Comments on: Digital SLRs bring lens quandary
Changes that came with higher-end digicam models may have brought more diversity than some buyers bargained for.
Photos: SLR cameras for the digital age
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- Report: Apple choses supplier of tablet displays
December 28, 2009 9:50 AM PST
- Chinese author plans lawsuit over Google Books
December 28, 2009 9:48 AM PST
- Another holiday blowout for Apple?
December 28, 2009 8:00 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
single lens reflex), and (2) it does not take interchangeable lenses.
There is no flip-up mirror behind the lens and you are actually
looking at a small electronic image when you look in the
viewfinder, not an optical image passing thru the lens; and the 12X
Leica-designed zoom lens is permanently attached to the camera
body -- it does not come off.
The 35mm label derives from the size of the film negative, about
36mm by 24mm.
[/quote]
The "35 mm" tag refers to the width of the film.
The film lies horizontally. The 24 mm height plus the holes to
move the film add up to 35 mm.
This cames from the movies: the films are 35 or 70 mm width,
and it was cheaper to use the same film.
mark d.
I am willing shoot with a slightly wider angle lenses setting and accept the loss in resolution that comes with cropping - even HD TVs cannot reproduce the resolution of most digital photos from newer cameras. My frustration is that the commonly provided photo editing software lacks includes cropping "masks" for common aspect ratios for both paper and video screens.
Personally, I have long-wondered by U.S. federal regulators have not barred the use of "35mm" with respect to such cameras, as they produce an APS-sized image for all practical purposes.
APS stands for Advanced Photo System. It was a revision of 35mm film using automated exposure-date-storing cartridges and a smaller more efficient film dimension. APS film was blindsided by low-cost digital, but clever camera makers appear to have stuck to the format, essentially stuffing it inside "35mm" digital SLRs shells.
Not all "35mm" SLRs use APS-sized sensors; some have sensors that cover the entire 35mm film gate and do not present lens issues. Such cameras are usually much more expensive.
Megapixels are the _only_ measurement of performance used on the low end so manufacturers cut all the corners they can to post high MP values.
The cheap digitals tend to use small CCD censors like say 5mm x 4mm for a 1/2.7" sensor compared to 36mmx24mm for film (35mm) cameras. (You can look your camera up here http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=sensor_sizes )
The result is often poor color depth and and grainy (image noise) or blurry photos in low lighting due to high ISO settings and slow shutter speeds needed to capture a picture in low lighting on such a small sensor.
The cheapy digitals perform terrible in low lighting, you will get _much_ better photos in these conditions with an $8 disposable film camera. The low end digitals can produce as much noise at ISO 200 as the digital SLR's produce at ISO 800 or 1600.
The digital SLR's have much better sensors but they also cost $800+ compared to a decent film SLR that can be had for only about $200 (the cost of a crappy digital)
I went in a camera shop in CA last year and test drove a $450 Nikon (Digital), taking pictures in their store with the flash on my pictures of a moving subject (my 5 year old) were still visibly blurred even on the 4" LCD screen.
Slower start time of digital means I miss lots of good (spontaneous) shots, so my pictures always look posed.
There is a cost to having film developed, but after you add the cost of the digital camera(s), mem card, photo printer etc. it is no cheaper. I have owned a few digitals all of which were really bad.
2 digitals (2x$200) + mem card ($40) + photo printer ($200) = $640
Having film developed is not that expensive and you get better quality and, *gasp* you may still have them after your next Windows problem.
It is nice to have digitized pics to email or touch up etc. but most modern labs should be able to give you digital copies of your exposures on a CD.
After having $8 disposable 35mm cameras constantly put my last range of digital cameras to shame I have decided to just get a 35mm SLR for my next camera.
It is a toss up between the "Canon - EOS Rebel K2" ($220) or the "Nikon N75" ($250), both come with lens. I really like the Nikon but either of them will outperform almost every sub $800 digital on the market.
After spending $800 on film one summer - I realized the Canon SLR was the way to go.
8x10's print great ($7.99 for 2 at cvs or kmart on sale).
and you do get what you pay for. Seems like you didn't want to pay so you got what you paid for.
I have bought a compact Nikon Coolpic a year ago for fun snapshots, and kept my Canon SLR for the "better" pictures, being nature shots, special events, ...
In the meantime, I am using the Nikon more and more for movie snapshots...
I have never expected quality pictures from the digital camera, so I guess I cannot be disappointed. (Although it could have been quicker)
and Cannon that will blow the doors off any basic film camera.
I got my D50 at Costco for $650.
The image quality is fantastic.
Far better Gamut than film and less cost to print.
FYI
This is really a snooze fest when it comes to digital cameras.
Anyone who's shot digital will know this. Note that its a moot point. Just look at the digital back to see what you got. If you don't like it, delete and reshoot.
I purchased a D70 a year prior to a once in a lifetime trip to South Africa. Sure I could have waited and gotten a higher pixel count, but then I probably would have muffed some of the shots.
The moral of the story...
1) Get two lenses. A wide angle and then a zoom telephoto.
2) Purchase the camera early if you're buying it for an event.
3) Learn the ins and outs of your camera so that you know what to do.
4) If you're going digital, go SLR. Even though the camera phone can have a large megapixel count, the image won't be as nice as a SLR.
Of course, I'm saving up for a DX2 or the next generation. The higher the pixel count, the better the image and the larger the blow up. Also my existing lenses will work with the newer body.
-G
shallow or unknowledgable. They put out a deep, technical article
like this and they get criticized for being boring or irrelevant.
How about this... if you don't like the article, shut-up and read
something else.
As for the light-gathering qualities described by the F-stop numbers, those were always specific to each lense and described by the manufacturer and could still be used. Again, however, it might be more efficient to migrate to the EV numbering system used on cinematography lenses so that there is no longer a translation factor from film. The EV numbers idicated a sliding ratio of capture speed/aperture numbers that are universal and easily understood with practice.
Nikon F film camera body with which I am totally familiar with --
field of view, depth of field/aperture, sharpest apertures, stop-
action/blur-effect shutter speeds, etc. -- and I do not want lose
my investment in these excellent lenses nor endure the
confusion of differing lens parameters, performance and effects
when moving my lenses between film and digital camera bodies
(I shoot both film and digital). If my film equipment were
Canon, it would be a no-brainer -- I would go with the digital
Canon 5D body. But I have always been in Nikonland -- and
now find myself without a full-frame Nikon model available and,
as point out, Kodak has discontinued their Nikon-Compatible
body. What to to?
Oh, BTW, you want full size sensor, there's always the relatively affordable Canon 5D.
it's also not as if there's a danger to buying EF-S (for Canon) lenses. it has been made clear that the 1.6 crop factor is to stay except on the top range. today, "digital" lenses are designed to compensate for the crop factor if you really need wide angle. this is not going to change anytime soon.
concerns about images vignetting at the margins )as suggested by some comments), because the lenses aren't full sized are also unfounded as the lenses are designed with that in mind. if anything, digital SLRs are much more forgiving on lousier lenses because they crop out the edges where it is most challenging, optically, to produce good quality images.
overall, nothing wrong with the article, just a bit duuuh, i suppose.. just wondering how it is made to look like a breaking story.. is cnet running out of ideas?
(1) The 50 mm lens does not approximate the optics of the human eye in any meaningful sense of the word. A lens that would do that would be something like a circular fisheye smeared with Vaseline and a big ol' black spot in the rear element. The 50 on a 35 mm camera does produce images that look "natural," but so does any lens between about 35 and about 135 mm. This effect has more to do with conventions in Western art than human physiology.
(2) Canon's full-frame sensors are not made by joining several smaller ones. (This would be impossible to do with current technology without leaving a "blind" seam where the chips are joined.) They do use a stepper in the manufacturing process, which is probably what's confusing the author. Look it up if you're interested.
(3) Portrait lenses and millimeters: an 85 on 1.5x performs exactly like a 128 mm on 35 mm, if you stop the 128 mm down one stop more. This is still a pretty good FL for tight portraits. It seems the gent they interviewed doesn't understand how perspective works either -- surprisingly many professional photographers don't. IOW, if you want portraits that look like they were shot on an 85 on 35 mm film, use something around 50 mm on 1.5x. If you want portraits that look like you used a 135 on 35 mm, use something around 85.
