[IchabodCrane]

You mean just one body? Doesn't sound like a pro...one body per lens sounds like a pro. Maybe a D700 + a D4, which is a common Nikon event pro combo, both hanging off Black Rapid harnesses. That's a pro. Your daughter should get her money back

Ummm, no. I said she used a D4. She brought at least one other body (D700? -- I didn't pay attention) and who knows what other lenses. Basically, her mode was to use the 24-70/2.8 in the ceremony and 70-200/2.8 at the reception (a couple planned exceptions to that part, obviously). Most shots were taken with bounce flash at 90 deg and a diffuser (Stoffen?). One interesting technique I noticed.... the group shots in the church were all three shot bursts. She said it's almost as quick as a single shot considering the 10 fps capability of the camera and almost always eliminates the problems of someone blinking. I thought that was pretty cool but maybe I'm just the last to know.

[falconeye]

Could you explain how noise is a property of light? Maybe I'm going at it backwards but I thought noise was a factor of signal to noise, ie. the sensor designs produce noise in the process of reading the photon loading.

-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise jump to Optics.

In the early days, sensors added a significant amount of noise (called read-out noise) and most photons went undetected. Today, about every 2nd photon is detected and only very little noise is added "in the process of reading the photon loading" (about 2 to 3 electrons only). But if you detect e.g. 10,000 photons, they will have a noise contribution of 100 photons! The reason is in the link above.

Here, I only make use if this fact to make sure equivalence is unrelated to camera technology. It is a fundamental property of optical physics.

[ElJamoquio]

How often do you shoot at F/2.8? Those D700s handle low light really well.

The D700 has a rep as a great low light camera. It's great for pixel peepers and was great 'back in the day' but right now the D600 is about a half-stop better in terms of noise, FWIW.

Either one would give great pics, of course.

[Kunzite]

-> Shot noise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia jump to Optics.

In the early days, sensors added a significant amount of noise (called read-out noise) and most photons went undetected. Today, about every 2nd photon is detected and only very little noise is added "in the process of reading the photon loading" (about 2 to 3 electrons only). But if you detect e.g. 10,000 photons, they will have a noise contribution of 100 photons! The reason is in the link above.

Here, I only make use if this fact to make sure equivalence is unrelated to camera technology. It is a fundamental property of optical physics.

If shot noise is the only significant source of noise in today's cameras, how come we're seeing noise differences between cameras of the same format?

This equivalence is not unrelated to camera technology, it simply ignores it.

[falconeye]

If shot noise is the only significant source of noise in today's cameras, how come we're seeing noise differences between cameras of the same format?

Except Canon and a few Nikon-homebrew sensors, you don't see it anymore.

There are stilll some differences wrt quantum efficiency, but these differences are shot noise too.

The important point and I assume everybody got it by now, is that you can't work around equivalence by applying some smart camera technology.

[Kunzite]

You cannot work around physics, I would say.

I'm not so convinced about noise, but I think this idea could be used to express some differences between formats, maybe not in the equivalence form. What I'm saying is, maybe the target should not be the replacement of standard ways, but to add new metrics/indicators where we don't already have something usable. Something like a "shot noise factor" (which only needs to be computed).

[Digitalis]

the f4 17-40L, f4 24-70L, f4 28-105L and the 70-200 f4 as examples. Workhorse lenses, very good, very popular in Canonland, even amongst wedding photogs.

I don't use any of these lenses when i'm using my canon DSLRs, as small as f/4 lenses tend to be I prefer faster lenses because then you have the option of stopping them down when needed.

My typical set of lenses for my 1 series canon cameras are :

Carl Zeiss 21mm f/2.8
Carl Zeiss 35mm f/1.4
Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 (sometimes I use the EF 50mm f/1.2L - I even use the EF 50mm f/1.0L from time to time)
Leica 80mm f/1.4 Summilux-R ( I also have a 85mm f/1.2L, but I rarely use it)
Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO SLII Macro ( I have a EF 135mm f/2 L however i'm looking forward to buying the new Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO to replace it*)
Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L ( I do have a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS)
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L ISII ( I often use this with a 2X extender to give me a 800mm f/5.6)

As you can see from the above lenses I have a strong preference for lenses with aperture rings and quality manual focus mechanisms.I also have the EF lens equivalents in situations where having AF is advantageous. But generally I select my lenses with high optical quality in mind, there aren't any zoom lenses that can really equal the performance of any of the primes I use. Though when i'm working with the Pentax 645D I use a mix of zoom and prime lenses, it really depends on what i'm doing.

*though it would be very interesting to compare the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO against the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO SLII macro lens, they are both phenomenal lenses with Impressive MTF's. Offhand, probably the biggest differences between them will most likely be vignetting knowing the track record of current Zeiss and Voigtlander lenses, which are both made by Cosina.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 06-07-2013 at 07:32 PM.

