Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Filter Type Zoom  (Read 6077 times)

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Filter Type Zoom
« on: September 04, 2005, 10:49:26 AM »

Quote
Your right about a DSLR, but not just a DSLR like a Canon Rebel. I think the F828 is superior to that camera, as I used a friends a few weeks ago. The image quality in the F828 was noticibly superior to my eyes.
I find that rather surprising; was it a Rebel or Rebel XT? Pixel-to-pixel a DSLR will wipe the floor with any P&S at equal ISO, and the higher the ISO the more lopsided the comparison becomes. If you thought otherwise, perhaps the Rebel was set to an unnecessarily high ISO or had a really crappy lens or something.

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2005, 09:02:08 PM »

Quote
Quote
I know, but the reviews on the F828 show it does a GREAT job compared to other cameras, even ones costing more. The color was better and the sharpness too. It just seemed to make a more realistic picture overall. The ISO I always keep at 64. I didn't check the ISO on the rebel. I just set it to Program and let it choose at about 4 PM sunny day.
That's not a particularly meaningful test. If you didn't check the ISO on the Rebel, you don't know where it was at while shooting. The sharpness difference is a combination of the DOF issue Bob mentioned, as well as the more aggressive in-camera sharpening done by P&S cameras that is left to the user with most DSLRs. Regarding color, what you get from in-camera JPEGs is not indicative of what the camera can truly do if you shoot RAW with a properly configured RAW converter. Also, what lens were you using on the Rebel?

Have a look at the 828-Rebel comparison at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page14.asp for a comparison between the 828 and the original Rebel. Your contention that there is any superiority of the 828 over a DSLR is based entirely on wishful thinking.
Yeah I reread it again and your pretty much right. There were some things that teh sony did as well if not better due to its higer MP count. However, at the time, I wanted the 8 MP camera, and the 300 was only 6. Plus, I didn't know what I know now. In any case, the sensor on the Rebel still isn't going to give that nice shallow DoF that I also want if and when I upgrade, will it?

If not, I'll need to step up to a pro series camera.

Someone also told me that Cannon doesn't make film cameras anymore?
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2005, 03:58:41 PM »

Quote
back to your oignal question:

yes, but I think you should buy the Sony attachment. it should be designed to wok best with your camera.
So you think the "multiplier" from Sony would be ok? Someone else said they would or could greatly degrade quality. How do you feel about that?
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2005, 05:58:17 AM »

Quote
Quote
Quote
I would try the add on lens.  I would get Sony's.  It might be more compatible with the F828 lens.  It would be nice if you could try one before buying.

True, there will be some degradation of the image.  But unless you are making big prints, you may not notice.  Using the lens wide open is already hampering the quality some.

When I had an F707, I thought the lens performed better at tele lengths than at wide angles.

For what its worth, DoF with the F828 is calculated exactly like any other camera.  Just remember to use the actual lens focal length, not the 35mm equivalent.  With the multiplier on, the focal length is the actual times the multipier strength.

Howard. I don't doubt your technical facts here, but I'm under the impression that the F828 will never have nearly as nice shallow DoF as the pro series digitals because of sensor size, or something of that nature. Is this correct?
I'm still pretty new at all this myself, but my understanding is that DOF is more a function of lens length and aperture than sensor size.

If you set the aperture to f/2.8 and take a picture, you will have a shallow depth of field.  The background will be blurred.

The same shot with the aperture set to f/16 will result in a much deeper depth of field, with the background not being blurred (or blurred much less).
Yeah to some degree. Doesn't work that way tho Mike with digital. The sensor or other electronics in teh camera give it a much deeper DoF than more expensive cameras with better electronics.

I think Howard posted one for me a while back where he was 20 something feet from the subject with a nice digital camera, and the background was smooth pretty much with no detail.

No matter what my F stop is, evne at 2.2, and no matter what my focal lentgh is, I can't get a blurred background like that.

Here are some test shots I posted:
http://www.idlethoughtsandchaos.com/photo/index01.html
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2005, 01:31:40 AM »

I need a small amount more zoom than I can get from my fixed lens Sony F828. I was thinking about buying one of those filter type multipliers that screw onto the front of the lens. Are they ok?
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2005, 04:37:51 PM »

Your right about a DSLR, but not just a DSLR like a Canon Rebel. I think the F828 is superior to that camera, as I used a friends a few weeks ago. The image quality in the F828 was noticibly superior to my eyes.

But what I take you to mean is a DSLR like the Cannon D series. Yes, I think I really do need that.

However, I'd like to ahve one of the newer models if I'm going to fork over 5K for the back and lenses, such as that new model that just hit the market.

I'm going to do a series of images and display them after I make sure they are the best I can do with the F828. If I seem to do well, not jsut monetarily, but more so having the skill and talen to get pictures that people enjoy and think are good, then that will give me the motivation to take this to the next step.

Do you think that's a good idea?
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2005, 05:24:34 PM »

Quote
Quote
Your right about a DSLR, but not just a DSLR like a Canon Rebel. I think the F828 is superior to that camera, as I used a friends a few weeks ago. The image quality in the F828 was noticibly superior to my eyes.
I find that rather surprising; was it a Rebel or Rebel XT? Pixel-to-pixel a DSLR will wipe the floor with any P&S at equal ISO, and the higher the ISO the more lopsided the comparison becomes. If you thought otherwise, perhaps the Rebel was set to an unnecessarily high ISO or had a really crappy lens or something.
I know, but the reviews on the F828 show it does a GREAT job compared to other cameras, even ones costing more. The color was better and the sharpness too. It just seemed to make a more realistic picture overall. The ISO I always keep at 64. I didn't check the ISO on the rebel. I just set it to Program and let it choose at about 4 PM sunny day.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2005, 07:51:57 PM »

Quote
I know, but the reviews on the F828 show it does a GREAT job compared to other cameras, even ones costing more. The color was better and the sharpness too. It just seemed to make a more realistic picture overall. The ISO I always keep at 64. I didn't check the ISO on the rebel. I just set it to Program and let it choose at about 4 PM sunny day.
That's not a particularly meaningful test. If you didn't check the ISO on the Rebel, you don't know where it was at while shooting. The sharpness difference is a combination of the DOF issue Bob mentioned, as well as the more aggressive in-camera sharpening done by P&S cameras that is left to the user with most DSLRs. Regarding color, what you get from in-camera JPEGs is not indicative of what the camera can truly do if you shoot RAW with a properly configured RAW converter. Also, what lens were you using on the Rebel?

Have a look at the 828-Rebel comparison at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page14.asp for a comparison between the 828 and the original Rebel. Your contention that there is any superiority of the 828 over a DSLR is based entirely on wishful thinking.

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2005, 09:06:35 PM »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Your right about a DSLR, but not just a DSLR like a Canon Rebel. I think the F828 is superior to that camera, as I used a friends a few weeks ago. The image quality in the F828 was noticibly superior to my eyes.
I find that rather surprising; was it a Rebel or Rebel XT? Pixel-to-pixel a DSLR will wipe the floor with any P&S at equal ISO, and the higher the ISO the more lopsided the comparison becomes. If you thought otherwise, perhaps the Rebel was set to an unnecessarily high ISO or had a really crappy lens or something.
I know, but the reviews on the F828 show it does a GREAT job compared to other cameras, even ones costing more. The color was better and the sharpness too. It just seemed to make a more realistic picture overall. The ISO I always keep at 64. I didn't check the ISO on the rebel. I just set it to Program and let it choose at about 4 PM sunny day.
I think you are being impressed by a greater depth-of-field. Smaller sensor cameras like the 828 use shorter focal length lenses for the same field of view. The result is increased depth-of-field for a given aperture.

Realistic? If you are impressed by everything at maximum sharpness, then the 828 will deliver more on Programmed mode. I contend that removes creativity and mastery from the equation, but to each his own.

I take it that since you use Program mode you aren't considering actually setting the aperture manually and previewing the effect - these are techniques beyond point-and-shoot photography. They will deliver impressive results that demonstrate the superiority of images created in an SLR by a skilled operator.

Bottom line - your rationalization is based on personal technique, not capability of the equipment.
Bob right, I never use Program mode while shooting my F828. It's always in Manual--always.

I just shot the Rebel in program mode because we were out on a boat fishing for Salmon and I was "pointing and shooting." So right, the Rebel probably does make better pictures, but I'm under the impression that the sensor is a small sensor compared to your guys nice digitals. I would like to get a much better Shallow DOF. So, again, I'll need to really step up to get that.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2005, 09:22:19 PM »

The bottom line why I bought the F828 was this:

1) Reviews from DSC above and here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/sony828.shtml
And a few others.

2) I got it for 600.00<--was about my max at the time.

3) It had 8MPs and at the time everything else was at 6.

4) It had a Carl Ziess lens

5) I was ignorant<--main thing

But aside from it's limited zoom, which I would like a little more, and its incredible deep DoF, except on closer up shots, it takes clear and sharp pictures when printed on the Noritsu 3.x series printers that Costco uses at 12x18.

But I really am yearning for that extra zoom and better Shallow DoF.

Have any of you ever seen a F828 print at Maximum resolution printed on the Noristu printer? I'd like to see what you think compared to your expert eyes. It's one thing to see a 100% image zoomed in to 200% on screen compared to the same image printed with a nice printer, like the Noritsu on Fujicolor paper. But you all know this. I'm not in anyway trying to offend your knowledge and expertise.

I do believe that the new Rebels are out with 8MPs now however. If they could give that nice shallow DoF, I'd consider buying one, but only after talking it over with all of you. I know lenses are not cheap.

Also, I'll take a couple of pics and get teh best Shallow DoF I can get using, if necesssary, my neatral density filter to lower the F as low as I can get it, and using my zoom. That is, after I get my new computer system where I want it. You all know how tha goes--those who build their own anyway.
Logged

drh681

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2005, 02:40:44 PM »

back to your oignal question:

yes, but I think you should buy the Sony attachment. it should be designed to wok best with your camera.
Logged

mnealtx

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2005, 05:24:48 AM »

Quote
Quote
I would try the add on lens.  I would get Sony's.  It might be more compatible with the F828 lens.  It would be nice if you could try one before buying.