(4) Ultra-wides. Actually, rectilinear 12 mm lenses exist for the 35 mm format, and they don't cost anywhere near as much as a car. Look up the Voigtländer Heliar 12 mm 1:5.6, and the Sigma EX 12-24/4.5-5.6 HSM for various SLR systems. Almost every SLR format has a 14 mm 1:2.8 lens available too.
Seriously, you should keep in mind that the comment was made by a representative of Nikon, and he WAS speaking in the past tense, when certain Nikkor film lenses WERE very much gawd awful pricey. Expensive glass, indeed, and several were just as expensive as some new cars back in the 1970s when those particular lenses were in their heyday.
CNET covering fields and equipment beyond their original scope (computers) is such a tenuous thing. Whether cameras or cars or audio/video gear, there are others' opinions who far more qualified that these well-intentioned folk that are far more palatable for consumption and serious consideration.
depth of field are addressed, I'll stick with
film SLR's and scan those I want into my system.
I worked with many digital types and manufacturers, and none have satisfied my needs.
The real problem seems to be that the lens has
too sharp a focus and too narrow a depth of
field. When taking photos of large groups, it
is impossible to get everyone in focus. Can't
this be cured with proper lens construction??
I won't repeat the innacuracies already mentioned here, but what I will say is that the confusion is really only with experienced film SLR users switching over to a DSLR, since these film SLR users most likely already have money invested in some lenses which they intend to reuse when upgrading to a DSLR.
If you're a novice buying in to a DSLR system, you're not going to care whether an 18mm lens is equivalent to a 27mm with a 1.5x crop factor DSLR or not. They won't be confused because that's all they've known.
In fact your article doesn't show that novices are going to be confused -- it in fact shows that professionals are the ones confused -- not only about the crop factor but also about perspective and its equivalent.
I have to say that much as I liked the old Olympus SLRs, I can't help feeling that the 4/3 system will be a flop. Apart from the waste of printing paper, incompatibility with frame and mount sizes etc, it is an 'ugly' format. I've used it and find it strangely unsatisfactory, whereas the standard 35mm or square image ratios just seem right somehow. The 4/3 system is neither fish nor fowl, and I almost always find myself cropping images to 35mm or square when I use it.
once again, Madison Ave have brainwashed the public into thinking faster is some how better than quality!!
while the upper end digital camera constantly tout how they are "as good as 35mm", well, medium or large format photographers know 35mm is mediocre at best!!!
there is some hope with the Foveon sensor:
http://www.sigma-photo.com/cameras/cameras_cameras_details.asp?id=3256
other than that, most dslr's are little more than dust collecting plastic junk...
while digital cams are GREAT for point n shoot, no real photographer[NO, 35mm is not real, maybe with a Leica, thats about it]
- Why do we think things are "forever"
- by anothered May 13, 2006 10:59 PM PDT
- We should try to enjoy and use techology for what it is. Sure, to keep the price of D-SLRs (NOT "35mm" D-SLR) down, it was probably and is cheaper for the manufacturer to come up with "specialized" wide lenses or zooms to offset the magnification factor. This why you see these digital only lenses like the Canon's EF-S or Nikon's DX only in the lower ranges where it more needed. In fact a camera like Canon's 5D with it full frame sensor can actually show a lens' weakness in edge sharpness if it's less than professional quality. I seen many people hang onto old lenses waiting for a D-SLR to come along. Sure all those Minolta Maxxum lenses you paid so much for years ago but you didn't want to spend for a new Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon N50 system which would have given you newer lens technology and smaller lighter lenses for a similar price of a Maxxum 7D body. New is new, if it works with you old stuff great but don't knock it if it doesn't.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- Some things are more forever than others
- by doon41 January 12, 2008 9:29 PM PST
- Well, the shoe has dropped. The D3 is a fabulous camera - everything I wanted, and new features I had not thought of. Yes, I STILL knock all the other "new" Nikon DSLRs because of their smaller sensors, but at least Nikon did what we all expected them to do sooner or later. I got so excited with the D3 I bought some new Nikon WA lenses that use the full frame sensor, too! Ironically, the D3 will use the small-format lenses, too. Life is good.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (62 Comments)