File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
/p/!

Because I love you thiiiiiiiiis much, I went to a store near me, grabbed the new 55-250 IS lens, and snapped off a few pictures JUST FOR YOU! (and me. but whatever).

I'm going to post FOUR pictures from the 55-250 at full size, with absolutely no tweaking done whatsoever. I will *also* post two pictures I snapped off from the 70-200 f/4 L IS at the end just for comparison purposes or whatever.

OH! I also got a chance to look at the new sony and nikon dslr bodies.

The sony one looks solid. I don't know. not much to say.

the nikon one looked very nice, and FUCK. That screen on the back... damn. it's NICE. Comparing it to my rebel xt made me laugh bitterly.

very fast too.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 21:36:44Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
the IS is completely silent. COMPLETELY.

You can feel the IS on the 70-200 L lens, but on the 55-250 you can't hear or feel anything.

the build is nice on the 55-250. feels solid, but very very light.

Maybe too light?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 21:37:04Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length250.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I also took some photos on the 15-55 IS lens.

just from a quick glance (I really haven't lbooked at these photos yet) the 15-55 seems quite a bit better in terms of sharpness.

this might also be because I did too low of a shutter speed, but, hey, just going off of the stops that canon said right?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 21:37:29Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length55.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>96415

by the way, as the exif data shows, this is NOT from the 15-55 lens. I'm not posting those, because there are enough examples out there already.

also the shop I was at had already sold out of the 55-250 IS.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.6Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 21:37:51Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length250.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>96417

haha, wait, the exif data doesn't show that. right, time to update my firmware.

Anyways, this photo here and the next are from the 70-200 L lens. again, completely unedited.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 21:38:12Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length70.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
well that's that.

I'm going to go pixel peep now.

hope SOMEONE was interested, although the way /p/ works I'm sure nobody is even going to be in this forum for the next few hours anyways.

um. yup!

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:12:01 21:38:33Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length192.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
does no one care?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>96434
Before noon on a Saturday in the US? Probably not.

Have patience.
>> Anonymous
>>96435

>Have patience.

this is way harder than people make it out to be.
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>96436
For fucking weaklings, maybe.
>> Anonymous
>>96437

why you always gotta be so crabby !SDPEsPMnww?

go hug your girlfriend or something.
>> BlackAdder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Thank you for making me feel well loved, Anonymous. Interesting so far. The shots don't look alarmingly bad or anything, despite less than ideal conditions and use there. Very promising.
>> Anonymous
>>96443

my feeling from looking through the pictures is that the IS on the 70-200 L works quite a bit better.

that being said, some IS is better than none by a long shot...
>> Anonymous
Am I the only one who doesn't care at all about the LCD on the back? All I ever use it for, besides adjusting settings, is making sure nothing's blown and zooming to 100% to check the focus. I'd be fine with none at all, honestly, so long as there was a little histogram display somewhere, like on the top shooting information display or something.
>> Anonymous
>>96464

Yes, you are.
>> Anonymous
No, you're not. In fact, I don't really care about half the features that cameras have these days.
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
>>96464
A larger screen is convenient for me but it's not a selling point. The tiny screen on my 20D is enough for me right now.
>> Anonymous
>>96464
you havent check focus until you've done it on the new screens on the D300/D3. hell, even looking at the histogram is an amazing experience
>> Anonymous
>>96479
I don't need to be amazed; I just need to know I haven't blown anything. Dear God.
>> Anonymous
>>96481
ITS LIKE SEX FOR YOUR EYES
>> Anonymous
>>96482
No, sex for your eyes is using a proper viewfinder. I really wish they would spare us these baroque, bulky screens and put the cost savings into proper viewfinders.
>> Anonymous
>>96486
these camera are made for auto focus. they are also much smaller (except for FF) than film cameras. you arent going to get much better (for dslrs) than the viewfinders in the newer cameras. from what ive heard, the viewfinder in the D3 is amazing too.
>> Anonymous
>>96488
>these camera are made for auto focus

Problem #1. Having autofocus doesn't preclude having a great viewfinder for manually focusing. Some of us prefer it, and all of us need to use it at one point or another unless we totally avoid low-light situations.

>they are also much smaller (except for FF) than film cameras

Yeah, and? 35mm film was much smaller than medium format, and plenty of 35mm cameras have great viewfinders. And modern 35mm SLRs have worse viewfinders than ones made years ago.

This in fact makes my main gripe about viewfinders easier to satisfy: digital needs full coverage, and here the D300 is a huge step in the right direction. The old excuses about slide mounts and labs never print he whole frame don't apply anymore.

They can give us better viewfinders. They won't because people aren't asking for them or going "damn, it NICE" about how the D300 has full coverage. Instead they're asking for talking about things like noise performance at ISOs people probably won't even use too much, autofocus points, frames per second, and (of all things) LCD screens that have nothing to do with the process of taking a photograph unless you're in live view. Besides the sensor, the absolute most expense and engineering effort ought to go into the viewfinder when designing a camera. It's the actual thing one uses to make the image, and the last or second-to-last thing to be skimped on.
>> Anonymous
>>96500
the mirror is smaller, so its just not going to be as bright as the full frame viewfinders. im sure most people would find the manual focusing screens and whatnot to give you manual focus when trying to autofocus where its better to see things without too much in the way of the AF points. people can get better focusing screens for manual focusing if they want that kind of thing.

me, i wouldnt pay for it because i dont use it. most people probably dont. you find high iso and the like less important, but i find it more important because the things i shoot call for it.
>> Anonymous
>>96507
Brightness actually isn't too important to me when I'm focusing. With the exception of the Digital Rebel, every viewfinder I've looked through on any SLR of any mirror size has been bright enough for whatever I wanted to do with it.

What I really want, as far as focusing goes, is more magnification and focusing snap. But like you said, all that can be compensated for with different accessories.

And high ISOs being clean are wonderful and one of the best things about the new sensors. But it's a matter of perspective: even the noisiest DSLR out there is cleaner than film was. Which makes sense: things should get better as technology marches on, not worse, and that counts for viewfinders, too. And some noise won't kill an image, but poor composition and focus will. That's my point.
>> Anonymous
>>96510
>even the noisiest DSLR out there is cleaner than film was
fail
>> Anonymous
>>96411
why did you get the 55-250 if you already have a 70-200L?
>> Anonymous
>>96512
That's what I've seen: that digital has less noise than film had grain at the same ISOs.

Now, I haven't seen anything from a four-thirds sensor, which, being smaller, would have more noise, so maybe "the noisest" was a bit of hyperbole. I don't know.
>> Anonymous !MjcMqTX/iM
>>96518
However, ISO on a digital camera is just something completely different then ISO/ASA on film. They just named it ISO because it's close to the same thing.
Besides, digital noise with a high ISO is just very ugly, while noise on a high speed film can look very very good.
>> Anonymous
>>96560
It's sensitivity of the sensor, whether that sensor is a chip or a piece of film. It comes from different things, of course, but it's the same thing in the end being measured.

And I wasn't arguing against film; I don't really mind noise or grain in most shots. I've got nothing at all against film.

And I'll disagree about noise automatically being ugly: sometimes even in color it works out fine, and in black and white grain and noise look close enough I don't even see the point in arguing a difference between them.
>> Anonymous
>>96513

haha, I don't own either.

just took these shots in the store.
>> Anonymous
>>96510With the exception of the Digital Rebel, every viewfinder I've looked through on any SLR of any mirror size has been bright enough for whatever I wanted to do with it.

Have you looked through some 4/3 cameras?
>> Anonymous
>>96591
No, I haven't. Are they worse than the Rebel? God, that's disgusting.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
i think we're forgetting a really important aspect of DSLR viewfinders...

the lens aperture contributes to how 'bright' the viewfinder is.

Put that 50mm prime on, then put the kit lens on... see the difference?

I do agree that viewfinders should be improved as i probably won't be using the LCD too much. It would be fantastic to have, but it wouldn't make or break a camera for me.

The good thing maybe that after all other more marketbale features are completed, the makers will probabl go back and concentrate on better viewfinders. I find it stupid any DSLR not having 100%, that does need to change.
>> Anonymous
>>96597

I've always used digital, but just looking through some junk camera bodies with junk lenses slapped on made me shed a manly tear for lost GIANT viewfinders.

I mean, wow. HUGE.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>96600

haha yeah, don't put on a lense with prism focus, then you'll just cry more that our current batch of lenses manual focus like a pig.
>> Anonymous
Was this at the fuckoffbig Yodobashi in Akiba, or another one?
>> Anonymous
>>96704

normal sized one in shinjuku.

People let me try on all the lenses and take pictures without giving me any troubles though.

at the bic cameras they tend to stop you from even trying.
>> Anonymous
>>96707
out here in bumfuck Toyama, all we have are digital print stores that happen to sell equipment on the side. you can look at the bodies and lenses through the shiny glass of the display cabinet, but no touchy, no looky, no testing.
>> Anonymous
>>96560

I never liked grainy film any more than today's noisy images. Both are shit.
>> Anonymous
>>96597

You should read up on viewfinders. A 100% on it might not be as good as you think. They can't make them better in one aspect without sacrifices in other aspects.
>> Anonymous
>>96656
Most of them do.

>>96792
I have. The only thing viewfinder coverage has a negative impact on is magnification, but that's still able to be done right. The Nikon F2 had 100% coverage and .8x magnfication. The D3 has only .7. The best magnification available today is in the 1Ds Mk. III- .76.

Magnification works against eyepoint, which honestly I don't give a single damn about. At all. For people who prefer to wear glasses while shooting, they could make another viewfinder option with less magnification and more eyepoint. Multiple available viewfinders is such a simple feature it's just marketing keeping it in pro bodies.

I already said brightness isn't a major concern for me, that I would prefer more focusing snap. This is probably what I'm least likely to get in the autofocus era, but oh well.
>> Anonymous
Speaking of Japan and stuff there was a few sites posted here once of Japanese photographers. One was a site that had a bunch of nice photos of Japan sorted by city. Can someone post the link again Please?
>> Anonymous
>>96816

>The best magnification available today is in the 1Ds Mk. III- .76

http://danny.id.au/photography/equipment/dslr-viewfinder-sizes.html

>Olympus E-1 1/2 0.96x 100%
>Nikon D2X 1/1.5 0.86x 100%
>Olympus E3 1/2 1.15x 100%
>Nikon D300 1/1.5 0.94x 100%
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>97590

But it appears the canon is still the biggest in the 35 equiv class... would that mean bigger magnigication than the APS-C sensors?
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>97590

oh i just read that list again... fuckinn depressed now... the D70s has the smallest magnification... hahaha bastard... i should upgrade already... if only i could find a D300
>> Anonymous
>>97590
http://www.neocamera.com/feature_viewfinder_sizes.php?order=size

You have to compensate for different sizes of sensor.
>> Anonymous
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/viewfinders.shtml

You can't have the wonder viewfinders you hope for. Especially not with Olympus.
>> Anonymous
>>97683
I know there's tradeoffs; I've read that very article.

Still, good viewfinders are possible, and the #1 thing they need is full coverage. Magnification can be corrected for with an accessory if it has to be, but it still can be made better than it is now.
>> Anonymous
Good viewfinders are less likely with autofocus cameras.