AF. Simple! Basically get the $200 lens, not the $100 one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Well poo poo, yeah, if you've got the D7000 than buy the AF-D.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Well poo poo, yeah, if you've got the D7000 than buy the AF-D. Or get a used 50/1.4 AF-D from keh for about the same price. Or a tamron 17-50 VC. Or a 70-300 of some kind. Or maybe just use the kit lens for a bit and figure out what you want to shoot before buying a bunch of lenses. :P
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Nope nope just shut up, buy as many lenses as you can right away. For maximum effect do it before even choosing a camera, so I guess in that regard it's too late for Die Zombie Die, so I guess he'll just have to take your advice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
You can't just buy one lens. It defeats the primary purpose of a DSLR: taking pictures of your new lens.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Oh drat, I knew it was too good to be true. I screwed it all up and bought the camera first instead of the lenses. I am just going to start ordering one of everything and hope that the camera succeeds where I fail. Thanks for all the tips though. There are some good lenses on Craigslist right now that i may go take a look at. I would like to pick up at least one lens before I leave. I was leaning towards a 200mm so i don't have to get too close to things in the jungle that would go 1,2,3,death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:59 |
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Those lenses are both $200 new and should be super easy to find. They're also both super great. I've got the D5100 and 35mm is perfect for cat pictures, on your body the 50mm should be the same equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2013 21:33
|
|