Just got back from the camera store. I looked at lenses. Ouch. The lens that comes in the D70 kit is an 18-70 F-3.5/4.5 G ED AF-S IF DX. It adds $200 to the body. No sticker shock there. However, if I read correctly the DX is tailored to digital cameras so it probably won’t work well on film cameras. The non-DX 24-85 version was about $480. Both seemed to focus very fast.
The 70-300 mm F-4/5.5 G AF ED was $400. Still no sticker shock. (still not sure what the G stands for).
going to a 70-200 2.8 VR lens bumps it up to $1,800. Sticker shock!
So I guess my next question is, how bad is an F-3.5 with a camera capable of good 800 ISO exposures?
Nearly all DSLRs have a sensor that is smaller than the standard 24x36mm frame of 35mm film. The difference is expressed in a crop factor. All Nikons have a 1.5 crop factor Nikon calls the DX format. DX lenses are made for the smaller image circle of Nikon’s digital cameras. You could use one on a film body but the image would have at the very least severe vingnetting and not fill the frame.
The -S Nikkors have the focusing motor built in as I mentioned previously.
FWIW Canon makes digital bodies in several formats from 1.6 to 1.0 crop factor so they don’t yet make a digital specific lens apart from the 300D’s kit lens which can only be used with the 300D. That lens will damage the mirror on any other Canon body.
You can get it for $150 less from B&H Photo after the rebate.
Series G lenses have no aperture ring. They can only be used on bodies with an aperture control command dial. I guess they could be used on older cameras but the lens would be fixed on minimum aperture.
Yeah, the VR lenses are price but the optical stabilization allow much slower shutter speeds than a conventional lens. I was able to shoot hand hend with the 70-200VR at 200mm at 1/30 with no visible camera shake blur.
The question needs context. Your ISO, aperture and shutter combination need to match the EV of the available light. An f3.5 lens at ISO 800 will make a noisier image than an f1.8 lens at ISO 200. If you plan on shooting available light you’ll almost certainly need f1.8-1.4 and ISO 1600 just to get a usable shutter speed.
That is small. Huh. Maybe I’m thinking of the 100? At any rate, in the store ithe difference seemed pretty big.
Almost. I’m still playing with it, but it looks like the only thing I’ve lost is the AF-assist strobe. From the manual, it’s unclear whether I’d also have lost that with a Speedlite (e.g., whether it’s exclusive to the built-in flash – I know the Speedlite AF-assist works on the film bodies). This is something of a low-light annoyance, but I haven’t decided just how annoying – so far I’m going with “not very.” Also, I haven’t tried red-eye reduction with the Sigma, as I don’t know anyone willing to sit through that annoying process. In any event, the Sigma has a pretty good range of manual features that would have cost hundreds and hundreds with the Speedlight – all the way up to the 550.
Doh! Sorry, I didn’t mean to implicitly exclude the Nikon from that. And nah, Canon does it the same. The bundled software isn’t awful, but it’s pretty weak. I definitely see an upgrade in my future.
Heh. You just know we’ll both have new bodies 24 months from now, and then the real platform battles can begin! We’ll annoy the GQ mods as much as the Wintel/Apple people.
It kind of sucks that Nikon makes you pay extra for capture software. You can work with NEF (Nikon’s raw format) with the included software but you won’t have full control over the image parameters.
Raw files are literally the raw data out of the sensor chip. All the camera settings such as white balance, sharpening, saturation, etc. are recorded as meta-data in the header but only the actual exposure and ISO setting are applied to the image. This allows full contol of the image after the fact with no loss in quality. As a rule I like to have all the settings right in the camera but this isn’t always possible. Raw images also record more bit depth than normal JPG and TIFF images. Raw is the way to go if you want the best possible image from your camera.
Just as important capture software allows uploading custom contrast curves to the camera so it can be applied to images from the start. This is like a super contrast adjustment that allows you to say punch up the mid tones while retaining full black shadow and not overexposing all the highlights. It sounds trivial if you have never used it but IMO this alone makes capture software worth the cost
Capture also allows tethered operation of the camera with any computer and a USB cable. It’s kind of a luxury but I want to experiment with the intervalometer function to do some time lapse work.
Serious IMHO time. I think Moore’s law applies to digital cameras but we are very quickly reaching a point where more performance electronically is no longer significantly better. I’m not saying the D70 couldn’t be improved on but you’ll soon realize that a “more powerful” camera won’t make better pictures. Pixel count is not everything and in fact cramming twice as many pixels in the same sensor size often makes images worse, not better. It’s not a matter of electronics but realities of quantum physics and random distribution of photons.
