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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On 14/10/2012 3:51 AM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote: : On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote: : "Rob" wrote in message : ... : You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles". : : yes there are BTW - think movie lenses. : : Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a : circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular : of course, which is a totally different issue. : : Trevor. : : : Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic : lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress. : : Hope this helps. It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work) are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread. Bob No they are not - in the context of of the above statement. which was, and I qualified it by mentioning it was used in movie production. "there are no lenses I know of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles"." |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
Robert Coe wrote:
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote: : On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote: : "Rob" wrote in message : ... : You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles". : : yes there are BTW - think movie lenses. : : Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a : circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular : of course, which is a totally different issue. : : Trevor. : : : Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic : lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress. : : Hope this helps. It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work) are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread. Bob I first saw cinemascope in London in the early sixties (Could have been 'How the West was won' but not sure now) the film looked to me as if it was taken and projected with three lenses. There were two distinct joins in the projected picture, we were comparitively close to the screen and in the first row of the balcony. -- Neil |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:56:59 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: : On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:38:06 +1000, "Trevor" wrote: : : : "Eric Stevens" wrote in message : .. . : It is not my definition - it is Trevor's. I am just pointing out that if : you regard DX as a "crop" of FX, then every format is in the same : (rather pointless sense of the word) a crop of some larger format, real : or theoretical. : : My apologies. It sounds as though you and I agree. To regard a smaller : sensor as a crop of a larger implies that the smaller sensor is : restricted to the same lens as the larger. It might very well be able : to use the same lens but there is no reason why it should not use a : proportionally shorter. : : So you choose to ignore the fact that 90% of Canon and Nikon lenses fit : either Dx or Fx bodies, (and the lens mount is the same)? And some Nikon Dx : lenses can be used in "crop mode" on an Fx body anyway? Fine, your choice. : Not like I should care :-) : : Of course I don't ignore it! : : But I feel no compulsion to use the same lens on my Dx camera as I : would on an Fx and I certainly wouldn't go around complaining that : images from my Dx are cropped versions of what I would produce with an : Fx. Laying aside the "cropped" nomenclature (as I agree one probably should), are we entering a phase in which it may be dangerous to buy APS-C lenses, lest they stop making cameras that will use them properly before the lenses wear out? Nikon is holding back on a D300 replacement while cranking out new FF equipment, and Canon has just introduced a FF camera (the 6D) for only about $400 more than the 7D. (Yes, the 6D has fewer features and about the same resolution as the 7D, but these things change over time.) Clearly FF is in the ascendancy now, and there may be no looking back. I think we've always suspected that FF would win in the end; now the question is not whether, but when. One more point: This is a Nikon thread, but just now the interesting developments with APS-C are in the Canon world. Canon's new mirrorless M uses an APS-C sensor, in contrast to the tiny sensors in Nikon's mirrorless offerings. Maybe the future of APS-C lenses is on mirrorless cameras, where reduced weight matters more. Even there, though, the picture is murky, since Canon evidently plans to develop a line of even lighter lenses specifically for the M. I have no FF bodies, but I don't think I'm ready to buck the trend. The last two lenses I bought are FF. I think the next one will be too. Bob |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
In article , Neil Ellwood
wrote: Robert Coe wrote: On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote: : On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote: : "Rob" wrote in message : ... : You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles". : : yes there are BTW - think movie lenses. : : Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a : circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular : of course, which is a totally different issue. : : Trevor. : : : Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic : lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress. : : Hope this helps. It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work) are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread. Bob I first saw cinemascope in London in the early sixties (Could have been 'How the West was won' but not sure now) the film looked to me as if it was taken and projected with three lenses. There were two distinct joins in the projected picture, we were comparitively close to the screen and in the first row of the balcony. Strictly, what you saw would have been Cinerama. Three filmsstrips. Wikipedia has a fair description of the technology and its successors. -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On 2012-10-14 09:31:06 -0700, Elliott Roper said:
