Pregled posta

Marketing

[Nikon D70 Tamron 28-300VC 1/15s F6.7 42mm effective -0.5eV ISO400 > dcraw -H0 -w -W -o 1 -q3 -T > Gimp]

looked better without a GND

Now I have to admit that I could take this just as easily with a G9.
Which is the problem that I have always had with subframes.
And I'm going to say this once: the comments below refer to RAW SHOOTING. True raw, not "ACR raw not Sony raw", but real raw with noise and fine-detail unaffected by NR.

If you put NR into the mix, all bets are off. Then IQ depends greatly on the quality of the NR used.

Subframes are just not clean enough to run away and hide from a good point & shoot shot raw unless it is super-bright (at ISO100 F8 vs ISO80 F4) or very dark (ISO400-800 F3.6 vs ISO200-400 F2.8), because the larger sensor an mirror push up the required diameter for a lens, and to keep lenses at decent diameters the lens mfgs compromise on IQ, requiring a higher F# to compensate in terms of sharpness across the frame. And in any case DOF suffers from the larger sensor. Subframes aren't really any more than 2 stops cleaner than a good point & shoot (talking about raw data of course), so you have to make the most of that 2-stop advantage to justify carrying a DSLR in the first place. If you're not into sport-shooting and don't need a high FPS, that means not shooting F8+ in low-light conditions and compensating by raising ISO. Taking this shot at F8 ISO800 would give me the same SNR as a G9 at ISO80. The color-sensitivity would be another issue, but in any case the G9 is a true 10-bit camera and the D70 is a true 12-bit camera so the D70 would still have better color-sensitivity but just barely at such a high ISO. In fact I'd have to check DxOMark to be sure of that. But they'd be close. Second, obviously the G9 is 12MP vs the 6MP D70. The lack of restraint with the middle-range point & shoots creeping up to 16MP now puts pressure on DSLR mfgs to push on past the diffraction-limit of F8 for a 12MP subframe...and leaves space for the high-end point & shoots to sit at 10MP and claim they are doing it "to maximize IQ". Consumers then have their choice of pretentious options: a 12MP+ point & shoot with a lot of NR, a 10-12MP p&s (or 4/3rds camera) that shoots raw, or a 12MP+ subframe that can shoot either raw or jpeg. Point & shoots are far less than optimum cameras, yet produce images that subframe DSLRs have a hard time really beating in a significant way. There's a lot of overlap where one can get a shot that is effectively just as clean and as far as you can tell at full-image just as detailed but the shot is much easier and cheaper to take with a smaller, lighter cheaper pocket-sized camera. Yet featurewise even a good old subframe like the D70 that sells cheap on eBay (certainly less than a G9-G12) can't compete with the newer point & shoots in the minds of some feature-oriented enthusiasts. And notice how these new point & shoots are shipping with 24mm effective wide-angles now, F2.0-F3.0 lenses now. 12-16MP, now. 1080p, now. CMOS sensors with backside illumination, now. It will always be easier and cheaper to put the same equivalent focal-length on a small-sensor camera. If Panasonic cannot beat Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Canon on price or price-performance making subframe lenses, they can just create a new market (micro-4/3rds) and make smaller cheaper lenses and steal the lower and middle parts of the subframe market. And they are doing just that. A 4/3rds camera and an equivalent superzoom will always be easier to carry than a subframe DSLR and a matching equivalent superzoom. The main problem is that there is only so much IQ that they can provide. But if a DSLR can't provide a lot more IQ, then the p&s wins simply because it's so much easier to carry. Even if they cost the same.

Buying a VR lens to improve IQ means carrying a much-heavier and more-expensive camera & lens just to do that. It almost defeats the purpose. When I inevitably buy an SX130 and get raw shots out of it, even camera jpegs, this will be one of the first shots that I take with it. It has to be done.
I took some shots at about the same time with ISO100 35mm color negative film, I doubt that they will look this good. And that would be even slower.

You end up needing a fullframe to really "beat" a good p&s, which is a big disadvantage in cost, size & weight, plus shooting at F8+ vs F2.8+, with tripods and other rests all around...it really does come down to color & noise at the lowest ISOs. A DSLR *has* to be be significantly better in terms of color, noise and lens-reach otherwise it's not worth the trouble to carry over a p&s. That's what makes the Tamron 28-300, 17-35 and 19-35 so important. But the real issue is that you have to be serious about what you're doing and make a commitment to it, otherwise you might as well just be another "point & shooter". And I say the same reason that buying

i really needed to upload something. my best friend got married a couple months ago, so this is really kinda late..... which therefore makes it very fitting to my style ...? ;) i actually uploaded this to my stream privately a couple weeks ago & then forgot about it.. whoops.

i used a DIGITAL camera to shoot this.. and at that, a NIKON! crazy, huh?! jon had to help me a lot with figuring out the controls, not even gonna lie about it. do they purposely make canons and nikons controls backwards? when it comes to the whole canon vs nikon war, i really just don't care..they both take pictures, right? i mean, my main rig is a bronica.. shoooot.

anyway, i need to get back onto this picture taking bandwagon now that my life finally isn't CRAZY (aka i think i'm done being lazy......)