Ok so when are we going to see this ~$4000 dSLR kit?

[pianoplayer88key]

No, I'm no where near ready to buy one (and might not be for a few years, but I wish it was sooner), but if I was looking for a dSLR in that price range, this is something like what I'd be looking for:

Body: mirrorless design, vertical grip not built in
Sensor: 36x24mm (and NOT one plagued by the jello effect when rapidly panning movies)
Max Resolution: 8mp (3456x2304) minimum, let's say 32mp (6912x4608) maximum
Continuous Shooting Speed: at least 4fps full-resolution RAW, faster (to same kbyte/sec rate) when shooting JPG or at lower resolutions, with full autofocus and live view
LCD: 3" flip-out-and-twist 960x540x3color
Movie: 1920x1080p 60fps HD movie recording with full autofocus like Panasonic GH1, NOT limited to 4GB/clip
Card Slot: dual SDXC (also SDHC and SD compatible, and UDMA)
ISO: 51200 or 102400 max in full resolution, maybe up to 409600 or 819200 at 2 or 3mp (with ability in settings to allow that ultra-high ISO to be used in full resolution, just with the expectation that it'll be quite noisy)
Flash: Built-in pop-up flash, also hot-shoe
Kit Lens: 24-400mm F/2.8-4.5 IS (could be a Sigma/Tamron/Tokina lens), also 50mm F/1.4 Macro IS pancake

It looks like we're starting to get close to that.... we're just missing the full-frame mirrorless camera, the 24-400mm lens, the 50/1.4 pancake, still have jello in movies and 4gb/clip limit.... Should I check back in 2011 or 2012?

[Rooz]

mirrorless dslr is compeltely and utterly pointless. i refuse to trade in my wonderful OVF for a substandard EVF for the sake of a few mm's and a couple of hundred grams.

a mirrorless dslr still wont fit in your pocket so whats the point ?

[FLiPMaRC]

Here we go again! LOL! :D

How long and how many threads this time before you get a DSLR? :D:p

[Visual Reality]

You really want a 3 color LCD?

[pianoplayer88key]

mirrorless dslr is compeltely and utterly pointless. i refuse to trade in my wonderful OVF for a substandard EVF for the sake of a few mm's and a couple of hundred grams.

a mirrorless dslr still wont fit in your pocket so whats the point ?

The point is to make the thing SHUT THE £¥¢€ UP when I take a picture, hence the absence of "mirror slap". And I'm with you - I'd rather have an OVF than an EVF, too, but I also want a dSLR that's as quiet as my p&s (with all its sounds muted). Now, if I could do a mirror lockup + liveview shoot, that might be a way to get around it...


Here we go again! LOL! :D

How long and how many threads this time before you get a DSLR? :D:p

I'm not in the market for one yet. I'm currently using a Canon SX10 (and the SX1 is too high priced / not enough of an upgrade to warrant my purchase). This isn't my "what DSLR should I buy" thread, and that's probably not coming till at least 2010 or later. And, at the rate my budget's currently going, it'll be year 10000 before I'm able to afford a dSLR!


You really want a 3 color LCD?

I don't mean 3 color in that sense... I mean I want to be sure it has full RGB color information at each pixel, not one color per pixel like the sensor has.

[mattdm]

I think the high ISO figures given are a pipe dream until there's some actual revolutions in sensor design. Likewise, I think it's inevitable that electronic viewfinders will replace glass, since there's so many potential advantages. It'll happen at the low end first (micro 4/3rds), but eventually the technology will catch up to optics — stress on the eventually.

In the time leading up to those "eventuallys", we'll probably see several products approaching the above specs reach the market, because it's pretty obvious they'd sell a lot of 'em, regardless of whether they'd actually be great tools for photography. (That's basically beside the point.)

[cdifoto]

The point is to make the thing SHUT THE £¥¢€ UP when I take a picture, hence the absence of "mirror slap". And I'm with you - I'd rather have an OVF than an EVF, too, but I also want a dSLR that's as quiet as my p&s (with all its sounds muted). Now, if I could do a mirror lockup + liveview shoot, that might be a way to get around it...
You need a digital rangefinder then. Leica makes an M8 but it doesn't have any of that other crap you also want.

[mattdm]

You need a digital rangefinder then.

It's a little weird to me that besides the Leica the only option is Epson's puzzlingly featured and overpriced R-D1x. Seems like there would be a market for a good $800-1000 rangefinder. (At least until the technology improves as mentioned above.)

