Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    151

    Best investment?

    I'm wondering who likes what for what they shoot. I'm very specific in my needs, I shoot primarily very fast moving dog agility in low light.
    Because of those parameters, I think my best bang for the buck investments are:
    -Canon 70-200 f 2.8 IS L lens
    -Manfrotto tripod and monopod

    Since I shoot all day in RAW, my 8G CF cards are well needed, but I could get by with smaller ones if needed.
    However, I just plumb couldn't get the shot w/out the proper glass.
    Joe
    Kalispell, MT
    http://dogshots.biz

    Canon EOS 50D

    Canon S2 IS

    Sigma 18-200 OS
    Canon 85mm f 1.8
    Canon 70-200 f 2.8 IS L

    Canon Speedlite 430 EX

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Fisher View Post
    I'm wondering who likes what for what they shoot. I'm very specific in my needs, I shoot primarily very fast moving dog agility in low light.
    Because of those parameters, I think my best bang for the buck investments are:
    -Canon 70-200 f 2.8 IS L lens
    -Manfrotto tripod and monopod

    Since I shoot all day in RAW, my 8G CF cards are well needed, but I could get by with smaller ones if needed.
    However, I just plumb couldn't get the shot w/out the proper glass.
    Your next logical step is to go full frame (5D or 5D replacement coming in a couple of weeks...or wait till march for the likely Canon entry level FF camera) so as to take advantage of the inherently superior low light capabilities...

    And then...there's always this:

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...00mm_f_2L.html
    Last edited by JTL; 08-19-2008 at 11:02 AM.
    Some Gear: Nikon D700; Nikkor AF-S 50 f/1.4 G; Nikkor AF-S 24-85 3.f/5-4.5 G ED; Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 VC; Nikon SB-800; Velbon Maxi-F; Canon Pixma Pro 9000; Canon S3IS, Canon SD500; Epson 4990; Epson P5000; Wacom Intuos 3

    Main Software: Capture NX2; Adobe PhotoShop CS2; Corel Paintshop Pro X2 Ultimate

    Sold: Canon XT/350D, EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Sigma 18-200 OS; Canon ET EF 25II; Kenko Pro 300 DG, Canon 430EX, Canon BG-E3.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    151
    Why are FF camera's better in low light? If I did go that way, I"d gain low light capability, but at the same time I"d lose reach. ATM, since my 40D has a 1.6 crop sensor my 70-200 is actually a 112mm-320mm. I think I'm actually doing ok with low light shutter speed, etc. I would hate to lose the reach though.


    Quote Originally Posted by JTL View Post
    so as to take advantage of the inherently superior low light capabilities...

    [/URL]
    Joe
    Kalispell, MT
    http://dogshots.biz

    Canon EOS 50D

    Canon S2 IS

    Sigma 18-200 OS
    Canon 85mm f 1.8
    Canon 70-200 f 2.8 IS L

    Canon Speedlite 430 EX

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,498
    For current Bayer pattern filter sensors,

    Larger sensor = higher ISO with less noise, because:
    • Larger sensor = larger photosites = greater light gathering capability and less signal "gain" that needs to be applied = less noise (primarily caused by signal gain)
    • Larger sensor = lower density = greater dynamic range, less "blooming" and less electrical interference between the photosites
    Emerging sensor technologies may change all of this at any time, though.

    The "reach" issue is a falsehood AFAIC...you can easily crop a full-frame image to the same "perceived" focal legth of a APS-C camera and still have an image of equal and/or better quality (depending on the camera, lens, and skill level of course)...
    Last edited by JTL; 08-19-2008 at 02:04 PM.
    Some Gear: Nikon D700; Nikkor AF-S 50 f/1.4 G; Nikkor AF-S 24-85 3.f/5-4.5 G ED; Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 VC; Nikon SB-800; Velbon Maxi-F; Canon Pixma Pro 9000; Canon S3IS, Canon SD500; Epson 4990; Epson P5000; Wacom Intuos 3

    Main Software: Capture NX2; Adobe PhotoShop CS2; Corel Paintshop Pro X2 Ultimate

    Sold: Canon XT/350D, EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Sigma 18-200 OS; Canon ET EF 25II; Kenko Pro 300 DG, Canon 430EX, Canon BG-E3.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,225
    I think there will always be an advantage to the larger sensor. I don't think emerging technologies will change that. They may make it relatively moot, but that appears to be a LONG WAY down the road (at least a week or two ;-)).