True, there will be some degradation of the image.  But unless you are making big prints, you may not notice.  Using the lens wide open is already hampering the quality some.

When I had an F707, I thought the lens performed better at tele lengths than at wide angles.

For what its worth, DoF with the F828 is calculated exactly like any other camera.  Just remember to use the actual lens focal length, not the 35mm equivalent.  With the multiplier on, the focal length is the actual times the multipier strength.

Howard. I don't doubt your technical facts here, but I'm under the impression that the F828 will never have nearly as nice shallow DoF as the pro series digitals because of sensor size, or something of that nature. Is this correct?
I'm still pretty new at all this myself, but my understanding is that DOF is more a function of lens length and aperture than sensor size.

If you set the aperture to f/2.8 and take a picture, you will have a shallow depth of field.  The background will be blurred.

The same shot with the aperture set to f/16 will result in a much deeper depth of field, with the background not being blurred (or blurred much less).
Logged
____
Mike

Canon 350D, BG-E3 battery grip
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L
420EX flash

howard smith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2005, 04:00:16 PM »

I would try the add on lens.  I would get Sony's.  It might be more compatible with the F828 lens.  It would be nice if you could try one before buying.

True, there will be some degradation of the image.  But unless you are making big prints, you may not notice.  Using the lens wide open is already hampering the quality some.

When I had an F707, I thought the lens performed better at tele lengths than at wide angles.

For what its worth, DoF with the F828 is calculated exactly like any other camera.  Just remember to use the actual lens focal length, not the 35mm equivalent.  With the multiplier on, the focal length is the actual times the multipier strength.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2005, 10:48:17 AM »

Not really. Most are cheaply made and will significantly degrade image quality. You may want to start saving for a DSLR instead. You'll be much happier.

boku

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1493
    • http://www.bobkulonphoto.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2005, 06:56:44 PM »

Quote
Quote
Quote
Your right about a DSLR, but not just a DSLR like a Canon Rebel. I think the F828 is superior to that camera, as I used a friends a few weeks ago. The image quality in the F828 was noticibly superior to my eyes.
I find that rather surprising; was it a Rebel or Rebel XT? Pixel-to-pixel a DSLR will wipe the floor with any P&S at equal ISO, and the higher the ISO the more lopsided the comparison becomes. If you thought otherwise, perhaps the Rebel was set to an unnecessarily high ISO or had a really crappy lens or something.
I know, but the reviews on the F828 show it does a GREAT job compared to other cameras, even ones costing more. The color was better and the sharpness too. It just seemed to make a more realistic picture overall. The ISO I always keep at 64. I didn't check the ISO on the rebel. I just set it to Program and let it choose at about 4 PM sunny day.
I think you are being impressed by a greater depth-of-field. Smaller sensor cameras like the 828 use shorter focal length lenses for the same field of view. The result is increased depth-of-field for a given aperture.

Realistic? If you are impressed by everything at maximum sharpness, then the 828 will deliver more on Programmed mode. I contend that removes creativity and mastery from the equation, but to each his own.

I take it that since you use Program mode you aren't considering actually setting the aperture manually and previewing the effect - these are techniques beyond point-and-shoot photography. They will deliver impressive results that demonstrate the superiority of images created in an SLR by a skilled operator.

Bottom line - your rationalization is based on personal technique, not capability of the equipment.
Logged
Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #15 on: September 05, 2005, 05:17:36 AM »

OK here are some pictures at varying lens lengths at f2.8 I took today right after the sun set and with a polarizer on that has a 1 2/3 ND effect.

http://www.idlethoughtsandchaos.com/photo/index01.html

As you can see, when I use a higher zoom I can get more in the picture with better blurring of the background, but it's really limited there. You really have to finesses it when out taking pictures.

It also does a good job with a wide angle up really close with macro enabled, like a foot or less.

In any event, is there anything I can do to extend the way I am getting the shallow DoF, or is this a pretty good example of the best I can do?

Let me know any specific techniques and I'll do it and post them.
Logged

dwdallam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2044
    • http://www.dwdallam.com
Filter Type Zoom
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2005, 09:44:47 PM »

Quote
I would try the add on lens.  I would get Sony's.  It might be more compatible with the F828 lens.  It would be nice if you could try one before buying.

True, there will be some degradation of the image.  But unless you are making big prints, you may not notice.  Using the lens wide open is already hampering the quality some.

When I had an F707, I thought the lens performed better at tele lengths than at wide angles.

For what its worth, DoF with the F828 is calculated exactly like any other camera.  Just remember to use the actual lens focal length, not the 35mm equivalent.  With the multiplier on, the focal length is the actual times the multipier strength.

Howard. I don't doubt your technical facts here, but I'm under the impression that the F828 will never have nearly as nice shallow DoF as the pro series digitals because of sensor size, or something of that nature. Is this correct?
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up