[cdifoto]

If Canon made a rangefinder with EF mount I'd be all over it. It'd be perfect for weddings.

[Screenclutter]

ISO: 51200 or 102400 max in full resolution, maybe up to 409600 or 819200 at 2 or 3mp (with ability in settings to allow that ultra-high ISO to be used in full resolution, just with the expectation that it'll be quite noisy)


From what I understand on Thom Hogan's site, higher ISOs lead to less dynamic range and loss of detail in addition to noise, so this may be pointless.



Should I check back in 2011 or 2012?

I'd say a few years past this, but I don't think these specs are what people are looking for, or at least I'm not. What's wrong with what is out there right now? There are lots of great photos being taken with what we have.

[TheWengler]

When will you stop making these threads? Even if that was available, you'd still demand something twice as good at half the cost.

[Rooz]

Now, if I could do a mirror lockup + liveview shoot, that might be a way to get around it.

i think thats the way the sony LV works in their current dslr's.

[Turo]

You forgot the bluray player, to go along with the flip-out-and-twist lcd.

[Csae]

Even without a mirroir, the shutter will still make some noise, and i'd rather not remove that because its there for obvious protection reasons.

That being said, i have never had anything against the noise my camera makes, i absolutely adore it, i liked the sound of a d200 better, dunno if the d300/d700 sound anything like that, but i still like the shutter sound of my 5d.

Sure in a wedding/church that might not be ideal, but you could always get sound dampening kits/bodys to reduce that, and some of the newer cameras have quieter modes that help a bit with that. The only other need for it would be animals.

Shutter sounds can become hypnotic in a studio setting : D you're like one of those guys with the snakes, but instead you have a model.

[cdifoto]

Sure in a wedding/church that might not be ideal, but you could always get sound dampening kits/bodys to reduce that, and some of the newer cameras have quieter modes that help a bit with that. The only other need for it would be animals.
Have you actually seen or priced a dampening kit aka Blimp? Now, the pricing may not be that bad compared to a $4,000 camera. BUT can you imagine actually moving around a church with one?

http://www.sound-blimp.com

Without the camera, it weighs 3lbs.

http://www.sound-blimp.com/images/CDig3.2.jpg

[achuang]

Just stop the crap with these outrageous design expectations of ISO 400,000+, ridiculous kit lens designs. Maybe someday they'll make a camera with these specs but it's just not going to happen today, and especially not for that price point. Just go buy a camera and live with the limitations that we all have to deal with in the current lot of cameras. I'm still using a D70s from over 3 years ago, and any current DSLR out now beats it in every way. You don't hear me complaining about it. If you had just bought a camera many years ago when you started posting these threads you would have thousands of decent images. Waiting for the next best thing to come out is a big mistake. An expensive top of the line camera can't produce photos of past experiences.

[cdifoto]

I'm still using a D70s from over 3 years ago, and any current DSLR out now beats it in every way. You don't hear me complaining about it.
Good for you! :D

(no sarcasm)

PS: My newest dSLR is from 2004. I'm not limited by it; it's limited by me. A woman I assist every so often also shoots with "old tech" - she's using two Nikon D200s and you know what? Her images are beautiful.

[Csae]

http://www.sound-blimp.com/images/CDig3.2.jpg


Hahahaha! No, no i hadn't seen those things but thats brilliant.





Is it bomb proof?

[TheWengler]

An expensive top of the line camera can't produce photos of past experiences.

Not yet anyway. Better add that to the wish list piano man.

[K1W1]

I just want a camera like device that will record the image as seen by my eye and then allow me to simply transfer the image to the Internet via thought.

Let's see who gets their wish first.

[cdifoto]

I just want a camera like device that will record the image as seen by my eye and then allow me to simply transfer the image to the Internet via thought.

Let's see who gets their wish first.
I second this. Except I don't want to have to think. Or look.

[David Metsky]

Just go buy a camera and live with the limitations that we all have to deal with in the current lot of cameras.
He did buy one (a Canon SX1, IIRC). Apparently it didn't help. :D

[Rhys]

Or just go and get the Leica S1 :p

[pianoplayer88key]

I think the high ISO figures given are a pipe dream until there's some actual revolutions in sensor design. Likewise, I think it's inevitable that electronic viewfinders will replace glass, since there's so many potential advantages. It'll happen at the low end first (micro 4/3rds), but eventually the technology will catch up to optics — stress on the eventually.