The step up from a D70 isn’t as much electronics (though I’d kill for the D2H’s high speed and massive buffer) but in mechanical function of the camera. I wan’t a camera with 100% viewfinder coverage, interchangable focusing screens, better and faster autofocus, environmental seals and a sturdier body. Those are features that have been around for decades and won’t be made any cheaper by Moore’s law.
The best upgrade to digital cameras will come from more sophisticated programming and intelligence in the CPU behind the viewfider.
Got the D70 Saturday and ended up with a promaster 28-300 3.5/5. Had to compromise on the lense because of the cost. Definately not as fast as the Nikor lense that was offered in kit form. Also gets confused at long distance telephoto settings. It likes to spin past the focul setting to the stop and then go back.
There was MUCH less noise than my last camera at much higher ISO settings. It would be nice if the camera took verbal commands because yelling at it didn’t do much (I needed to use the camera immediately upon purchase).
Is there a general secret to dealing with high contrast situations with the camera settings? I fully intend to try the RAW format but for now I just used JPEG and Photoshop Elements to doctor things up. I’m getting good at overexposing the sky and then blending the overexposed clouds.
Sometimes scenes have just too much contrast to record. If you want the widest possible tonal range stick with B&W film, get a spot meter and learn the zone system. With digital you need to shoot raw and watch for blown highlights. There is a monitor function that shows hights as blinking areas on the LCD. I leave this the default setting on my D100 as it’s the most useful when chimping, possibly more useful than the histogram display.
Learn what you camera can do and can’t do. IMO the best images will be those that require and have the least post process tweaking. Experiment with Nikon capture, you should have a 30 day trial that camer with the camera.
*Chimping - when reviewing shots on a DSLR and you are compelled to say “ooh ooh, look at this”
Can you say a bit more about the RAW format? It is apparent from your posts that you recommend this as the capture format. You’ve sort of explained it, but I don’t fully understand the advantages (“greater bit depth”?)
And as long as I have your attention, what might be the disadvantages of the RAW format?
(As a reminder, I’m new to the digital world and have shot only about 100 photos so far on my new Canon Digital Rebel, 28-200 Promaster lens.)
First a bit of background on common sensors. Virtually all except for Sigma’s Foven sensor use a bayer pattern. That is each photosite, pixel, has a filter for onely one primary color instead of three. The patter is red-green-blue-green… making half the photosites green with the rest split between red and blue. This works out much better than you would think because of how our eyes percieve color.
A raw image, NEF for Nikon Electronic Format, is literally the raw bayer data out of the sensor. It can’t be viewed with normal software thouh it does contain a thumbnail size traditional bitmap. The only “processing” is the ISO value which really just gives the exposure value for each photosite. All the other data that would normally be processed, contrast, curves, white balance, sharpening, color mode, etc. are all recorded in an EXIF header. This way the image can be processed with the camera’s settings or any/all can be changed as needed. I typically leave my camera on high sharpening but that often records too much fine detail for a face shot. The image is also recorded at a greater bit depth than a standard bitmap, usually 12 bits per colorplane rather than 8.
The image processing can be customized without losing any information. If you alter the white balance of a JPG you might push some pixel color values over the edge of shadow or highlight and lose detail. I often do this in portrait sessions by placing standard 18% gray card in a test shot. I reference that value as neutral gray and apply that correction to the whole session which makes more consistency session to session.
One way to think of a raw file is as a digital negative. It isn’t useful to anyone except the processor but contains all the possible information.
The disadvantage to raw is that the files are large and take more in camera storage time. An uncompressed 6 megapixel raw is about 9.5 megabytes. The D100 I shoot has terribly slow compression for raw which makes it useless. I can fit 107 on a 1 gigabyte microdrive. Other Nikons such as the D70 and Canon have good, non-lossy compression routines which allow you to save maybe 30% of the normal space and store more files. They can also store a raw file and jpg at the same time. As for speed I can almost shoot one JPG a second once the buffer fills but each raw shot takes about six seconds.
Thanks Padeye. I think I might do some experimentation with the RAW format. Heck, one advantage of digital is that you don’t have to waste any “film” while experimenting. Do you have to use the software that comes with the camera? Or does Photoshop Elements (for example) handle RAW formats?
It sounds like it’s not a format that you’d use for everyday casual use, but for certain situations it’ll provide a better picture.
Now if they’d perfect a system to correct the result when I screwed up the focusing. :rolleyes:
There is a raw plugin for photoshop but I suggest you use the software that came with your camera to start. I don’t know about everyday use but I shoot raw a majority of the time. If it’s important enough to take the shot… I generally only shoot JPG for stuff I know is going to end up on the web only or when I don’t have enough memory to shoot raw before downloading.
Focusing is an Achille’s heel of amature DSLRs. It’s vastly better than any point and shoot digicam but not perfect. You have manual focusing but the focusing screen isn’t well suited to snappy manual focusing and isn’t interchangable as it is on the pro cameras.
Speaking as a rank novice, I’m a little terrified to bring this up in present company, but…
There may be a couple of other disadvantages related to the proprietary nature of RAW files.
Will you be still be able to get a plug in for Photoshop 15 (circa 2014) that can read the RAW files you’re snapping today? Maybe, maybe not. 10-year old MS Word files can be troublesome. Even TIFFs can’t be relied on - I’ve personally had trouble opening old-software TIFFs on new-software systems. If you shoot everything RAW, you could do worse than to archive both the original RAW files and some converted versions with an eye to the future - perhaps losslessly-compressed JPG2000 or PNG, both of which can support 16-bit-per-channel color.
Some people have noticed that various RAW converters (i.e., Nikon View, BreezeBrowser, and Photoshop) produce slightly different TIFF or JPG files, even when using the same user adjustments. That could be a confusing complication for someone who’s not aware of the possibility.
On the other hand, the post-processing benefits sound wonderful, and when I recently ordered a new camera, I decided that RAW capability was a must-have.
Ideally, the camera makers would settle on one open RAW file format, and all cameras could work with all photo software, and the unification of the industry would guarantee good support for the format indefinitely. I’m not holding my breath, though.
(Incidentally, why is RAW capitalized, as if it were a file extension or an acronym? As far as I know, it’s neither, and the implications of the capitalization are just confusing.)
That would defeat the whole purpose of having the RAW format, which is to save the raw output from the imaging sensor without any processing at all. The algorithm for convert it into a useable image is specific to each camera.
I’m not proposing that a hypothetical standard RAW file format should contain a processed image. But I’ve got to believe that there could be a standard way of organizing the data. Just about all the cameras use Bayer sensors and A/D converters. At that low level, at least, there just isnt’ much variety to account for. Sufficiently detailed information about the geometry and spectral characteristics of the color filter grid used could potentially even work for the Foveon sensors - in the same standard format.
As for processing that RAW data into a useable image, having an open format and open “official” algorithms would mean that any software maker could jump into the RAW conversion game. RAW conversion could be just another Photoshop plug-in or filter - you could take your pick of any of dozens of cheap off-the-shelf packages. You might be able to pick an algorithm especially well-suited to the picture at hand, one specifically designed for the camera in question, both, or neither. (There are a few third-party options to do RAW conversions, but nothing like the cornucopia of image-processing plug-ins.)
The secrecy and closed-format approach strike me as bizarre last-century thinking. Where would the photography business be today if every camera maker had invented a different film format for every camera during the 20th century? Open standards do a lot of good.
I think you’re correct that there is no technical reason there couldn’t be a more generic raw format but that isn’t the M.O. of camera companies. I think it’s just the fact that there is no real incentive for camera companies to do so and each company has already established standards for its raw format (I agree it should not be in all caps). There would be little for them to gain and the potential to alienate a lot of loyal users by changing now. One of the reasons I stuck with Nikon is that they have stood by the same basic lens mount for 45 years. There have been changes and there isn’t universal compatibility but they didn’t do as some other manufactures and instantly make all old lenses useless when they went to autofocus.
I don’t know if you can draw any parallels from Olympus attempt to make an open hardware standard with the four thirds format sensor and lens mount but so far no one else has jumped on that bandwagon. Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta (soon), Contax, Fuji and Kodak (F and K use Nikon bodies and mounts) all use existing 35mm lenses in the proprietary tradition of camera makers .
One of the points of raw is that the processing doesn’t have to be the same. If someone comes out with a better process for sharpening an image without adding noise it can be applied to exisitng raw files. That advantage does carry some risk but I think it’s minimal as each major
Thanks for all the info, I will be playing with the jpeg/raw combination as soon I feel more comfortable with the camera. I’m amazed at what I’ve figured out without the manual. I get a much better flash shot of high contrast areas by setting it to the P mode and spot metering the lighter colors.
I thought my Promaster lense wouldn’t work in full manual mode but I discovered the second wheel controls the aperature. That makes it easy to lock in the settings for panoramic shots. Haven’t tried the bracketing mode yet but I figured out how to turn it on. Pretty neat camera.
Who needs a stinking manual when you can keep shooting and erasing your mistakes. I understand what a professional photographer meant when he told me his skills went UP when he switched to digital. You can try all kinds of settings with instant feedback. I do wish you could continously zoom in on the back screen without having to hit the iso button first. A minor complaint.
In any event, the Sigma has a pretty good range of manual features that would have cost hundreds and hundreds with the Speedlight – all the way up to the 550.