I/S

mrtoad

mrtoad

Messages
18,182
Name
Geof
Edit My Images
Yes
is I/s in the lens or the body for dslr usage:)
 
Hence why with Canon you normally get a choice of various models - of which some are IS, and some not - but all have the same mount to fit the entire DSLR range...
 
cymruchris said:
Hence why with Canon you normally get a choice of various models - of which some are IS, and some not - but all have the same mount to fit the entire DSLR range...
Click to expand...

No they don't!

Canon make EF lenses which will fit all Canon DSLR bodies and EF-s lenses which only fit 1.6x Crop bodies 7D, XXD, & XXXD ranges!

Put an EF-s lens on a 1.3x crop or FF body and risk breaking the mirror!
 
thanks...the minefield has been duly noted

sony...will check

i/s may be not need that
 
p1tse said:
IS on my sony a300
Click to expand...

good!

what does this convert to in 35mm terms

"...........a high quality DT 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 standard zoom lens"
 
mrcrow said:
good!

what does this convert to in 35mm terms

"...........a high quality DT 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 standard zoom lens"
Click to expand...


sorry i'm not sure. but i'm sure someone else will.

if interested in an a300, check the for sale section ;-)
 
mrcrow said:
good!

what does this convert to in 35mm terms

"...........a high quality DT 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 standard zoom lens"
Click to expand...

Multiply by the crop factor to get 35mm film equivalents. Canon is 1.6x, all the others Nikon etc are 1.5x, except 4/3rds format Olympus/Panasonic which is 2x.

So 18-70 is 27-105 equivalent in old money.

(Before anyone says it, yes I know the Canon 1D series is 1.3x.)
 
HoppyUK said:
Multiply by the crop factor to get 35mm film equivalents. Canon is 1.6x, all the others Nikon etc are 1.5x, except 4/3rds format Olympus/Panasonic which is 2x.

So 18-70 is 27-105 equivalent in old money.

(Before anyone says it, yes I know the Canon 1D series is 1.3x.)
Click to expand...

thanks hoppy
i was just looking at a G1 micro 4/3 in blackburn...and that is what the guy said...2x

nice camera and no mirror(y)
 
mrcrow said:
thanks hoppy
i was just looking at a G1 micro 4/3 in blackburn...and that is what the guy said...2x

nice camera and no mirror(y)
Click to expand...

Pano G1 is a nice camera for sure (I really like the idea of the GF1 too) but not cheap and given your apparent obsession ;) with noise, 4/3rds is quite a bit smaller format than Nikon/Canon/Sony etc. And, all things being equal, bigger sensors produce less noise and always will.
 
HoppyUK said:
Pano G1 is a nice camera for sure (I really like the idea of the GF1 too) but not cheap and given your apparent obsession ;) with noise, 4/3rds is quite a bit smaller format than Nikon/Canon/Sony etc. And, all things being equal, bigger sensors produce less noise and always will.
Click to expand...

i am a bit deaf, hoppy can you speak up :D

re: snaps..noise..not a problem...
how exactly big do you go till you see noise and find it a problem
my daughters snaps at 10Mp off her nikon snapper L18...are superb on my screen and her prints are ok
think:|
 
mrcrow said:
i am a bit deaf, hoppy can you speak up :D

re: snaps..noise..not a problem...
how exactly big do you go till you see noise and find it a problem
my daughters snaps at 10Mp off her nikon snapper L18...are superb on my screen and her prints are ok
think:|
Click to expand...

It's not a question of size, it's a question of ISO, although it's true that noise does become more noticeable with bigger prints. However, it's always there and while you might not be able to see the grainyness in a small print (and sometimes that doesn't look too bad anyway) a lot of noise just turns nice detailed dark shadows into a load of grey mush.

Basically, I think the worst thing about excessive noise is that it kills your dynamic range. If you compare shots taken on something like a full frame Nikon D3 which is pretty much peerless for low noise, the images just have a richness and depth that you don't get any other way. It's a subtle effect, arguably, but it's there.
 
HoppyUK said:
Basically, I think the worst thing about excessive noise is that it kills your dynamic range. If you compare shots taken on something like a full frame Nikon D3 which is pretty much peerless for low noise, the images just have a richness and depth that you don't get any other way. It's a subtle effect, arguably, but it's there.
Click to expand...

there must always be a best...and sometimes unattainable except in being a goal to desire
when the D3 is..superceded...what then old chap...
will it be the benchmark in a shifting tech world of quiet images

do you really want a D3?
 
mrcrow said:
there must always be a best...and sometimes unattainable except in being a goal to desire
when the D3 is..superceded...what then old chap...
will it be the benchmark in a shifting tech world of quiet images

do you really want a D3?
Click to expand...

No, I don't want a D3. I would like the image quality, that's for sure, but I don't want the other things that come with a full-on full frame pro DSLR. It's not just a question of cost. If I was a wedding photographer, or a high end professional shooting similar stuff it would be different, but I'm not.

I prefer the overal characteristics of crop sensor cameras and I made the decision to stick with that about a year ago, in the belief that crop format would get better and close the gap slowly but surely. Just recently we have seen the Canon 7D which has closed the gap quite a bit already.

A 7D is on the list for next year some time, but it's mostly just gadget lust. The quality I get from my 40D is already pretty amazing when it all comes together.

TBH I would be better off spending my time and effort in search of really good subjects to photograph. If you've got beautiful things and amazing sights in front of your lens, with good technique and even a semi decent camera, you can't fail. Many of the great photographs in history could have been taken on pretty much anything, and even a modest modern camera would deliver better quality. It's the subject that counts ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
A 7D is on the list for next year some time, but it's mostly just gadget lust. The quality I get from my 40D is already pretty amazing when it all comes together.

TBH I would be better off spending my time and effort in search of really good subjects to photograph. If you've got beautiful things and amazing sights in front of your lens, with good technique and even a semi decent camera, you can't fail. Many of the great photographs in history could have been taken on pretty much anything, and even a modest modern camera would deliver better quality. It's the subject that counts ;)
Click to expand...

It's refreshing to read this. I have a good understanding of the technical advances and I'm all too easily swept along with photography jargon so it's nice to hear.

I/S on the body or the lens..............

If this was the question.........there's clips on the web from Nikon & Canon 'bods' explaining that VR / IS is in the lens rather than the camera because diferent lenses require different treatment so sticking IS / VR in the camera body is a 'general' fix (think auto white balance) rather than tailored towards optimum performance of the lens (y)
 
dinners said:
It's refreshing to read this. I have a good understanding of the technical advances and I'm all too easily swept along with photography jargon so it's nice to hear.

I/S on the body or the lens..............

If this was the question.........there's clips on the web from Nikon & Canon 'bods' explaining that VR / IS is in the lens rather than the camera because diferent lenses require different treatment so sticking IS / VR in the camera body is a 'general' fix (think auto white balance) rather than tailored towards optimum performance of the lens (y)
Click to expand...

post of the day:clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top