    So, do you think your 5MP DX capture on your D700 (that's what the equivalent crop is) is as good as a 12MP capture on D300, given decent light (to take away the high ISO advantage of the D700). Personally, I think it can be, under moderate view size restrictions, but once you start magnifying the view size (large print or display, such as my 50" HDTV), I think the resolution advantage of the native DX format will win out.
    Eric Lund
    Nikon D200
    Nikkors: 17-55mm f2.8, 18-200mm f3.5-f4.5 VR, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 55mm f2.8 AI-S micro, 105mm f2.8 VR micro
    Other Lenses: Tokina 12-24 f4, Tamron 75-300mm f4-5.6 LD macro
    Stuff: Nikon SB800, Nikon MBD200, Gitzo 1327 Tripod w/RRS BH-55LR Ballhead, Sekonic L-358 meter

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,498
    Quote Originally Posted by erichlund View Post
    I think there will always be an advantage to the larger sensor. I don't think emerging technologies will change that. They may make it relatively moot, but that appears to be a LONG WAY down the road (at least a week or two ;-)).

    So, do you think your 5MP DX capture on your D700 (that's what the equivalent crop is) is as good as a 12MP capture on D300, given decent light (to take away the high ISO advantage of the D700). Personally, I think it can be, under moderate view size restrictions, but once you start magnifying the view size (large print or display, such as my 50" HDTV), I think the resolution advantage of the native DX format will win out.
    The D300 (DX format) image will, without question, have better per pixel sharpness than the D700. But, we cannot use the vagaries of the Nikon DX crop implementation on the D3/D700 for my example. For my example, take a full frame image and crop it by 1.5/1.6 and do the compare...you'd see that it comps very favorably indeed. And certainly going full frame and cropping far outweighs not getting the high ISO advantage of a current crop camera...at least in my opinion. But, I agree, it's a subject open to debate.
    Last edited by JTL; 08-20-2008 at 10:21 PM.
    Some Gear: Nikon D700; Nikkor AF-S 50 f/1.4 G; Nikkor AF-S 24-85 3.f/5-4.5 G ED; Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 VC; Nikon SB-800; Velbon Maxi-F; Canon Pixma Pro 9000; Canon S3IS, Canon SD500; Epson 4990; Epson P5000; Wacom Intuos 3

    Main Software: Capture NX2; Adobe PhotoShop CS2; Corel Paintshop Pro X2 Ultimate

    Sold: Canon XT/350D, EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro; EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, Sigma 18-200 OS; Canon ET EF 25II; Kenko Pro 300 DG, Canon 430EX, Canon BG-E3.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by JTL View Post
    For my example, take a full frame image and crop it by 1.5/1.6 and do the compare...you'd see that it comps very favorably indeed.
    this is correct. there are 2 parts to this puzzle:

    1. in good light and with good exposure, its not quite as good but it does compare very favourabley.

    2. in low light at high iso's it is better, even with an aggressive crop.

    as for pixel per pixel sharpness...who cares ? the defaults on nikons is low sharpening and thats the way it should be. PP sharpening is far better.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    151
    When I photograph a dog agility trial, I usually have about 1,000 pictures give or take.
    Pretty much anyione that wants to buy the pictures are of the "good enough" school. Not very many people take pictures of their dogs at all, let alone decent ones. I just want to get them up on my website as soon as I can, I'm not a professional photographer and can't devote days to doing PP.
    I like the pictures to be pretty good as taken, i.e. I don't want to have to crop.

    I realize that if I were doing this for a living, that mindset wouldn't work, but for my purposes it works. That's why I like the reach w/o cropping.:-)



    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    this is correct. there are 2 parts to this puzzle:

    1. in good light and with good exposure, its not quite as good but it does compare very favourabley.

    2. in low light at high iso's it is better, even with an aggressive crop.

    as for pixel per pixel sharpness...who cares ? the defaults on nikons is low sharpening and thats the way it should be. PP sharpening is far better.
    Joe
    Kalispell, MT
    http://dogshots.biz

    Canon EOS 50D

    Canon S2 IS

    Sigma 18-200 OS
    Canon 85mm f 1.8
    Canon 70-200 f 2.8 IS L

    Canon Speedlite 430 EX

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    107
    Full frame means more real estate. More real estate means that those pixels aren't stuffed on the chip and therefore the chip is more sensitive to light, not less. That translates to better low light performance with less noise being invited to the party.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    151
    Good explanation, even one that I can understand.
    I'll be interested in the IQ of high ISO's on the 50D since if I can get away w/out cropping I'd rather do that.
    I"m sure that Canon will pop out a FF replacement for the 5D this year (well, maybe not *sure*, but reasonably certain) I'll look at that as well depending upon the noise of the 50D
    Then again, I have to remember that I'm not a professional;, I really would not like to spend the $ that a FF would cost.


    Quote Originally Posted by James DeRuvo DHQ View Post
    Full frame means more real estate. More real estate means that those pixels aren't stuffed on the chip and therefore the chip is more sensitive to light, not less.
    Joe
    Kalispell, MT
    http://dogshots.biz

    Canon EOS 50D

    Canon S2 IS

    Sigma 18-200 OS
    Canon 85mm f 1.8
    Canon 70-200 f 2.8 IS L

    Canon Speedlite 430 EX

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •