Canon addressed this recently (in their full-frame sensor whitepaper, I think). In-camera Image Stabilization requires physical movement of the sensor. For short (wide) focal lengths, a little movment does the trick. But that's not where IS is needed. For long focal lengths, the sensor may need to move several millimeters, which isn't practical. So their view is that in-camera IS will never be as effective as IS that's built into the telephoto lenses.
Canon addressed this recently (in their full-frame sensor whitepaper, I think). In-camera Image Stabilization requires physical movement of the sensor. For short (wide) focal lengths, a little movment does the trick. But that's not where IS is needed. For long focal lengths, the sensor may need to move several millimeters, which isn't practical. So their view is that in-camera IS will never be as effective as IS that's built into the telephoto lenses.
Depends... do you require the thinnest line of cameras, that can easily fit in your pocket? There's about a $100 premium for that.
And what other features are most valuable to you? How big do you plan to print? How much would you use a movie mode?
Actually, Canon's only recent wideangle lense is for the APS-C format... the EF-S 10-22mm. And I don't know what negative thing could be said about that lens... it's brilliant.
edit: Reviews at FredMiranda.com... a 9/10 rating overall, 93% recommended (117 reviews)
Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Originally posted by: FM2n
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
OMG what have I done
Other camera people feel free to help da' bunny
Any photography question huh?
Ok. So I'm shooting with a Cambo 45 Legend and I'm trying to get Tmax 100 tested for proper exposure index. I'm using a Nikkor 210mm 5.6 with bellows focus set to 8 inches. For the testing I'm photographing a white board illuminted with two tungsten modeling lamp (100watts each). I metered the board for even illumination and it gives me a reading of f/5.6 @ 1/125. How do I make an exposure for Zone I for each ISO. I need to shoot two stops under and one stop over the indicated speed on the box in 1/3 increments.
Any help would be greatly appreciated
f/8 and be there... hahaha
At 8 inches on that format the dof would be, what, a millionth of an inch?
I picked up one of those ancient 'film' cameras that was set up for macro.
I've shot a few rolls through it- it definitely needs a good tripod!
Where would I find a tripod that has some forward and back adjustment? The depth of field is very, very shallow, just moving the tripod would be unworkable..
Originally posted by: DurocShark
(snip)
Ugh, ringflash.
You just need a "Macro Slider". Google it.
Thank you, I'm on it now.
And the ringflash really does work well, for the stuff I've been shooting- model figures at under 1/2" need the ring. It does have a box flash as well but I've not gotten good results with it.
(edit) %#@! Don't these people realize that I'm a cheap bastard?
Anyone know where I might find these for significantly under $100? eBay has them for $45 plus a special noobs-won't-notice-the-shipping rate of another $40. Amazon has them for $75. Alas, I don't have that kind of unallocated money right now.
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
See, that's what I thought too! But apparently someone said that in real life, in-camera IS works quite well for telephoto lenses too. Apparently there are some people on dpreview who had a discussion about this, with their own personal experiences.
Regardless, I'd still rather have in-camera IS, even with a relatively shorter lens, than no IS at all. Sometimes I wish I could solidly handhold my 50mm at 1/10s and longer, without having to resort to using a wider aperture or upping the ISO.
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Originally posted by: Biggerhammer
Originally posted by: DurocShark
(snip)
Ugh, ringflash.
You just need a "Macro Slider". Google it.
Thank you, I'm on it now.
And the ringflash really does work well, for the stuff I've been shooting- model figures at under 1/2" need the ring. It does have a box flash as well but I've not gotten good results with it.
(edit) %#@! Don't these people realize that I'm a cheap bastard?
Anyone know where I might find these for significantly under $100? eBay has them for $45 plus a special noobs-won't-notice-the-shipping rate of another $40. Amazon has them for $75. Alas, I don't have that kind of unallocated money right now.
I'm afraid you may be out of luck finding a good focusing rail for under $100. $100 is already really cheap for a rail. Welcome to photography, where everything's mucho $$$. Wait until you get into beefier tripods and ballheads.
What you may not know is that the vast majority of people do not shoot macro with a tripod. We instead just focus by moving the camera in and out, and shoot off a shot when the subject gets in focus. This requires at least a 1/200s shutter speed in my experience, so an external flash with an off-camera cord or a ringflash helps tremendously if it's not bright out. This method also offers you much more mobility.
I used to use my tripod for macro work, but after using the handholding method I've switched almost completely over.
Now, you WILL find a focusing rail handy for things that are magnified higher than 2x, because at these magnifications it's really hard to precisely adjust focus with less than a millimeter of DOF. I've been able to shoot sharp shots handheld at 5x-7x, but basically out of luck and shooting as many shots as I can.
Thank you, Fuzzy. I'd hoped to hear of a cheap source, of course, but knowing the truth of the matter is better. I'll start saving up.
In my (limited) experience with this camera, hand-held would get me two or three acceptable shots per roll, if that. This thing will happily focus at 3" and less from the lens. Depth of field is microscopic, and shutter time long... with a substantial lens like this, camera shake eats film too. I may wind up getting a secondary flood flash to augment the ring- that'll let me shoot shorter shutter times and also soften the details a bit.
So, I'll start saving. Thank you both/all for the advice.
In my (limited) experience with this camera, hand-held would get me two or three acceptable shots per roll, if that. This thing will happily focus at 3" and less from the lens. Depth of field is microscopic, and shutter time long... with a substantial lens like this, camera shake eats film too. I may wind up getting a secondary flood flash to augment the ring- that'll let me shoot shorter shutter times and also soften the details a bit.
So, I'll start saving. Thank you both/all for the advice.
This is my second favorite:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=193311
I have that slider and love it. $100. I also have a tiny no-name one that I keep when I need to pack light.
Then my very favorite:
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/ and get the B150-B Macro Focusing Rail. But it's $300. I got to play with one once. It's a pleasure to use.
Just watch eBay and any local used camera stores. I picked up my no-name one for $15.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control...?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=193311
I have that slider and love it. $100. I also have a tiny no-name one that I keep when I need to pack light.
Then my very favorite:
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/ and get the B150-B Macro Focusing Rail. But it's $300. I got to play with one once. It's a pleasure to use.
Just watch eBay and any local used camera stores. I picked up my no-name one for $15.
because that's pretty much a feature of SLR cameras. why do you need RAW? to adjust a WB on an auto camera?
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Originally posted by: tami
because that's pretty much a feature of SLR cameras. why do you need RAW? to adjust a WB on an auto camera?
I would certainly enjoy RAW on a P&S as a lighter and more portable alternative to my DSLR, that can take good photos in a pinch. For people with camera know-how who take their photography seriously the absence of RAW is a huge drawback.
I don't understand your "to adjust a WB on an auto camera" comment. Not sure what it has to do with RAW, or 80% of P&S's which have manual controls...
I think the two biggest reasons P&S cameras don't have RAW is because:
1. Internal bandwidth and image cache memory is too small on a P&S. There is not enough space in the buffer to shoot RAW quickly, and it takes a LONG time to write a single RAW file to memory due to bandwidth issues.
2. The VAST majority of P&S owners never use RAW, or even know what it is or its benefits, and camera makers know this. They don't see the point in putting more money into a feature that only 5% of people are going to use, versus not putting in the feature and selling the camera for the same price as a RAW-capable camera.
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Macro + Film is hard if you're considering film costs
Most of the time shooting macro, the problem is not motion blur, but mis-focus, and not because *I* mis-focused, but because the bug moves or the flower moves or everything moves because of wind. So even if you have 1/2000s of a shutter speed at f/32, movement of your subject is still a very big threat.
The problem with a macro rail is that it's clunky, and if your subject moves it's hard to follow it with a focusing rail + tripod + ballhead attached to your camera.
lozina
Lifer
- Sep 10, 2001
- 11,711
- 8
- 81
Here's a question: how can I take a nice nice shot photo using my Canon A700 (P&S type camera) ? Using the night shot specific modes offered result in either extremely grainy picture or blurring. I just want a photo of like city lights from a distance or something, so mostly black- but I want the lights to come out sharp and bright, not blurry and hazy
Fortunately for me, my subjects are N-scale model railroad figures and rolling stock. It moves when I tell it to, not beforeOriginally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Macro + Film is hard if you're considering film costs
Most of the time shooting macro, the problem is not motion blur, but mis-focus, and not because *I* mis-focused, but because the bug moves or the flower moves or everything moves because of wind. So even if you have 1/2000s of a shutter speed at f/32, movement of your subject is still a very big threat.