In article , Neil Ellwood wrote: Robert Coe wrote: On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote: : On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote: : "Rob" wrote in message : ... : You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles". : : yes there are BTW - think movie lenses. : : Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a : circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular : of course, which is a totally different issue. : : Trevor. : : : Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic : lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress. : : Hope this helps. It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work) are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread. Bob I first saw cinemascope in London in the early sixties (Could have been 'How the West was won' but not sure now) the film looked to me as if it was taken and projected with three lenses. There were two distinct joins in the projected picture, we were comparitively close to the screen and in the first row of the balcony. Strictly, what you saw would have been Cinerama. Three filmsstrips. Wikipedia has a fair description of the technology and its successors. Yup! "How The West Was Won" was notorious as one of the early "three screen" Cinerama productions filled with demo scenes to emphasize the immersion effects of the curved screen. Scenes such as the "runaway train" and "buffalo stampede". It had major production issues as Cinerama was a "three-camera", "three-projector" process which required complicated synchronization, and even more production problems related to direction and editing, since principle actors might be simultaneously filmed in scenes by different cameras, only to be synchronized in the final presentation. John Frankenheimer used the effect to his advantage with "Gran Prix", by throwing up unrelated and disconnected scenes in the three screen areas. "Gran Prix" was also one of the last to use the "three-camera" set up, as was "2001". Both of these also use a blend of Super Panavision 70 , Todd-AO, & MCS-70 and were part of the transition to single camera "Ultra Wide screen" productions. Cinerama was shot in a 2.59:1 aspect ratio, and originally did not use anamorphic 35mm lenses. That came later with Ultra Panavision 70 and Super Technirama 70. It was also interesting in the way they built the curved Cinerama screen. It was made up of 6 inch wide strips mounted vertically under tension to create the curved 146 degree field of view, and could only be use for showing "three-camera/three-projector" movies until the advent of 70mm anamorphic production and projection. ....and then came IMAX. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On 14/10/2012 11:40 PM, Neil Ellwood wrote:
Robert Coe wrote: On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:07:40 +1100, Rob wrote: : On 13/10/2012 1:00 PM, Trevor wrote: : "Rob" wrote in message : ... : You still need a 44mm image circle, there are no lenses I know of : that have rectangular or oval image "circles". : : yes there are BTW - think movie lenses. : : Which ones should I look up? All the C mounts I have used were a : circular glass design. Metal parts and hoods can be rectangular : of course, which is a totally different issue. : : Trevor. : : : Have a look how they make cinema scope and project that. anamorphic : lenses. so they compress to fit a standard 35mm film then projected : with anamorphic projector lenses to uncompress. : : Hope this helps. It helps keep your previous statements from being wrong, but everyone here understands that Cinemascope lenses (if that's how they work) are irrelevant to the issues being discussed in this thread. Bob I first saw cinemascope in London in the early sixties (Could have been 'How the West was won' but not sure now) the film looked to me as if it was taken and projected with three lenses. There were two distinct joins in the projected picture, we were comparitively close to the screen and in the first row of the balcony. Cinerama was like this and projected with three (or more) projectors. Different to cinemascope which was one projector. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CinemaScope http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cin%C3%A9orama |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... The problem is that there is an enormous amount of obfuscation generated by people who insist in thinking only in terms of a still-camera image size based on the Edison Kinetographic film size of 1890. It doesn't matter what the sensor (film or silicon) size is: it's not a 'crop sensor'. Yep, that statement would certainly be "obfuscation"! :-) The sensor is indeed "cropping" the image a Fx lens was designed for, and isn't when used with a Dx lens. Are you really so silly that you select the focal length of the lens you are going to use without taking the sensor size into account? Nope, how did you arrrive at that "straw man"? Just being your usual disingenuous self? Your choice, except Canon and Nikon only give you a small choice of Dx only lenses. Of course my argument was not based on simple definitions anyway, only on the fact that it *is* possible to obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx body. You can ignore it all you like, define it away however you want, but it doesn't change the physics, or final image that is possible. You can "obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx body" only if that part of the image in which you are interested does not fall outside the Dx sensor. But why use the same lens on each? If the Fx image is satisfactory you should be able to use a shorter lens on the Dx camera. OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept. If you really *insist* on maximum "reach" for minimum lens size, Nikon already has a great camera for you, just stay away from their DSLR's altogether! :-) Your choice, I certainly don't give a rats what you do!!! Trevor. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:39:53 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message .. . The problem is that there is an enormous amount of obfuscation generated by people who insist in thinking only in terms of a still-camera image size based on the Edison Kinetographic film size of 1890. It doesn't matter what the sensor (film or silicon) size is: it's not a 'crop sensor'. Yep, that statement would certainly be "obfuscation"! :-) The sensor is indeed "cropping" the image a Fx lens was designed for, and isn't when used with a Dx lens. Are you really so silly that you select the focal length of the lens you are going to use without taking the sensor size into account? Nope, how did you arrrive at that "straw man"? Just being your usual disingenuous self? Your choice, except Canon and Nikon only give you a small choice of Dx only lenses. Of course my argument was not based on simple definitions anyway, only on the fact that it *is* possible to obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx body. You can ignore it all you like, define it away however you want, but it doesn't change the physics, or final image that is possible. You can "obtain similar results with the *same* lens on an Fx or Dx body" only if that part of the image in which you are interested does not fall outside the Dx sensor. But why use the same lens on each? If the Fx image is satisfactory you should be able to use a shorter lens on the Dx camera. OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept. That's because I wouldn't be so silly as to use a lens so grossly out of kilter with the sensor size. Do you really think I have gone through life with but the one lens which I have used for cameras ranging from a half-frame (1" x 3/4") Petri to a 4" x 5" plate camera? Then why on earth do you keep trying to argue on the basis that I have only the one lens to share between an Fx and a Dx camera? Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, irrespective of whether I am using a Dx or Fx camera I choose a lens to suit the image I want to capture with the camera. The lens I choose depends on whether I'm using an Fx or a Dx. I might even have a zoom, in which case I zoom in and out until the image in the view finder coincides with the image I want to capture. All this business of having to crop with one sized sensor and not with another is a nonsense. If you really *insist* on maximum "reach" for minimum lens size, Nikon already has a great camera for you, just stay away from their DSLR's altogether! :-) Your choice, I certainly don't give a rats what you do!!! Trevor. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept. That's because I wouldn't be so silly as to use a lens so grossly out of kilter with the sensor size. What the hell is "grossly out of kilter with the sensor size" when using any standard Nikon or Canon lens on a Nikon or Canon DSLR??? How do you make this stuff up, do you lay awake at night thinking about it? Do you really think I have gone through life with but the one lens which I have used for cameras ranging from a half-frame (1" x 3/4") Petri to a 4" x 5" plate camera? Then why on earth do you keep trying to argue on the basis that I have only the one lens to share between an Fx and a Dx camera? Point out where I said anything of the sort and I'll answer it, otherwise it's probably time I stopped arguing with idiots. So tell me what 400 or 600mm Dx only lens do you use for those wildlife shots? Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, irrespective of whether I am using a Dx or Fx camera I choose a lens to suit the image I want to capture with the camera. And you never use a Fx lens on a Dx body? Lucky you to have an infinite array of lenses to choose from. I don't, so often make do with what I have. Whatever works for you, but insisting everyone else is wrong is plain stupid. The lens I choose depends on whether I'm using an Fx or a Dx. I might even have a zoom, in which case I zoom in and out until the image in the view finder coincides with the image I want to capture. All this business of having to crop with one sized sensor and not with another is a nonsense. Who said you HAVE to do anything? If you really *insist* on maximum "reach" for minimum lens size, Nikon already has a great camera for you, just stay away from their DSLR's altogether! :-) BTW how is your Nikon V1, what lenses do you have for it? Of course if you ever did mount a 35mm lens on it, you would be "cropping" it's image circle whether you like it or not :-) :-) Trevor. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Why Nikon should upgrade the D300
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:49:00 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message .. . OR crop the Fx image later, as I have been saying and you don't accept. That's because I wouldn't be so silly as to use a lens so grossly out of kilter with the sensor size. What the hell is "grossly out of kilter with the sensor size" when using any standard Nikon or Canon lens on a Nikon or Canon DSLR??? How do you make this stuff up, do you lay awake at night thinking about it? I'm not the one making it up. You are the one who assumes that I have to crop Fx images because I use the same lens to take them as I would with a Dx. I'm saying that I'm not that silly. I would use a longer focal length to suit the larger sensor. There would be no need to crop. Do you really think I have gone through life with but the one lens which I have used for cameras ranging from a half-frame (1" x 3/4") Petri to a 4" x 5" plate camera? Then why on earth do you keep trying to argue on the basis that I have only the one lens to share between an Fx and a Dx camera? Point out where I said anything of the sort and I'll answer it, otherwise it's probably time I stopped arguing with idiots. So tell me what 400 or 600mm Dx only lens do you use for those wildlife shots? You are shifting ground. No one said anything about those particular focal lengths. Nor has there been any suggestion of wildlife shots. The whole point about which I have been arguing is your repeated statement/assumption that a photograph taken with Dx camera has to be cropped if you want to get the same result with an Fx. Just in case it hasn't occurred to you, irrespective of whether I am using a Dx or Fx camera I choose a lens to suit the image I want to capture with the camera. And you never use a Fx lens on a Dx body? Lucky you to have an infinite array of lenses to choose from. I don't, so often make do with what I have. Whatever works for you, but insisting everyone else is wrong is plain stupid. You are shifting ground yet again. The lens I choose depends on whether I'm using an Fx or a Dx. I might even have a zoom, in which case I zoom in and out until the image in the view finder coincides with the image I want to capture. All this business of having to crop with one sized sensor and not with another is a nonsense. Who said you HAVE to do anything? You said you did, if you want to get the same image. If you really *insist* on maximum "reach" for minimum lens size, Nikon already has a great camera for you, just stay away from their DSLR's altogether! :-) BTW how is your Nikon V1, what lenses do you have for it? Of course if you ever did mount a 35mm lens on it, you would be "cropping" it's image circle whether you like it or not :-) :-) Trevor. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? | trouble | Digital Photography | 1 | January 7th 09 08:11 PM |
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? | RichA[_4_] | Digital Photography | 2 | January 7th 09 07:34 PM |
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? | Floyd L. Davidson | Digital Photography | 0 | January 7th 09 05:40 PM |
Nikon 50mm 1.4 AFS on Nikon D40 - Should I upgrade lens or camera? | ASAAR | Digital Photography | 0 | January 7th 09 06:40 AM |
D300 worth the upgrade from the D200 | LuvLatins[_2_] | Digital Photography | 33 | December 26th 07 04:17 AM |