In the time leading up to those "eventuallys", we'll probably see several products approaching the above specs reach the market, because it's pretty obvious they'd sell a lot of 'em, regardless of whether they'd actually be great tools for photography. (That's basically beside the point.)
Hopefully those high ISOs will be available in a few years. ISO 25600 and F/1.4 is a definite improvement over where we were a couple years ago, but it's still not good enough for taking a 1/500" shot at EV-6 and having it look almost like daylight, with comparable noise to what 12800 or 25600 on the Nikon D3/D700 looks like now.


From what I understand on Thom Hogan's site, higher ISOs lead to less dynamic range and loss of detail in addition to noise, so this may be pointless.

I'd say a few years past this, but I don't think these specs are what people are looking for, or at least I'm not. What's wrong with what is out there right now? There are lots of great photos being taken with what we have.
If that's the case, what equipment would be used to take a 1/500" exposure at EV-6, have it almost look like daylight, not have a paper-thin DOF, and be no noisier at 8mp than a Nikon D3/D700 at ISO 12800?


When will you stop making these threads? Even if that was available, you'd still demand something twice as good at half the cost.
I just think that camera technology isn't evolving fast enough, that's all. The Canon SX10 IS I bought, for example, is what a Canon S1.5 IS should have been.


You forgot the bluray player, to go along with the flip-out-and-twist lcd.
But wouldn't that add another $1k to the cost, and several cm each direction to the bulk?


Even without a mirror, the shutter will still make some noise, and i'd rather not remove that because its there for obvious protection reasons.
Actually the shutter on my SX10 is pretty quiet. Sure I can hear it, but it's nothing like hearing the mirror flapping when doing burst mode in DX crop mode on the D3! You try shooting a baby in its crib with a macro lens attached to that and you're sure to wake him/her up!


That being said, i have never had anything against the noise my camera makes, i absolutely adore it, i liked the sound of a d200 better, dunno if the d300/d700 sound anything like that, but i still like the shutter sound of my 5d.
Yes, I actually personally like the sound of the mirror slap on a dSLR, but there are times I want it silenced so as not to so readily reveal the camera's presence. Sure if it's broad daylight people will obviously be able to see that I'm holding a camera, and it'll be less of an issue then. However I still may want to turn it off due to the totally random nature of which I time my shutter button presses, and the fact that I often would use continuous shooting mode.


Sure in a wedding/church that might not be ideal, but you could always get sound dampening kits/bodys to reduce that, and some of the newer cameras have quieter modes that help a bit with that. The only other need for it would be animals.
Those types of situations would be places I would use that type of camera in a lot.


Just stop the crap with these outrageous design expectations of ISO 400,000+, ridiculous kit lens designs. Maybe someday they'll make a camera with these specs but it's just not going to happen today, and especially not for that price point. Just go buy a camera and live with the limitations that we all have to deal with in the current lot of cameras. I'm still using a D70s from over 3 years ago, and any current DSLR out now beats it in every way. You don't hear me complaining about it. If you had just bought a camera many years ago when you started posting these threads you would have thousands of decent images. Waiting for the next best thing to come out is a big mistake. An expensive top of the line camera can't produce photos of past experiences.
I didn't say I expect it today. I was hoping around 2011 or 2012 we'd be coming close. I already have a camera, and I know its limitations. I seem to have difficulty taking non-flash shots at EV-6 with a fairly fast (1/500") shutter speed, having them look almost as bright as day, and being no noisier than 12800 ISO on the Nikon D3/D700.


Good for you! :D

(no sarcasm)

PS: My newest dSLR is from 2004. I'm not limited by it; it's limited by me. A woman I assist every so often also shoots with "old tech" - she's using two Nikon D200s and you know what? Her images are beautiful.
How are the night-time no-flash action shots with that camera, expecially the ones exposed bright enough so the sky looks blue almost like daylight?


Not yet anyway. Better add that to the wish list piano man.
While I might like a dSLR to be able to take a lot of abuse... to have it bomb proof would probably be a moot point, as while maybe the camera might be able to survive a direct hit from a hypernova, I don't expect I would.


I just want a camera like device that will record the image as seen by my eye and then allow me to simply transfer the image to the Internet via thought.

