Full Frame Question

[jwmrks]

Thanks for all the replies. I think I have a better perspective now. I was thinking moving to FF was similar as moving to DSLR. I was taking decent pictures with my P&S, but when I went to DSLR I had control over the image captured, not just the framing and it really opened a new world. I'm now thinking about FF as more of a DSLR feature rather than a new class of camera. As such, I think I'll take SusanH1970's advise and look into getting a short term CD or something similar so I'll have a nice chunk to upgrade with in a year or two once the 5DmkIII is out. I may still get my one good lens now. I'm looking at the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens as a walk around lens, or I may decide to go with a couple of prime lenses instead. I think I'd probably get better use from the 24-105, but might learn more with the primes. Maybe I'll do the 24-105 and the nifty fifty? Thanks again for all the help.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by inkista

@sk66: the "all isos above 800 are fictional" actually isn't true these days for most of the current camera bodies. The specs generally state which levels are digitial push/pull levels and which ones aren't. For example, with my 5D Mark II, the iso spec is given as:

• ISO 100 - 6400
• 0.3 or 1.0 EV increments
• Auto ISO (100-3200)
• Expansion options:
ISO 50 (L1)
ISO 12800 (H1)
ISO 25600 (H2)

Which means all my levels from 100-6400 are "real" i.e., done as voltage gain across the sensor, while the 50, 12800 and 25600 levels are all "faked" with digital pull/push processing in-camera. And digital pulling actually works quite well and is probably one of the more recommended digital processing techniques for noise reduction (i.e., "expose to the right").

Even with your camera, beyond ISO 800 the signal to noise ratio drops. (the AD converter generates more noise than actual image signal) and the dynamic range decreases (from above 11 stops to less than seven stops). So you could be better off using ISO 800 instead of ISO 3200, underexposing by 2 stops, and fixing exposure during RAW conversion. The post adjustment would generate no more noise (possibly less) and you would have ~ 2 stops more dynamic range at ISO 800. The last "beneficial" ISO for a 5D II is 1600 where the A/D converter hits the noise floor.
(I looked up the specifics for your camera)

[sk66]

I don't know Canon lenses, but the Nifty Fifty is way overrated. It is great for what it is, an inexpensive and fast lens, but beyond that not so much.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by sk66

Even with your camera, beyond ISO 800 the signal to noise ratio drops. (the AD converter generates more noise than actual image signal) and the dynamic range decreases (from above 11 stops to less than seven stops). So you could be better off using ISO 800 instead of ISO 3200, underexposing by 2 stops, and fixing exposure during RAW conversion. The post adjustment would generate no more noise (possibly less) and you would have ~ 2 stops more dynamic range at ISO 800. The last "beneficial" ISO for a 5D II is 1600 where the A/D converter hits the noise floor.
(I looked up the specifics for your camera)

Oh, agreed, it's not a linear performance curve, the way folks expect from the numbers. But I was simply taking issue with your statement that the higher levels were all "fictional" which I took to mean "achieved by in-camera processing vs. the actual hardware". And, as I said, digital pull processing works wonders with noise, so the "fictional" levels (like iso 50) aren't necessarily a bad thing.

[jwmrks]

Originally Posted by sk66

I don't know Canon lenses, but the Nifty Fifty is way overrated. It is great for what it is, an inexpensive and fast lens, but beyond that not so much.

Hmm. I've heard good reviews of it. At least as far as bang/buck. The big reason I'd look at a prime lens is for learning. As far as prime lenses go, I'd like a true normal lens and for the APS-C I think that's something more like 28mm than 50mm but it's been a long day and I'm too tired to do the actual math . Any reccomendations of an A+ 'L' quality normal lens for the T1i would be appreciated.

My ultimate goal at the moment is to KNOW what I'm doing. I am a bit of a perfectionist so by KNOW I don't simply mean understand. I do seem to have that innate feeling if I'm doing something right or wrong, but don't always know exactly why what I'm doing is right, or what I need to do to fix my mistakes. If I'm spending $3k on a camera body or $20 on a crappy lens, I'm happy at the end of the day if I get more POW from my photos. I'd happily spend the time taking 1000s of photos so when that one moment comes I'm up to par. Don't know if I'm willing to risk a worm in my foot for the perfect photo ( Photographer captures amazing images of lions at watering hole after submerging himself for three months | Mail Online ) , but the older I get the more I appreciate the 'zen' of photogarphy and the fact that it's more than just point and click.

LOL. I'm thinking that this is a bit sharp for a reply for a simple lens comment, but as I said I had a long day.

[Rentham]

Originally Posted by sk66

Even with your camera, beyond ISO 800 the signal to noise ratio drops. (the AD converter generates more noise than actual image signal) and the dynamic range decreases (from above 11 stops to less than seven stops). So you could be better off using ISO 800 instead of ISO 3200, underexposing by 2 stops, and fixing exposure during RAW conversion. The post adjustment would generate no more noise (possibly less) and you would have ~ 2 stops more dynamic range at ISO 800. The last "beneficial" ISO for a 5D II is 1600 where the A/D converter hits the noise floor.
(I looked up the specifics for your camera)

To minimize thread jack, I did a quick visual test of the above here. Not trying to prove or disprove anything, just get a feel for the real world results.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by jwmrks

Any reccomendations of an A+ 'L' quality normal lens for the T1i would be appreciated. ...

Only for the freaking insane, but adapted Contax/Yashica-mount Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.8 works for me.


Canon XT/350D. Adapted C/Y Zeiss T* Distagon 28mm f/2.8. iso 400, f/8-ish, 1/40s. handheld.

Also, the Summicron-R 35 ain't bad:


Canon XT/350D. Adapted Leica-R Summicron 35mm f/2. iso 400, f/2-ish, 1/80s. handheld.

[jwmrks]

Just in case anyone was interested...

Instead of a good lens, I picked up a video camera instead (Sony HDR-XR160). I was looking at getting a decent 28mm prime lense when I found that Sony's handycams (at least some models) were capable of doing a short burst at 240 fps. Since 99% of the time I only ever view my photos on the computer (or TV) I realized I don't really need high megapixel images, and was intriged with the idea of taking 'living' snaps with the handycam. The camera takes 3 seconds of video at 240 fps and I really like the way they play back like a slide show of living photos. Just enough movement to the image to make it extremely dynamic, but at the 240 fps it's slow enough to definitely give it a photo like feel rather than a video file feel, depending on the actual subject of course. My nephews running around still look like videos, but the landscapes I've shot do really seem dynamic, though they are for all intents and purposes still images. I love the way they play back on my digital photo frames. I really miss the fine control I have over the exposure that I have with the DSLR so I'm not as proud of the images I've taken with the video camera as I am with the ones I've taked with my T1i, but in general I do really like watching them . I know it's kind of a gimic at the moment, but I figure anything that gets me excited enough to get my butt out and about shooting photos/videos isn't a bad thing.