Yes.

If you've got the cash, buy one.

11/30/2008 3:03:50 PM

Quote :

"well damn, I didnt know about CS4. Hopefully now CS3 will be in a price range I wouldnt mind paying for"

I'm pretty sure the bookstore wouldn't sell a copy of cs3 now that cs4 is out. Besides, It would probably be the same price. Honestly, CS4 blows CS3 out of the water. Definitely worth it, if only for photoshop. That's the only real program that got a huge upgrade, plus lightroom 2.

Quote :

"Yeah, the Red Scarlet gives me a fucking huge, raging boner."

I just want to play with it.

Quote :

"anyone have any experience with the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens?"

It's on my body 95% of the time. Best lens I own to date... as long as you get a sharp copy of what I hear. There's been issues on some forums that people have been experiencing back focusing issues. But I've never experience it first hand or know of anyone in person who has either.

11/30/2008 3:36:09 PM

Quote :

"I just want to play with it. "

You want to play with his boner?

Seriously, that's a fucking monster of a camera.

11/30/2008 3:43:13 PM

I just can't fathom the resolution some of those camera's are recording at and in raw mode... That's seriously a lot of information. I wonder if there's a time recording limit for per clip till the buffer becomes full, similar to the 5D.

Oh, and the question now is what will this do for regular movie theaters and even the iMax? What about HD material and blueray? Will SuperHD become the next standard and how long till 1080p becomes old?

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 3:50 PM. Reason : ?]

11/30/2008 3:47:56 PM

They are speculating and hoping that SuperHD will start appearing in 10years.

The Camera's imagers already exist for it as do displays. now the production equipment, data transfer, broadcast, etc. etc. etc. and consumer demand has to catch up.

The economy tanking doesn't help it's progress (and severely hurts the job that somebody is trying to hire me for)... Example: Fios systems were developed in the mid 90's but the dot-com fallout caused development on those systems to be scrapped.

11/30/2008 3:54:44 PM

On a 1.6x crop body, I found the 24-70mm 2.8L to be not quite wide enough for me. I prefer the 17-35/16-35mm 2.8L as my main lens.

11/30/2008 4:14:16 PM

i realize that this doesn't have to do directly with DSLRs in particular, but i'm looking for clarification (i want to say Ronny explained this to me many many pages ago, or in a PM, but i can't for the life of me find the info)

as much as i'd like to, i can't justify the DSLR...but i enjoy photography enough to want something better than a generic point-and-shoot (i think y'all deemed them "prosumer" cameras)...i currently use a panasonic lumix DMC-FZ30 and love it, but i'm wondering if there might be a newer, better camera out there (SLR style, point-and-shoot processing) since mine is nearly 3 years old

currently, the panny has these specs that i deem important:
- 8mp (3264x2448)
- 1/1.8" matsushita CCD
- 21mp/cm2 pixel density
- 12x (35-420mm) optical zoom
- 1/2000 max shutter speed
- F2.8-F11 aperture range
- 640x480 video at 30fps
- ISO400 max
- leica optics
- RAW file support
- megaOIS (image stabilization)
- hot shoe flash support
- complete manual control (focus, ring-type zoom, aperture, shutter speed, etc.)

i know that, when it comes to point-and-shoots, megapixels don't mean nearly as much as the sensor size and resulting pixel density, right? what about CCD vs. CMOS?

the aperture range is pathetic and the ISO level is appalling (especially since, at 400, the image is disgustingly noisy, something panny's are notorious for)...these, in addition to the pixel density and optical zoom, are what i'm looking to upgrade...i require name-brand optics (leica, zeiss, etc.), but the rest is debatable (i'd like to keep RAW support, image stabilization, and video capabilities...also, since i already have a boatload of 200x 4gb SDHC cards, something that uses those would be ideal)

suggestions?

11/30/2008 4:19:01 PM

I just picked up one of these:
(plz to embed) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=queB7fdomY4

It's ghetto, but it works! This should be really fun to play around with. One quirk is that my walkie talkie set only triggers the camera when sound is transmitted, so for the camera to fire, I have to constantly talk into the walkie talkie. Or I can press the call tone button and it'll take pics for about 2 seconds.

