SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

In message ,
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

... for a given focal length, or range (as in a zoom). A $70 50mm lens
can be optically superior to an L-grade wide-angle zoom.

There are always exceptions.

http://etischer.com/300d/Tamron28-75.html

Well, I was thinking about stuff like 16-35mm, etc.

It looks to me that the Tamron at f/4.0 at the ends and f/5.6 in the middle
is about as good as lenses get. (Although it's a pity his 70-200/4.0
misfocused.) It's not coincidental that my Tamron has produced the sharpest
images I've seen from the 300D.)

Nice. I might find that hard to believe, except for the fact that I
already own one Tamron lens, the 90mm f2.8 Di Macro, and it is the
sharpest lens I own.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
Alan Browne wrote:

wrote:

In message ,
Alan Browne wrote:


If you sort by quality (across all shooting conditions) you end up
sorting roughly by price at the same time.


... for a given focal length, or range (as in a zoom). A $70 50mm lens
can be optically superior to an L-grade wide-angle zoom.


I believe most people would understand that...

.... and for those that don't ... my post.
--


John P Sheehy

In message . com,
"Scharf-DCA" wrote:

John P Sheehy wrote:

Like a RAW RGB histogram?

AFAIK, the only low-end D-SLR with an RGB histogram is the Sigma SD10,
and it's there for a very good reason. It's not like any major player
is putting this feature into their amateur or prosumer models.

Which should be a crime, IMO.

The companies are more interested in what they can get away with, not
with how they can make a superior product for very little extra cost. I
bet it would cost only a couple thousand dollars of programming time to
put a RAW RGB histogram in the firmware.
--


John P Sheehy

In message . com,
"Scharf-DCA" wrote:

John P Sheehy wrote:

Like a RAW RGB histogram?

AFAIK, the only low-end D-SLR with an RGB histogram is the Sigma SD10,
and it's there for a very good reason. It's not like any major player
is putting this feature into their amateur or prosumer models.

Which should be a crime, IMO.

The companies are more interested in what they can get away with, not
with how they can make a superior product for very little extra cost. I
bet it would cost only a couple thousand dollars of programming time to
put a RAW RGB histogram in the firmware.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
Big Bill wrote:

On 7 Mar 2005 16:58:51 -0800, "Scharf-DCA"
wrote:

John P Sheehy wrote:

Like a RAW RGB histogram?

AFAIK, the only low-end D-SLR with an RGB histogram is the Sigma SD10,
and it's there for a very good reason.

Because the SD10 doesn't do anything *BUT* RAW?

Is it really a RAW RGB histogram, though, or is it a color-balanced sRGB
histogram?

By "RAW RGB", I mean 0 to 4095 for each recorded channel, not 0 to 255
for estimated gamma/color-corrected conversion.
--


John P Sheehy

Paul Bielec wrote:

Not a very good example.
While a DSLR will still take the same pictures after 5 years, a PC will
not give you the same functionality after 5 years.

If you don't change the software, sure it will. A pro photog I know is
still doing his invoices on an Apple II.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

Sander Vesik wrote:

MLU is not just a firware issue. A real MLU always needs mechanics support
as otherwise holding it up continues to draw power.

Timer based MLU's (such as Minolta 2 sec.) only draw that current
briefly. Compared to 15 and 30 sec, not to mention 5 minute bulb
exposures, it's nothing.


Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

And what does a Canon Body and their 17-85 lens cost in lieu of a kit.
Make your own kit.

Steven M. Scharf wrote:

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...


In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Bill wrote:


It's too bad Canon didn't have an 18-70 or similar lense to compare with
the Nikkor 18-70. Now that I think about it, I'd like to see Canon come
out with a non-IS version of their 17-85 with the same optical quality,
as it would be a good everyday lense for a good price. It would be an
excellent starter lense for the Rebel series and 20D too.


The problem is more that while Nikon bundles essentialy a L glass


equvalent


with D70, Canon bundles low quality lens - something you wouldn't really
want to keep if you already hadlens and were intersted in quality. The


Nikon


one would be a keeper either ways.



Neither of those statements are true. The Nikon lens has been crticized for
build quality and vignetting, the Canon lens has been criticiszed for being
too soft at the edges. They are both mid-level lenses. The Nikon has a metal
mount, and a wider range, which makes some people think that it is better
than it really is. The difference is that the Canon lens, at $100
difference, is a no-brainer, but the Nikon lens at $300 difference is
something to consider more carefully.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

The only heavy lens I have is the 70-300 DO IS, and that can be forgiven
because its IS eliminates a tripod and it's the size of a large coffee
mug.

Are there any issues wrt the DO and the digital sensor that you've seen?
Do you shooti into the light very often?

Cheers,
Alan.

The only issue with the DO is that it doesn't have a normal blur at the
DOF edges. Rather than the blur gradually increasing in radius, you get
haze that gradually solidifies. It's sometimes attributed to an optics
problem but it will not happen completely inside or outside the DOF.

I didn't have time to compose this properly so the aperture is way too
large and there's a bit of backfocus. You can see the haze on the edge
of the ticket book.

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%...%202004/raw/IM
G_3219.JPG


These stage photos were taken handheld from the crowd with the 70-300 DO
IS. There's enough backlighting to cause blooming but I don't notice
any haze. (The trees are fogged by real fog.)

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%...e%2020%202004/

John A. Stovall wrote:

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 23:30:16 GMT, "ian lincoln"
wrote:


snipped

considering the main selling point of the canon is its 8mp sensor putting an
inferior lens on the front seems pointless.


Why bother buying one with a kit lens? In putting together my Canon
20D system. I just bought the body and then added the lens(es) I
wanted which would meet my needs.

I don't understand why any one wouldn't just buy a body and not get
the best lenses for their needs rather than what the manufacturer put
on it.

I would go as far as to say anyone buying a 20D and not knowing enough
to pick a lenses doesn't need to be buying one but rather needs to be
learning more about the basics of photography.

That depends a lot on the person. Some just want the latest and best
gadget and really don't care about photography, and really couldn't care
less about what lens they have as long as it does their job as they
perceive it. The manufacturers put wide to moderate zoom lenses because
these are appropriate to people who are more snapper than shooter. The
days of "ye shall spend 1 year with a 50mm lens" are a bit in the past.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.