[Aristophanes]

I don't use any of these lenses when i'm using my canon DSLRs, as small as f/4 lenses tend to be I prefer faster lenses because then you have the option of stopping them down when needed.

You are the rare exception to the rule.

The lens set you lay out of Zeiss and Voigt glass plus crazy fats long primes is probably 2% of what f/4 L glass sells in volume.

Without that volume, there's be no DSLR industry! Canon's dominance is built on f/4 glass and has been for decades. It's what sells.

[falconeye]

Canon's dominance is built on f/4 glass and has been for decades. It's what sells.

I would be curious to see some numbers here.

Because interestingly, Nikon has less to offer in this segment, only recently launched a very popular 24-120/4G VR and their even more popular 70-200/4G VR is from late 2012.

So while I agree on the importance of f/4 glass, I wonder if it isn't a more recent development.

[Winder]

Canon's dominance is built on f/4 glass and has been for decades. It's what sells.

The 24-105L came out in 2005 which is about the same time as the 70-200 F/4.

When you say decades, what F/4 zoom lenses are you talking about?

[VoiceOfReason]

So, anyone want to speculate about what the K3 specs would be? I've already said 20-24mp, ISO 50-102,800, shutter speed B, 30-1/8000, full WR, same form factor as the K5, better AF, better flash sync, and that in APS-C, with a MSRP of 1399 with an option of no AA for 100 more, and even allow a special order option of IR+ color, IR only, and full spectrum for 200 more. It would certainly change things in the market.

[Digitalis]

I would be curious to see some numbers here. Because interestingly, Nikon has less to offer in this segment, only recently launched a very popular 24-120/4G VR and their even more popular 70-200/4G VR is from late 2012.

So would I - it would show a distinct trend with F/4 lenses being more popular amongst photographers who are starting out . A case in point many of my students who either shoot Canon or Nikon have constant f/4 zoom lenses. In my studio classes I occasionally lend some of my faster prime lenses for students to use, and they are always stunned by the optical quality of these lenses. There isn't anything wrong with f/4 zoom lenses*, but it is surprising how much of a difference 1-1/2 of a stop can make.

* I use a sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG. I have one in Canon EF, Nikon F and Pentax FA. Yep that's right, the sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG is so good I bought three of them. But then again, today I realised I own 180 50mm lenses, that means 50mmX180 = 9,000mm worth of nifty fifties.

[IchabodCrane]

So would I - it would show a distinct trend with F/4 lenses being more popular amongst photographers who are starting out . A case in point many of my students who either shoot Canon or Nikon have constant f/4 zoom lenses. In my studio classes I occasionally lend some of my faster prime lenses for students to use, and they are always stunned by the optical quality of these lenses. There isn't anything wrong with f/4 zoom lenses*, but it is surprising how much of a difference 1-1/2 of a stop can make.

* I use a sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG. I have one in Canon EF, Nikon F and Pentax FA. Yep that's right, the sigma 100-300mm f/4 APO EX DG is so good I bought three of them. But then again, today I realised I own 180 50mm lenses, that means 50mmX180 = 9,000mm worth of nifty fifties.

Could your students be noticing the difference between a prime and a zoom more-so than between an f/4 lens and something faster?

[TomE]

]
How often do you shoot at F/2.8? Those D700s handle low light really well.

I only use 2.8 when I want minimum DOF when I want to isolate a subject, or when I am shooting without a flash in low light. Not all that often I guess, but it is invaluable when I need it to keep my ISO down and both of those lenses are extremely sharp even at 2.8.

The D700's are very reliable, will focus in extremely low light with minimal grain, which is why I still use them even though some see them as old technology!

[Digitalis]

Could your students be noticing the difference between a prime and a zoom more-so than between an f/4 lens and something faster?

Under studio conditions fast lenses are somewhat unnecessary with the degree of control you have over lighting. I find many f/4 zoom lenses perform adequately at f/8 - however in terms of AF speed and reliability, image resolution, aberration control, flare control, reduced astigmatism and close focus capability - fast (f/1.2-f/2) primes will always be superior tools in the studio*. I rarely even use zoom lenses in the studio. Typically I use zoom lenses when i'm photographing sports from the sidelines, I use a 400mm f/2.8 and my 200mm f/1.8 for many shots but it is my sigma 100-300mm f/4 lenses that often deliver better images because of the versatility of a zoom. I intend to use my Pentax FA*250-600mm f/5.6 on the K5IIs for sports photography this season, with a Sigma 100-300mm f/4 on my second camera body....or I could get a DA*60-250 f/4...

* It is important to note that I consider a tool that is superior (in my mind) is one that takes the least amount of time to prepare an image to delivered to my client(s) - With all the processing overhead with optical corrections that have to be applied with zoom lenses, the superior optical quality of prime lenses practically eliminates the need for this. With the powerful computers at my disposal this may seem like a trivial concern, but when you span this over several thousand images even 0.2 of a second increase in processing time adds up rather quickly - Time is money.