11/30/2008 4:28:53 PM

Canon G10 covers all of those specs and beyond. And it's compact. I've been impressed with the G9 and only bet the G10 is better.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=144&modelid=17624#ModelDetailAct

11/30/2008 4:28:54 PM

^ unless i'm missing something (and i may be), the G10 has a 1/1.7" sensor (minutely larger), but also has a pixel density of 34mp/cm2 (versus my panny's 21) and only has 5x optical zoom (versus my panny's 12x)...i guess the SLIGHTLY larger sensor would provide a tiny bit better image, but i was thinking that the leica optics on the panny make up for that, especially on the high end of zoom and low end with macro

11/30/2008 4:34:14 PM

canon's optics are pretty damn sharp for being a p&s. Sensor size isn't the only factor that plays into image quality, but it is one of the main points. The image processor is the real unsung hero to many digital camera's now days. It's very easy to overlook that and how their algorithms work, plus their noise filtering capabilities.

Also, I'm not sure about all of canon's sensors, but I know on their latest iterations for slr's, they have increased the microlens size for each pixel, allowing in more light in less space, which in term reduces noise. Sensors now days are much more advance than those just a few years ago. It's one of the reasons why we are achieving ISO 6400+ and being able to capture low light video with acceptable to practically no noise.

Honestly, a P&S now day's can capture probably 90% of what high end or pro level camera's can capture. The only real drawback with small sensors is high ISO and low light situations. I mean, I'm not going to go out and shoot sports with a p&s and pass it off as a pro picture, but it's really whose behind the camera that really matters. Knowing how to use your camera and it's limitations is a good thing to have.

btw, I've been flabbergasted with the g9 cause I know a few pro's who have them for everyday stuff and capture nice pics. A number of the instructors at school have the g9 in their camera bag right beside their medium format and DSLR's.

11/30/2008 5:44:28 PM

the G10 is badass. Thats what i'd get if i wanted a nice PnS. I played with one the other day and is a really nice little camera. Magnesium body, 3 nice feeling knobs. oh yes.

They are kinda pushing the megapixels these days in the PnSs and i'm a little weary of that, though. Especially with those small sensors.

11/30/2008 7:05:28 PM

That small-sensored G10 has a 1/1.7" sensor compared to the 50d's 22.3mm/14.9mm. Badass for a P&S.

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 7:39 PM. Reason : "]

11/30/2008 7:25:23 PM

11/30/2008 7:29:55 PM

oh, i'm not arguing any of this...i'm not knocking on the G10, either...as a point-and-shoot ONLY, it's great and beats out just about everything (in fact, i can't think of a comparable point-and-shoot)...but my camera's better in almost all categories i'm concerned with, and cost me only about $50 more, 3 years ago...i'm okay with carrying around the extra size and weight for the increase in functionality

again, i'm not trashing the G10...in its category, it's the top...but it doesn't compare to the panny, because they're intended for a different user group (or so i see it)

i'm looking for something SLR-like...i like the manual zoom (and 12x is minimum), the ability to change virtually all settings, the ability to add an external flash, etc...having something i can put in my pocket is not necessary...having something that doesn't require more than one (included and fixed) lens that will do 12x (or better) optical with decent optics is, though

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 7:35 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2008 7:32:13 PM

dude in that video is not good at math

11/30/2008 7:42:00 PM

^^Saw this on slickdeals has 18x but not sure if its better than what you got now.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-FZ28K-Digital-Stabilized-Black/dp/B001CCLBSU/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?tag=slickdeals&ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1228059551&sr=8-1

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2008 7:43:21 PM

^^^ I read like 3 digital photo magazines yesterday at the book store and they all had super-zoom shootout/reviews in them. I'd check them out. Nikon, Panasonic, Canon, and a couple others were all in there. I had a Canon S1IS and a S5IS and they were both nice cameras.

11/30/2008 9:09:32 PM

I vote to have this thread be moved to Tech Talk.

I hate having to venture into chitchat and search for this thread all the time. who's with me!?

11/30/2008 9:12:36 PM

11/30/2008 9:17:14 PM

Has anyone mentioned the D3x yet?

11/30/2008 10:36:09 PM

Move this thread to Tech Talk. You guys are complete nerds.



[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 10:40 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2008 10:38:59 PM

wow, i've been on TWW for 8 years and have never added anything to My Topics.

11/30/2008 10:40:49 PM

^^^Yep, previous page.

This thread was definitely a long time ago

[Edited on November 30, 2008 at 10:43 PM. Reason : []

11/30/2008 10:42:33 PM

For kiwi

Quote :

"Nikon's new studio camera is out. D3x. Price and release date isn't set yet, but since the D3 is around the 5k, it's probably gonna be around 8-10k mark. The neat thing about it is that you can reduce the MP down to 10 and shoot at 7fps. A big plus for those who want a studio camera that can pull double duty for sports. Although, I'm excited to get my hands on the new 5D's. The school is talking about picking a pair up for next semester. http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/28/nikon-outs-d3x-in-own-pro-magazine/"

12/1/2008 12:21:07 AM

Whoops

24.5 megapix is hot. Since there's a megapixel war going on seemingly.

12/1/2008 12:22:00 AM

Fuck megapixels.

I think for 99% of people, anything over 10 is unnecessary.
For 95% of people, anything over 5 is unnecessary.

12/1/2008 12:25:05 AM

Just picked up a Rebel XS this past week and retired the old Sony H2. Here's my kit:

Rebel XS
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6(kit)
75-300mm f/4-5.6
50mm f/1.8
Speedlite 430EX II



Not the best shot I've taken but one I've posted online. Didn't have the Speedlite for that one yet, so it's a little washed out.

12/1/2008 12:31:41 AM

I know Ronny, the numbers are just getting insane.

12/1/2008 12:35:25 AM

Hey wut, I found the same deal for 50 bucks less at Target. However, it is online only, but there is free shipping. The only difference I see is the free 2gig SD card the costco deal offers.

I may be a little late, but if you want to wait a few days and get it through the mail and save 50 dollars, here is the link

http://www.target.com/Nikon-6-1MP-Digital-Camera-2-Lens/dp/B001HN30N8/sr=1-12/qid=1228110183/ref=sr_1_12/187-7815379-5524942?ie=UTF8&index=target&rh=k:nikon&page=1

12/1/2008 12:51:01 AM

^ Ill actually be saving 100 bucks because a membership to costco costs 50 bucks itself.

However I dont see that it has a 55-200 VR lens. If it doesnt, its the same deal everywhere else.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:31 AM. Reason : .]

12/1/2008 1:29:11 AM

^i wouldnt get it unless i was sure it had the 55-200mm VR lense.

12/1/2008 8:25:07 AM

Just checked out KenRockwell's site and info about the D3x -- if it is what he says it is...Nikon missed the boat.

12/1/2008 10:35:36 AM

THEY HAVE SINCE THEY STARTED MAKING DIGITAL CAMERAS! CANON 4 LYFE, YO!

12/1/2008 10:37:41 AM

Quote :

"Saw this on slickdeals has 18x but not sure if its better than what you got now."

it's not...i actually got my dad that camera for his birthday since he shoots with an SLR (like...35mm) and develops his own pictures...i know he wanted something he could take point-and-shoot pics with, but still be able to manually control a lot of things...the DMC-FZ28 is nice enough, but it's a 1/2.3" sensor (i think) and that 18x optical is pushing it, even with the leica optics...it's smaller than my camera

thanks for the link, though...i appreciate the notice, in case i DO miss something

Quote :

"I read like 3 digital photo magazines yesterday at the book store and they all had super-zoom shootout/reviews in them. I'd check them out. Nikon, Panasonic, Canon, and a couple others were all in there."

awesome, thanks for the heads up...i'll check out b&n or borders tonight

Quote :

"Fuck megapixels. I think for 99% of people, anything over 10 is unnecessary. For 95% of people, anything over 5 is unnecessary."

i agree completely...and even with that 10, since the sensor (and, as mentioned before, the processing) doesn't really support 10 in any but the most superfluous way, that 10 is pretty useless...unless you're referring to DSLR, in which case, i think that anyone who has one would argue that bigger is better (in most cases)

if it weren't for the fact that i actually print out what i capture (the biggest i've been able to print is 11x14 without noticeable pixelation...8x10 requires no work on my part to make it print well), then i'd rather have something compact, and 6-8mp would be about max (which would produce excellent 4x6's and decent 5x7's, i think)

