If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Angus Manwaring wrote:
[Interpolation versus enlarging analogue film] The difference is that you are enlarging true detail when you blow up a film image. Only up to the point where the negative still holds additional information and where the gear used does not go past it's limits. Blowing up a 35mm film to 4m x 6m should widely surpass said limits. Interpolation is an algorithm's best guess as to what the adjacent pixels are likely to be, True if you use a single image --- but (nitpick) if you have multiple, near-identical images, you can do, ah, interesting stuff http://auricle.dyndns.org/ALE/gallery-auto/ Note that that eats lots of CPU time for larger images. -Wolfgang |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
When someone has a pre-concieved opinion, is it possible to change it?
I think not Will, but for those poor individuals who use "that horrible piece of coke bottle glass" I have some valuable news. For you Will, well, you've already made up your mind so you might as well not read any further. The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not glass but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the lightest zoom lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in it's own right and I offer a few examples of it's resolution capabilities, it's chromatic suppression and it's ability to shoot directly into the late afternoon sun without flair. Oh, did I mention image taken with that lens on a 20D enlarge to 2 feet by 3 feet without loss of detail? Well they do! http://www.ryadia.com/ AJ. All the irrelevant stuff which was below has been snipped out "Will D." wrote in message ... Now you're making assumptions that are "intrinsically" invalid. How many people have bought a DReb kit with that horrible piece of coke bottle glass, and thought they were doing just great? And inevitably some of them will wind up here, trying to get answers to questions they don't know enough to ask. Will D. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-11-21, Alien Jones wrote:
When someone has a pre-concieved opinion, is it possible to change it? I think not Will, but for those poor individuals who use "that horrible piece of coke bottle glass" I have some valuable news. For you Will, well, you've already made up your mind so you might as well not read any further. The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not glass but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the lightest zoom lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in it's own right and I offer a few examples of it's resolution capabilities, it's chromatic suppression and it's ability to shoot directly into the late afternoon sun without flair. Oh, did I mention image taken with that lens on a 20D enlarge to 2 feet by 3 feet without loss of detail? Well they do! http://www.ryadia.com/ AJ. All the irrelevant stuff which was below has been snipped out Well, I just had my lunch handed to me here, and I deserved every bite! Apologies to those folk who have this apparently quite nice lens. It is *not* the same kit lens that comes with the film bodies, which by all accounts is coke bottle glass. Guess I should look to see if the brain is in gear before engaging fingers, eh? The 18-55 is the lens that cannot be mounted on a film camera, costs around $100, and is generally considered a no-brainer as a purchase. As I'm thinking about a 20D, I'll probably get one of those as well. As far as the lens optics are concerned, Canon says they are made of lead-free glass. Size and weight reduction are largely due to downsizing the image circle requirements. Flare reduction caused by enhanced lens coatings, especially on the rear elements, AIUI. Also, there appears to be a new USM version of the lens now available. I'll go for that. I've got only one EF lens that is not USM and that's the 50mm f1.4. By comparison, it's not only noisy but slow. Given the 20D advertises a shutter lag of 65ms, the USM lens is probably the way to go. Will D. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Will D." wrote in message ... On 2004-11-21, Alien Jones wrote: When someone has a pre-concieved opinion, is it possible to change it? I think not Will, but for those poor individuals who use "that horrible piece of coke bottle glass" I have some valuable news. For you Will, well, you've already made up your mind so you might as well not read any further. The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not glass but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the lightest zoom lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in it's own right and I offer a few examples of it's resolution capabilities, it's chromatic suppression and it's ability to shoot directly into the late afternoon sun without flair. Oh, did I mention image taken with that lens on a 20D enlarge to 2 feet by 3 feet without loss of detail? Well they do! http://www.ryadia.com/ AJ. All the irrelevant stuff which was below has been snipped out Well, I just had my lunch handed to me here, and I deserved every bite! Apologies to those folk who have this apparently quite nice lens. It is *not* the same kit lens that comes with the film bodies, which by all accounts is coke bottle glass. Guess I should look to see if the brain is in gear before engaging fingers, eh? The 18-55 is the lens that cannot be mounted on a film camera, costs around $100, and is generally considered a no-brainer as a purchase. As I'm thinking about a 20D, I'll probably get one of those as well. As far as the lens optics are concerned, Canon says they are made of lead-free glass. Size and weight reduction are largely due to downsizing the image circle requirements. Flare reduction caused by enhanced lens coatings, especially on the rear