Let's see who gets their wish first.
Well... actually I'd almost like something like that as a walk-about novelty... except it'd be more based on the lifecasting webcams that some people have carried around. I would just change the settings, though, to continuously record (with something like a 36mm to 45mm equivalent focal length,) 2mp/frame (on no smaller than a 1/1.8" sensor) at 6-8fps, running through a 2GB buffer constantly, and if you see something interesting (the camera lens is pointed where you're looking, but worn on the side of your head), push a button on the remote and it empties the buffer to one of the SDHC cards that are plugged in.


He did buy one (a Canon SX1, IIRC). Apparently it didn't help. :D
Yes, it did help. I just know there's some limitations, and I knew that when I bought it.


============================


Also.... I won't be in the market for this caliber dSLR for at least a few years. If I was getting one now (not that I can afford one), I'd probably be getting something like the Rebel 500D when it comes out, or the 5D Mark II.

Also, another thing I'd like to know is why haven't lens prices (relative to their features & optic + build quality) come down in the same way that prices of bodies have dropped in the last 5 years or so? For example, several years ago a dSLR that cost $x might have 6mp, top out at ISO 1600, have no live view, but now the same $ gets you 15mp, live view, ISO 12800, etc. Likewise with lenses, whereas then you might get a 28-80mm F/3.5-5.6 for $x then, for the same $ now you should be able to get a 24-105mm F/2.8L IS. What gives?

[David Metsky]

What gives?
Glass is still glass. Advances in electronics are of limited benefit to lens design.

[TheWengler]

Lens technology isn't advancing like the bodies are. Also, manufacturers expect you to replace your camera body more often than your lenses.

[mattdm]

If that's the case, what equipment would be used to take a 1/500" exposure at EV-6, have it almost look like daylight, not have a paper-thin DOF, and be no noisier at 8mp than a Nikon D3/D700 at ISO 12800?


EV of negative 6 is basically starlight in the wilderness. With no moon. That's pretty dark. It'd be cool to have a camera able to take fast shots in that lighting (never mind with low noise), but it seems like a very strange benchmark. Especially since you want the result to look much, much brighter than the eye would see it.

[David Metsky]

I just think that camera technology isn't evolving fast enough, that's all. The Canon SX10 IS I bought, for example, is what a Canon S1.5 IS should have been.
As we've shown over the past few years, you have a very poor grasp of the realities of camera development and economics. It's pointless to have this discussion with you when you don't appear to learn from your past mistakes, nor do you appear to have any desire to learn.

[cdifoto]

How are the night-time no-flash action shots with that camera, expecially the ones exposed bright enough so the sky looks blue almost like daylight?
What night-time no-flash action shots? Who shoots those? What action happens in the pitch black anyway, let alone that you can see to track and shoot with a camera?

[Rooz]

What night-time no-flash action shots? Who shoots those? What action happens in the pitch black anyway, let alone that you can see to track and shoot with a camera?

exactly what i've asked before. wtf are you doing in the dead of night in pitch black taking a photo that requires it to look like broad daylight ? heres a novel idea...if you want it to look like broad daylight...shoot in broad daylight.

[pianoplayer88key]

If an owl or an eagle can see it, I want to be able to take a picture of it if I spend >$2000 on a DSLR. :)

[mattdm]

exactly what i've asked before. wtf are you doing in the dead of night in pitch black taking a photo that requires it to look like broad daylight ? heres a novel idea...if you want it to look like broad daylight...shoot in broad daylight.

Or, get some lights.

The scenario suggested above requires something like ISO 100 million. I don't know if there's actually physically enough photons to do that.

[Rooz]

If an owl or an eagle can see it, I want to be able to take a picture of it if I spend >$2000 on a DSLR. :)

yeah...sounds logical. :rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

If an owl or an eagle can see it, I want to be able to take a picture of it if I spend >$2000 on a DSLR. :)
Just because an owl or eagle can see it doesn't mean you can. If you can't see it, you can't shoot it, because you don't know where it is.

[Rooz]

Just because an owl or eagle can see it doesn't mean you can. If you can't see it, you can't shoot it, because you don't know where it is.

thats where his iso10,000 bionic eyes come in.

[K1W1]

Well... actually I'd almost like something like that as a walk-about novelty... except it'd be more based on the lifecasting webcams that some people have carried around. I would just change the settings, though, to continuously record (with something like a 36mm to 45mm equivalent focal length,) 2mp/frame (on no smaller than a 1/1.8" sensor) at 6-8fps, running through a 2GB buffer constantly, and if you see something interesting (the camera lens is pointed where you're looking, but worn on the side of your head), push a button on the remote and it empties the buffer to one of the SDHC cards that are plugged in.

You totally missed the point just like all the shots you have missed by posting silly wish lists instead of using the tools actually
available to you and going and taking photographs.

[mattdm]

If an owl or an eagle can see it, I want to be able to take a picture of it if I spend >$2000 on a DSLR. :)

Eagles don't have very good night vision, and while their sight is good in general it's only four or five times sharper than human vision. That's a lot, but you can certainly beat it with a less-than-$2000 dSLR setup.

The kinds of owls with the best night vision have eyes about 100× more sensitive to light than human eyes. I've seen references to human eye being about ISO 800, so cameras have a ways to go on that. But keep in mind that this is grayscale only, and is certainly very noisy. Biological eyes are terrible optics, and the really only amazing thing about retinas as sensors is their dynamic range. The brain does all the real work in "post-processing". So, I don't think we're actually that far off.

[achuang]

Who the hell plays sport in EV-6 light (as if you'd be able to see anything). And why would you even want to take pictures of them. There's not enough contrast at that level of low light to AF. So you magically want to manually focus on something that you can't see. Why would you shoot at 1/500 in low light? This is taking the (I'm a natural light photographer to a whole new level). Besides being very little light at Ev-6, that light is crap. This is the whole point of flash, make your own nice looking light.

[pianoplayer88key]

Ok, then rather have the camera be capable of shooting at ultra fast shutter speeds in pitch darkness...

How about some off-camera lighting that isn't directly attached to the camera, and stays on all the time (i.e. is not triggered by the camera)
Criteria for lighting:
Makes the general area (let's say about the size of an average 1/2-acre backyard or a little smaller) where the event is bright enough so that a shutter speed of 1/1000" to 2000", the lowest ISO setting on the camera being used, and stopping down the lens to about one stop more open than its smallest available aperture (whether it's a p&s or a dSLR) gives a normal daylight-like exposure.
uses multiple light sources, so each individual source doesn't have to be so bright that you can't look directly at it with your naked eye
preferably doesn't cost more than a couple thousand $

Would getting good off-camera lighting be more reasonable than trying to find a dSLR that can take pictures in the dark at ultra-fast shutter speeds? I also would think an added benefit of such lighting would be that anyone's camera, from cell phones to full-frame dSLRs, could benefit from it.

[Rooz]

lmfaooooooooooooooo
oh man...too funny. laughing so hard right now i think i might vomit...

[TheObiJuan]

This weirdo reminds me of RAZR.
What a waste of forum space.

[devin]

http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg

[D Thompson]

I nominate this thread for the stupidest f*ing thread of the year and that's saying something compared to a few other threads that could fall into this category. :rolleyes:

[mattdm]

pianoplayer88key, it sounds like you have a specific need in mind. Or is this just a thought exercise?

If it's the former, have you considered strobes? Since the burst of light can be so short, they have an inherent motion-freezing power (even higher than the fastest shutter speeds, in the right conditions). And, since this is apparently a night activity, using trailing curtain sync and other such techniques would allow one to keep a feel for the ambient darkness.

And if it's the latter, why on earth this particular target?

[Screenclutter]

Ok, then rather have the camera be capable of shooting at ultra fast shutter speeds in pitch darkness...

How about some off-camera lighting that isn't directly attached to the camera, and stays on all the time (i.e. is not triggered by the camera)
Criteria for lighting:
Makes the general area (let's say about the size of an average 1/2-acre backyard or a little smaller) where the event is bright enough so that a shutter speed of 1/1000" to 2000", the lowest ISO setting on the camera being used, and stopping down the lens to about one stop more open than its smallest available aperture (whether it's a p&s or a dSLR) gives a normal daylight-like exposure

You are looking for lights that are as bright and as powerful as the outdoor sun? Even if such lights did exist, they would not exactly be portable, and their energy/power demands would be enough to satisfy a whole neighbourhood I would think.

[David Metsky]

pianoplayer88key, it sounds like you have a specific need in mind. Or is this just a thought exercise?
I really don't think a lot of thought was involved here. :) Check his posting history.

[Csae]

You are looking for lights that are as bright and as powerful as the outdoor sun? Even if such lights did exist, they would not exactly be portable, and their energy/power demands would be enough to satisfy a whole neighbourhood I would think.


Not true, because the sun burns constantly and has to emit its light over such a huge distance.

In practice, getting a light much stronger then natural light is quite easily achievable, mostly because of the reduced distance.

[fionndruinne]

To the OP, this is utterly ridiculous. You've gotten so lost in spec-land that you've lost your grasp on the actual process of taking pictures. There is no way to avoid being limited in your opportunities of taking photos, nor is this a bad thing! In learning to deal with the limitations of your equipment (given that those limitations are practicable, eg any modern DSLR, not say a five-year-old p&s), you'll actually grow better at what you can do than if your options were infinite. It's called focus.

And stop expecting the impossible from a camera. Lenses are still more important than bodies - you want low light functionality, get a large aperture lens. High ISOs help, but that's not the ideal way to operate. Just go get yourself a D90 body and a 35mm f/1.8 AF-S and get a realistic idea of how to use a DSLR and what to expect from it by actually using it.

[FLiPMaRC]

From my perspective, he is concentrating more on the tools. Thinking he can get what he wants if he throws enough money at it.

I also think there's medication involved. Either lack of it, or too much ... LOL!

[cdifoto]

I also think there's medication involved. Either lack of it, or too much ... LOL!
Yeah it's an ointment.

[pianoplayer88key]

Not true, because the sun burns constantly and has to emit its light over such a huge distance.

In practice, getting a light much stronger then natural light is quite easily achievable, mostly because of the reduced distance.

That's what I was thinking. I probably would have the light source no more than about 30 feet from the subject being photographed most of the time, maybe as much as 50 feet or so.
My concern, though, is having the light source nearly blind someone when they look directly at it. If I used multiple lights spread around the yard, would each individual light not have to be nearly so bright, but still be able to collectively light up the yard as bright as with one super bright light?


And stop expecting the impossible from a camera. Lenses are still more important than bodies - you want low light functionality, get a large aperture lens. High ISOs help, but that's not the ideal way to operate. Just go get yourself a D90 body and a 35mm f/1.8 AF-S and get a realistic idea of how to use a DSLR and what to expect from it by actually using it.
There's still a limit to how fast of a lens you can get. Canon makes a 50mm F/1.2, which AFAIK is the fastest lens currently available. They used to make a F/1.0, but it's so much more expensive and only gets 1/2 stop more light gathering ability. I've heard that it's theoretically possible to get F/0.5, but no one that I know of has ever made one, and even if they did I'd expect a 50mm F/0.5 to cost around $50,000. Also the DOF of said lens would be extremely thin, and would not lend itself very well to group photography of an entire ballfield. (Not that anyone plays baseball/football in the dark like that, but I have played games indoors that were designed to be played in the dark. Photographing said games in full color without flash would be nice. I know full color is possible with enough light gathering ability, as I can get full color, albeit very noisy, images under moonlight with my SX10 at 15", ISO 1600, F/2.8.)
Based on what's currently available, the fastest I could currently get, not counting using negative exposure compensation, would be ISO 25600 at F/1.4 (rounding up to the next available whole-stop increment). At a 1/500" shutter speed, that would enable me to shoot in EV2, which is still 8 stops too bright. With an aforementioned F/0.5 lens, to get the same shutter speed at EV-6 (starlight, no moon in a wilderness, and while I'm at it what would be the typical EV value at the floor of a forest with a thick tree cover, with the lighting outside the forest being EV-6? Or what's the typical EV value in an enclosed room, like a pantry, with no windows, the door closed, lights off, and the only light coming from a LED like an operation light from some electronic device?) I'd have to have an ISO of 819200.
So I see what you guys are saying about my wishlist for a camera that can take pictures in near pitch blackness being a little ridiculous... which is one reason why I'm changing my focus to off-camera lighting. (But that still doesn't solve the issue of wanting the subject, who you want to CANDIDLY photograph, to NOT be able to see the camera even when s/he's looking right at it.)

To the rest.... no comment.

[devin]

No offense, but do yourself a favor and:

1) Turn off the computer
2) Go outside
3) Take some damn PICTURES

[cdifoto]

That's what I was thinking. I probably would have the light source no more than about 30 feet from the subject being photographed most of the time, maybe as much as 50 feet or so.
My concern, though, is having the light source nearly blind someone when they look directly at it. If I used multiple lights spread around the yard, would each individual light not have to be nearly so bright, but still be able to collectively light up the yard as bright as with one super bright light?


There's still a limit to how fast of a lens you can get. Canon makes a 50mm F/1.2, which AFAIK is the fastest lens currently available. They used to make a F/1.0, but it's so much more expensive and only gets 1/2 stop more light gathering ability. I've heard that it's theoretically possible to get F/0.5, but no one that I know of has ever made one, and even if they did I'd expect a 50mm F/0.5 to cost around $50,000. Also the DOF of said lens would be extremely thin, and would not lend itself very well to group photography of an entire ballfield. (Not that anyone plays baseball/football in the dark like that, but I have played games indoors that were designed to be played in the dark. Photographing said games in full color without flash would be nice. I know full color is possible with enough light gathering ability, as I can get full color, albeit very noisy, images under moonlight with my SX10 at 15", ISO 1600, F/2.8.)
Based on what's currently available, the fastest I could currently get, not counting using negative exposure compensation, would be ISO 25600 at F/1.4 (rounding up to the next available whole-stop increment). At a 1/500" shutter speed, that would enable me to shoot in EV2, which is still 8 stops too bright. With an aforementioned F/0.5 lens, to get the same shutter speed at EV-6 (starlight, no moon in a wilderness, and while I'm at it what would be the typical EV value at the floor of a forest with a thick tree cover, with the lighting outside the forest being EV-6? Or what's the typical EV value in an enclosed room, like a pantry, with no windows, the door closed, lights off, and the only light coming from a LED like an operation light from some electronic device?) I'd have to have an ISO of 819200.
So I see what you guys are saying about my wishlist for a camera that can take pictures in near pitch blackness being a little ridiculous... which is one reason why I'm changing my focus to off-camera lighting. (But that still doesn't solve the issue of wanting the subject, who you want to CANDIDLY photograph, to NOT be able to see the camera even when s/he's looking right at it.)

To the rest.... no comment.
Do you know what photography means?

Photography means, literally, "writing with light".

When you don't have light, you can't write with light. If you need light, add it. If you can't add it, wait for it.

[Screenclutter]

Not true, because the sun burns constantly and has to emit its light over such a huge distance.

In practice, getting a light much stronger then natural light is quite easily achievable, mostly because of the reduced distance.

Yeah, but he mentioned he wanted to illuminate a half acre.

[Rhys]

Not true, because the sun burns constantly and has to emit its light over such a huge distance.

In practice, getting a light much stronger then natural light is quite easily achievable, mostly because of the reduced distance.

Maybe we could put a reflector behind the sun :p

[fionndruinne]

Have you ever used an f/1.0 lens? Guess what, you don't need to. Realistic photographic opportunities will almost all fall within the range of a good current-gen camera like the D90 with an f/1.8 lens. As for the .001% that don't, they're not nearly as important as you're making them out to be. If you could shoot that .001%, you'd soon grow tired of it, because of how small a margin of photographic opportunity it is, and whatever sci-fi equipment you got to capture it would mildew, while the realistic sub-$1500 setup that could capture the other 99.999% in some way would be worn out long before it would cease to be relevant in the act of recording photos.

[Nickcanada]

If Canon made a rangefinder with EF mount I'd be all over it. It'd be perfect for weddings.

Seriously? what would be the advantage?

[cdifoto]

Seriously? what would be the advantage?
No mirror clack during the ceremony. I feel like I'm walking around the sanctuary with a homing beacon.

[FLiPMaRC]

No mirror clack during the ceremony. I feel like I'm walking around the sanctuary with a homing beacon.

:cool: Interesting. I've been in a few occasions where it seemed like the mirror clack was attached to a bull horn because of the silence :p

[cdifoto]

:cool: Interesting. I've been in a few occasions where it seemed like the mirror clack was attached to a bull horn because of the silence :p
No doubt. And the velcro of my tamrac belt pouch sounds like ripping pants in a cartoon. Needless to say, I now make sure I'm good on batteries and memory before the ceremony starts. :eek:

[VTEC_EATER]

(But that still doesn't solve the issue of wanting the subject, who you want to CANDIDLY photograph, to NOT be able to see the camera even when s/he's looking right at it.)


Dude, don't walk in on your parents getting it on. I don't care how much you want to photograph it. Just let it go.

[VTEC_EATER]

Ok, then rather have the camera be capable of shooting at ultra fast shutter speeds in pitch darkness...

How about some off-camera lighting that isn't directly attached to the camera, and stays on all the time (i.e. is not triggered by the camera)
Criteria for lighting:
Makes the general area (let's say about the size of an average 1/2-acre backyard or a little smaller) where the event is bright enough so that a shutter speed of 1/1000" to 2000", the lowest ISO setting on the camera being used, and stopping down the lens to about one stop more open than its smallest available aperture (whether it's a p&s or a dSLR) gives a normal daylight-like exposure.
uses multiple light sources, so each individual source doesn't have to be so bright that you can't look directly at it with your naked eye
preferably doesn't cost more than a couple thousand $

Would getting good off-camera lighting be more reasonable than trying to find a dSLR that can take pictures in the dark at ultra-fast shutter speeds? I also would think an added benefit of such lighting would be that anyone's camera, from cell phones to full-frame dSLRs, could benefit from it.

Wow, now this is just great. Do you have any idea of what kind of lighting you are talking about? Here, let me give you an example.

Have you ever been to a professional baseball game at night. Did you see the huge lighting set-ups they have? Heres an image, just incase you missed them:

http://blog.michaelhalston.com/__oneclick_uploads/2008/08/wrignight.jpg

That's just one side of the field, there are another 3 huge banks of lights on the opposite side helping to light that photograph. Now, I use Wrigley field as my example because I have shot there at a night game before. If I wanted to get shutter speeds of just 1/500, I needed to shoot at F/2.8 at ISO 800. Even then, that would not stop action.

Now, you want to shoot presumably at ISO100, F/16, 1/1000 or greater. Lets just assume that the lighting conditions are the same as they are in that Wrigley Field shot and we will see just what kind of extra lighting you may need to get that. In order to achieve your requirements you need 3 more stops of light in ISO, 3 stops in Aperture, and 1 stop in shutter speed. Thats 7 more stops of light to achieve your required settings.

7 more stops of light than what a professional baseball park has lighting it. I can guarantee you, there ain't no way in hell that will run you less than $2000, and no way you will be able to fit it in your backyard.

[TheObiJuan]

I thought this thread was dead.
VTEC_EATER, excellent way of putting this odd concept he has into a clear way for him to understand: IMPOSSIBLE and RIDICULOUS.

[VTEC_EATER]

I thought this thread was dead.
VTEC_EATER, excellent way of putting this odd concept he has into a clear way for him to understand: IMPOSSIBLE and RIDICULOUS.

I got another great one.

Hey Pianoplayer88key, have you ever heard of the "Sunny16" rule?

Its an old manual camera trick that people would use to get proper exposure when they didn't have a light meter.

It states that on a bright sunny day, you can set your lens at F/16 and whatever speed film you are using will match what your shutter speed should be. ASA100-1/100sec. ASA400-1/400sec.

Since you want to shoot at F/16, and get shutter speeds of 1/1000 minimum, you would need to have a film speed of ASA1000, or for us digital people ISO1000. Obviously ISO1000 is going to be too high for your needs, so how do you get that back down to 1/100, increase the light, obviously. You only need to increase it by 3 1/3 stops.

Incase you missed that, you only need to increase the light output of THE SUN by 3 1/3 stops.

I don't know if you have godly powers and can bring another 3 1/3rd more stars into this solar system, but my guess is that the ramifications of the new found gravitational pull from the new stars would end all life as we know it.

[cdifoto]

Actually each stop is a doubling of the light.

So if my math is right, an increase of 1 stop means one more sun, which means two suns.

Two stops increase means 4 suns.

Three stops increase means 8 suns.

:D

[VTEC_EATER]

Actually each stop is a doubling of the light.

So if my math is right, an increase of 1 stop means one more sun, which means two suns.

Two stops increase means 4 suns.

Three stops increase means 8 suns.

:D

Ya know, I'm not 100% sure how adjusting the light works. Like working with multiple flashes. Ive never found it to work out like the regular compounded math you use in your camera settings. I figure adding 3 more suns to the solar system is hard enough, but now you are saying he needs to add 8 or more?

Pianoplayer, you got your work cut out for you.

Edit: I did the math on the Wrigley Field lighting. You would only need 768 banks of those lights to get the settings you want on your camera Pianoplayer. I hope you can keep that within your $2000 budget.

[TheObiJuan]

Perhaps he can find them used on Craigslist. :D

[Csae]

I believe it was like light gets /4 per distance or something.

I liked the part where you just pointed out that it would end all life on earth.

[cdifoto]

my guess is that the ramifications of the new found gravitational pull from the new stars would end all life as we know it.
Actually. It'd just be the damned heat.