The problem with a macro rail is that it's clunky, and if your subject moves it's hard to follow it with a focusing rail + tripod + ballhead attached to your camera.
Shooting a moving target with such a narrow depth of focus... if I want that kind of frustration I'll take up cat herding!
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: tami
because that's pretty much a feature of SLR cameras. why do you need RAW? to adjust a WB on an auto camera?
I would certainly enjoy RAW on a P&S as a lighter and more portable alternative to my DSLR, that can take good photos in a pinch. For people with camera know-how who take their photography seriously the absence of RAW is a huge drawback.
I don't understand your "to adjust a WB on an auto camera" comment. Not sure what it has to do with RAW, or 80% of P&S's which have manual controls...
I think the two biggest reasons P&S cameras don't have RAW is because:
1. Internal bandwidth and image cache memory is too small on a P&S. There is not enough space in the buffer to shoot RAW quickly, and it takes a LONG time to write a single RAW file to memory due to bandwidth issues.
2. The VAST majority of P&S owners never use RAW, or even know what it is or its benefits, and camera makers know this. They don't see the point in putting more money into a feature that only 5% of people are going to use, versus not putting in the feature and selling the camera for the same price as a RAW-capable camera.
i was referring to "auto cameras" as in cameras without manual controls (e.g. canon powershot s500), in which case we're in 100% agreement.
so fuzzywuzzystrawberry, my questions to you...
1. outstanding question #1: why are you using a canon and not a nikon?
2. what's with the strawberries anyway? i was looking for this question and searching for RAW in my post, and i ended up finding your eleventy billion strawberry shrieks.
oh, and are you a girl?
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Yay!
1. At the time there was a really good deal from Dell on the XT, and I was really hankering to move up to a DSLR, so I bought it. At this point I knew absolutely nothing about DSLRs, but I had heard that the XT had less noise at high ISO than the Nikon equivalent, more megapixels, and for me, smaller was better. Add this to the Dell deal, and it was the Canon.
I'm really not a fanbunny either way. I have no problem recommending either brand, but now that I've got a range of Canon lenses, I'm afraid I'm kinda stuck in the Canon camp, unless some other manufacturor makes a way better camera. I'm actually quite interested in Pentax. If they can make a camera with built in IS, at least 8MP, a low-noise sensor, a mirror lock-up buttom, ISO-priority, a large, bright viewfinder, good UI, good fps, fast and numerous autofocus points, and excellent image quality, I'll probably switch. They're already partway there. This goes for any camera manufacturor.
2. OMG strawberries are sooooooooo good! So are blackberries and raspberries! I like to mix the latter into my cereal in the mornings, and I like to nibble on strawberries, the small and sweet ones, not the big big ones. I once ate so many strawberries that I got really really sick and I had to pass out
I'm a baby! Unfortunately, I don't have any pics of myself, and I'm content in remaining an enigma, albeit a fuzzy one
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Originally posted by: tami
do you know anything about the d80? huh huh?!
It looks like it's gonna be a great camera! I'd certainly recommend it over the XTi, which IMO is a step down from the XT
If the image sensor is as low-noise as the Canon, I'd recommend it over the 20D and 30D.
Of course price needs to be factored in. It'll be hard to recommend the D80 @ $1000 if the XTi is @ $700 or below, but it's certainly easy IMO to recommend the D80 over the 20D or 30D.
Still not enough to convert current Canon users though who have too much money invested in lenses.
I have a Rebel XT. I have a prospective buyer at a price point where it'd only cost me about $100 to upgrade to the XTi.
Why do you consider it a downgrade and should I do it?
Why do you consider it a downgrade and should I do it?
Anubis
No Lifer
- Jan 2, 2006
- 10,455
- 35
- 91
Ehh.... the new sensor is nice and all, and so is the ultrasonic anti-dust thing and larger buffer, but IMO some of the "improvements" have gone kinda backwards.
Getting rid of the small status LCD panel IMO was a big mistake
Keeping the small and dim viewfinder instead of replacing it with a higher quality pentaprism (like every other DSLR has) was also a mistake.
The above two really irk me for some reason, but I admit that I'm in the minority. Getting an upgrade for only $100 seems like a good deal, so I would go with it, as long as you can live with the loss of the small status LCD and the same stupid viewfinder.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter