a rant

[Curious]

ok i’m semi broke and can’t afford bleeding edge cameras but damn….

buy a D3000 and Nikon comes out with the D3100. but that’s ok since i really don’t see an advantage to me. certainly not enough to upgrade.

buy a D5100 for the extra MP but mostly for the swivel screen. nice camera, i like it and use it but but .. well one more step up. few more features in knobs not menu.

so i buy a used D7000. now i know the D7100s are out and the sensor is nice but man it’s almost twice what this used D7000 is. so i’ve shot maybe 300 photos playing with it in the last three days and i’m on line checking this and that

---

GOD DAMMIT. THERE’S A D5200 WITH THE SAME SENSOR AS THE D7100. half again as big as the D7000’s sensor. shit.

i don’t mind if my graphics card is old because i don’t game. i don’t need SLI and two $350 video cards. but it would be nice if my new to me camera didn’t outdate before the new camera smell was gone.

[bender16v]

I hear you, I’ve waited for a while for a replacement for the D300s to come out and it never did so I bought a different one. I bet now a D400 will come out soon.

The D7000 is a really good camera and I’m sure you will be happy with it. Here’s a comparison that shows the D7000 vs. D5200.

[staplermofo]

It’s annoying.
Canon would never pull this crap. If 18mp is good enough for the T2i, it’s good enough for the T3i, T4i, T5i, 60D, 100D, 7D and 1D X. If you really need the extra resolution the 6d can give you 10/9 the pixels of that. And the newest 5d can get 11/10 the pixels of the 6D.
So, as you can see, those cowboys are pushing the envelope as far as they can. I mean, when the 1Ds came out in 2004 we all thought “woah, 16.7mp! Just think, in 2014 we could get something crazy, like 16.75 or 17.01mp” But it’s just 2013 and they’ve already cranked it up to 18.1mp. Heady times.

[orionid]

But really, though. Unless you’re printing walk-up wall murals or zooming by cropping, is there really a difference in anything above 12 MP or so? That’s already doubling your best-case resoltuion with 35mm. That’s also the same reason I chose the body I did when upgrading. The D800 was a MP beast. The D4 was way to expensive and was focused on the legitimate pro features like rapid focusing for sports action. The D600 cut back on both of those and ends up with the highest ROF, smallest physical size, lighest weight, and all the same menu options. And for half the price of the D800 and 20% of the D4. I couldn’t be happier. Chase the features that you want, not the MP.

[Curious]

Chase the features that you want, not the MP.

that’s basically what i did. and all things being equal the D7000 has more features than i’ll use. given how i use a camera this looks like it’s going to be good. i’m a bit concerned about critical sharpness but the tests i’ve run so far point to hand shake, inexpensive optics, small DOF and other stuff rather than a fault with the camera body.

of course what i want is to capture a golden eagle in flight half a mile away and have every feather so sharp you could shave with it. and i’ve seen photos like that so don’t tell me they can’t be done.

ok maybe not with a refurbished 55-300 zoom even is it is nikon.

[ravnostic]

If you really need the extra resolution the 6d can give you 10/9 the pixels of that. And the newest 5d can get 11/10 the pixels of the 6D.
So, as you can see, those cowboys are pushing the envelope as far as they can. I mean, when the 1Ds came out in 2004 we all thought “woah, 16.7mp! Just think, in 2014 we could get something crazy, like 16.75 or 17.01mp” But it’s just 2013 and they’ve already cranked it up to 18.1mp. Heady times.

Very happy with the 2Ti’s 18Mpxls. But the reason I want and dammit as soon as they allow overtime again I’ll be busting my phuqin arse to get must have the 6D is the low-hi ISO noise. Clean pixels at 6400?? Sirius-ly? I’ll be able to take 15 second shots instead of 2 minute exposures of galaxies? (or push the envelope; 8 second images at 12800 and a few more frames should clean it up nicely). Astrophotography will get a whole lot easier for me. A whole lot. 2 hours of 2Ti time cut down to 30 minutes. Productivity will octuple.

Orionid chase the features, indeed. Ya’ll know what I’ll be chasing. (Esp. just having my astrofark arse handed to me 🙄 )

[fluffybunny]

If you really need the extra resolution the 6d can give you 10/9 the pixels of that. And the newest 5d can get 11/10 the pixels of the 6D.
So, as you can see, those cowboys are pushing the envelope as far as they can. I mean, when the 1Ds came out in 2004 we all thought “woah, 16.7mp! Just think, in 2014 we could get something crazy, like 16.75 or 17.01mp” But it’s just 2013 and they’ve already cranked it up to 18.1mp. Heady times.

Very happy with the 2Ti’s 18Mpxls. But the reason I want and dammit as soon as they allow overtime again I’ll be busting my phuqin arse to get must have the 6D is the low-hi ISO noise. Clean pixels at 6400?? Sirius-ly? I’ll be able to take 15 second shots instead of 2 minute exposures of galaxies? (or push the envelope; 8 second images at 12800 and a few more frames should clean it up nicely). Astrophotography will get a whole lot easier for me. A whole lot. 2 hours of 2Ti time cut down to 30 minutes. Productivity will octuple.

Orionid chase the features, indeed. Ya’ll know what I’ll be chasing. (Esp. just having my astrofark arse handed to me 🙄 )

So why not the 5dIII? Canon refurb site has them at $2800 and probably ca. $2000 with the loyalty program.

Not that I want you having an edge in AP or anything. 😉

[orionid]

Orionid chase the features, indeed. Ya’ll know what I’ll be chasing. (Esp. just having my astrofark arse handed to me 🙄 )

60DA?

[Yugoboy]

So… this discussion brings out the question: when the finances finally get under control and I start to have serious disposable income available… do I chase a new body or new glass first?

Obviously the goal is Full-Frame and some sort of serious high-end glass (you know, the kind with a grey barrel)… but it’s not like I’m going to be able to go big all at once. There’s still a bathroom to remodel at the very least.

[CauseISaidSo]

Yugoboy, my opinion would be to go glass first, with an eye toward compatibility with your future full-frame body, for a couple of reasons:

1. The output of bad glass on a good body will still look like crap whereas that of good glass on an OK body will at least look as good as the body is capable of producing.
2. While the features on good lenses don’t really change that much over time, the features on a good body improve with every release, so if you start with glass, by the time you’re ready for the body, it’ll likely be a better body than the one you otherwise would’ve had.

[bender16v]

Somewhat off topic, but I just came across this article tonight about high ISO for night photography. I’ve never really tried shooting much after dark but the images from last week’s contest were all compelling so maybe I’ll have to try it. Back on topic, there are some good body comparisons but the author determines that a fast lens makes the biggest difference.

[orionid]

Yugoboy, my opinion would be to go glass first, with an eye toward compatibility with your future full-frame body, for a couple of reasons:

1. The output of bad glass on a good body will still look like crap whereas that of good glass on an OK body will at least look as good as the body is capable of producing.
2. While the features on good lenses don’t really change that much over time, the features on a good body improve with every release, so if you start with glass, by the time you’re ready for the body, it’ll likely be a better body than the one you otherwise would’ve had.

This.

[Yugoboy]

Thanx for the input. Gonna keep chasing lenses, then (for now).

Re: the article bender16v linked to… I tried to read it… some of the technical stuff just does not stick to my neurons. But… based on the star trails image and comments towards the end and orionid‘s (I think) star trails pic in the just finished contest… for images of that type, am I better off then doing a bunch of shorter exposures (15-30 seconds) and then trying to merge them as opposed to trying to get the most out of the 30 minutes my camera’s “bulb” setting allows? Or can/should I try to merge several 30 minute shots?

I’d like to make a better showing in 2 years when we astrophotograph again. Dunno if I’ll have the patience/skill to use the 500/1000 to find and shoot Mars, Jupiter or Saturn.

[orionid]

Thanx for the input. Gonna keep chasing lenses, then (for now).

Re: the article bender16v linked to… I tried to read it… some of the technical stuff just does not stick to my neurons. But… based on the star trails image and comments towards the end and orionid‘s (I think) star trails pic in the just finished contest… for images of that type, am I better off then doing a bunch of shorter exposures (15-30 seconds) and then trying to merge them as opposed to trying to get the most out of the 30 minutes my camera’s “bulb” setting allows? Or can/should I try to merge several 30 minute shots?

I’d like to make a better showing in 2 years when we astrophotograph again. Dunno if I’ll have the patience/skill to use the 500/1000 to find and shoot Mars, Jupiter or Saturn.

Two schools of thought. A single long exposure can give a “smoother” result than stacked short exposures. If you look at mine full res, you’ll see it’s a little choppy from the split second between frames and losing the additive light at that physical point. Conversely, at anything higher than your lowest ISO, you’r liable to get bown out noise and you’re succeptable to weather or other external influences. If you plan to stack short frames, set everything up, go inside for a bit and clouds roll in, you still have all your earlier shots. If you did the same with one long exposure, you’d blow everything out or need to take drastic recovery actions. Likewise if you’re chilling on a beach and a cop walks up and shines his light in your lens, you’re either out your 90 minute exposure, or you just have exposure up to your last sub frame.

I do both. I usually let forground lighting, anticipated time, and potential for unwanted influences weigh in on my decision of which to use. Take a few test frames (which you should be doing for composition anyway) and see how things look at 30 seconds or 2 minutes at ISO 200 and f/wide open. Then decide whether to keep running with those or tighten down and go for long.

[Yugoboy]

OK… late next month we return to the Adirondacks, and each campsite has its own mini-beach, so I don’t have to worry so much about the proverbial cop. If the weather holds out I’ll try both approaches. Last year I think I had too open an f-stop as a 30-minute exposure looked like a day-time shot with really smooth water and stars dotting the sky. Given that we’ll be there 10 days, if the skies cooperate, I’ll be able to practice both kinds.

The one issue is charging battery as we have no power or water. I always feel kinda creepy hanging around the bathroom/shower waiting for the batteries to charge. That’s also the reason I probably won’t be staying on a mountain-top for night shots on my 4+ High Peak Overnight Adventure.*

*I’m planning on climbing all 4 peaks in the Seward Range east of Tupper Lake, and I’m staying overnight. If I do the 4 in one day, Santononi and a couple other High Peaks are near enough for me to give the old college try. With the Marcy hike planned with my niece, I might, if all goes well, knock off 8 or more of 46 High Peaks. I will at least be bagging 6 this summer.

[Author]

Posts