12/1/2008 10:49:08 AM

I like printing 20 x 30's

12/1/2008 12:55:48 PM

oh, i'd LOVE to be able to do that...but an 11x14 at 1/3 cost of a comparable DSLR setup is acceptable for now

maybe when i quit hauling the camera across mountains, glaciers, and rain forests, i won't mind carrying around thousands of dollars worth of equipment that might very well break

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 1:08 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2008 1:02:15 PM

One thing positive I can say about Wolf Camera is their damage protection is out of sight. For up to five years after purchase they will repair or replace ANY possible damage you could do except for fire, or it getting lost/stolen.

I've seen some fucked up cameras come in and they've gotten new ones no questions asked.

12/1/2008 1:16:51 PM

^ oh...how much does that cost extra? because that might be a good idea

12/1/2008 1:24:48 PM

Not much compared to the price of the item. I think a 1299 item is $198 a yr, and price goes down if you buy multiple yrs.

hehe It's a good idea.

12/1/2008 1:27:09 PM

Yeah, I think those plans are typically worth it. I got my first 30D from Circuit City (when I worked there, right when the 30D's came out) and I spent an extra 200 bucks on the accident protection plan, which covers everything but theft and fire.

Well, I'd gotten the camera wet once, took out the battery and let it dry out, thought everything was fine. A few months later it stopped working, turns out because of water damage. The customer service was fucking AWFUL, but I ended up getting a gift card for the full amount that I paid for the camera, which was put toward a brand new 40D. Of course I was out the 200 bucks, but that's better than being out 1500.

12/1/2008 1:30:16 PM

Wow they screwed over their own employee? Yuck.

12/1/2008 1:56:06 PM

So, admittedly, I like bokeh in pictures, some ideas can be really creative and I wanted to capture my tree lights with some bokeh. Can this only be done with a 50m 1.4 lens?

What am I missing?

I mean this kind of bokeh http://www.flickr.com/photos/earthandskye/3062233876/

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 2:17 PM. Reason : sF]

12/1/2008 2:10:31 PM

^^Well by that point I didn't work for them anymore, not that it would have mattered.




^Short answer, no. A 1.4 lens certainly helps, but shooting that wide open isn't the only way. There are a few things that effect depth of field (and for shots with smooth bokeh, you want a really narrow one, obviously).

Lens length: A longer focal length = narrower DOF. Shooting at 2.8 at 300mm will have a thinner DOF than shooting 2.8 at 16mm.

Distance to subject: kinda ties in with above. The closer you are to the subject, the narrower the DOF will be. This is why shooting at anything lower then f/4 or f/5.6 with a macro lens will yield a paper thing depth of field. Separating the subject from the background also helps this.

Aperture: Obviously


I'm sure Photogrob and Jbaz can chime in on this too.

[Edited on December 1, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : .]

12/1/2008 2:16:59 PM

I've been playing around a little bit and can't seem to get it, I know the DOF has to be narrow but can't get those circular bokehs I'm talking about.

One website suggested using black paper with a hole cut in the middle to create a "shaped" bokeh but that was for hearts or stars or whatever.

12/1/2008 2:19:01 PM

Post an example of what you're talking about.

I think I know, but am not 100% certain. However, getting your subject further from the background, in addition to getting closer to your subject, will likely help.

12/1/2008 2:25:53 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/firepretty/1664882979/

12/1/2008 2:32:57 PM

They are really close to the lights in the foreground (probably near the min. focus distance) and the lights in the background are relatively far back.


If the subject in focus is near the min. focus distance (as close to the lens as it will allow) then chances are, unless they are up against a wall, the background will be blown out. Also, make sure that you're shooting at a wide aperture.

I don't think I'm missing anything, this is pretty easy.

12/1/2008 2:35:38 PM

I guess I'm not getting it because the lights on my tree are too close to really create that kind of bokeh.

12/1/2008 2:36:37 PM

anyone know how to splice multiple images together with different DOF to effectively create one picture with a large DOF? I remember seeing something last year where a photographer took multiple pictures of spider with different focus points at f/3.5 then splice them all to make the spider all in focus.

12/1/2008 3:24:13 PM