elements, AIUI. Also, there appears to be a new USM version of the lens now available. I'll go for that. I've got only one EF lens that is not USM and that's the 50mm f1.4. By comparison, it's not only noisy but slow. Given the 20D advertises a shutter lag of 65ms, the USM lens is probably the way to go. Will D. Tell me please Will... the 50 1.4 you speak of. Is this the lens which is noisey? I just ordered a 50mm 1.4 USM lens. I hope you are talking about a different model!!! If you do some landscapes, a (as yet un confirmed) good quality lens from Canon is the 10~22 "coke bottle" lens. The USM (f4.0) 17~40 is a big hit on the cost of a kit version 20D. Financially speaking, I can see a lot of value in a 18~55, 20D kit and an additional 10~22 lens. There is not much wider without a fisheye and if it is as good as the other speciality lenses from Canon, it will be good enough for most people. Me included. AJ |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message ... "Alien Jones" writes: Snipped The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not glass but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the lightest zoom lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in it's own right and I offer a few examples of it's resolution capabilities, ... at 350 x 228 pixels, JPEG-compressed to hell. I am not dissing your lens - but your "examples" are a bad joke. If you don't want to post full size images for bandwith reasons, why don't you - at least - post some crops from a full size frame? -- - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ================================================== ====================== I would have thought the pictures demonstrated many aspects of a lens's usefulness, regardless of the size or compression of the pictures. The peg, demonstrates crisp focus. The backlit beach scene that the lens has minimul flair, the red geranium, that wide open at full aperture, in poor light, the lens is still usable and the frangipani's, that soft focus is possible when using manual focus even though it is not a soft focus lens. I just included the other photo because I liked it! Basically I'm saying that if you take the time to understand your gear, how much it cost is no measure of how good it is. None of this has any impact on the size of the picture I posted, just reinforces my words. Why do you want 20 megabyte files anyway? How stupid is it to expect me to post 60 meg of images just so you can examine every pixel in all it's glory while 50 other people steal the images to re-sell? The principal problem here is that I provided commercial images some of which I sell, to reinforce my belief that a lens often described as crappy, is in fact a reasonable quality lens. There is no way in the world I am prepared to post any images that may have value, to the Internet in a form which can be pirated. Live with it Gisle, or don't look at them. If you seek images you can download at full resolution, I can sell you some. Otherwise just accept the reality of the Internet that people often (not just sometimes) steal photographs, put their own name to them and then sell them as if they were their own work. AJ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On 2004-11-22, Alien Jones wrote:
snip Tell me please Will... the 50 1.4 you speak of. Is this the lens which is noisey? I just ordered a 50mm 1.4 USM lens. I hope you are talking about a different model!!! Heh, well, They call it a micro USM lens. That means it has the small micromotor instead of the larger older micromotor. Most USM lenses use the ring motor which is virtually silent and vibration free, not so the micro USM. And it has a gritty movement, compared to the other ring motors. At the time I got it, I was disappointed in these facts, but checking around a bit revealed that they all did that. Maybe the newer ones are smoother, I don't know. That said, it is one hell of a great lens, possibly the very sharpest of the Canon EF lenses, and it is sturdy, etc, etc. The small annoyance of the AF movement is easily offset by the capabilities of the lens itself. If you do some landscapes, a (as yet un confirmed) good quality lens from Canon is the 10~22 "coke bottle" lens. The USM (f4.0) 17~40 is a big hit on Note that I don't call it a "coke bottle" lens. The lens I was referring to (had in mind) was the 28-85(?) zoom that comes with the film Rebels as the kit lens. The wide angle zooms are altogether a different lens in a different price range. I don't do a lot of landscapes now, and never did landscape per se with cassette film, only roll and sheet film cameras. the cost of a kit version 20D. Financially speaking, I can see a lot of value in a 18~55, 20D kit and an additional 10~22 lens. There is not much wider without a fisheye and if it is as good as the other speciality lenses from Canon, it will be good enough for most people. Me included. These new lenses are evidently very fine performers, though there is still some difference between zooms and primes, just nowhere near as much as there used to be. I've no idea what sort of wide lenses I will be looking at when I eventually go DSLR. HTH Will D. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
20D vs 1D mkII | you know who maybe | Digital Photography | 9 | November 15th 04 08:52 PM |
Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview - MF encroachment | Alan Browne | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 110 | October 6th 04 05:09 PM |
Canon EOS 1Ds MkII Preview - MF encroachment | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 105 | October 6th 04 05:09 PM |
10d mkII will be released in Sept | david smith | Digital Photography | 68 | August 6th 04 05:26 AM |
new 10d mkII with 1.3x sensor | david Smith | Digital Photography | 56 | July 6th 04 04:25 AM |