Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

This brings me to another quick question, is there a way to bring film to digital other than scanning a developped film? Since this Camera is old as hell and it's film-only, I'm just wondering how I'll be able to share my terrible hipster photos and stuff. I feel that if I scan it, won't it impact the quality of the picture a bit?

[QUOTE=Heigou;45921293]This brings me to another quick question, is there a way to bring film to digital other than scanning a developped film? Since this Camera is old as hell and it's film-only, I'm just wondering how I'll be able to share my terrible hipster photos and stuff. I feel that if I scan it, won't it impact the quality of the picture a bit?[/QUOTE] scanning is the only way to bring film photos to digital.

Do you guys have any recommendations for any external hard drives that are p cheap for its quality. I need to move my photos off my computer because I'm feeling paranoid that it'll just fail one day.

I just got [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0012UUP02/]this[/url]. It's really cheap for a zoom lens but it's got good reviews so I'll see how it goes. So far, the focus is the loudest thing ever and is quite slow, but otherwise it seems pretty good. [url=https://flic.kr/p/pbAr2B][img]https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3863/15216088625_fbdff02065_c.jpg[/img][/url][url=https://flic.kr/p/pbAr2B]DSC_1218_processed[/url] by [url=https://www.flickr.com/people/126071782@N03/]jallenbah[/url], on Flickr

[img]http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/themes/magnet/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/canon24pancake.jpg&a=t&h=250&w=594[/img] [url]http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/09/the-new-canon-ef-s-24mm-f2-8-stm-pancake/[/url] f/2.8. If this is the same price as the 40mm pancake I'm going to really consider it.

Ef-s only Not f2 Meh

the 40 is nice on full frame, so if that's a crop version of it then that's cool too

So many f2.8 lenses for crop sensors only, f/2 should be the "standard" so they behave like an f2.8 on a full frame sensor.

why would you buy a crop sensor aimed lens for a full frame body though?

[QUOTE=Him1411;45970325]why would you buy a crop sensor aimed lens for a full frame body though?[/QUOTE] I mean f/2.8 lenses that work on asp-c cameras only. Shit like this: [url]http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html[/url] If you wanted it to be an aps-c equivalent of the 24-70mm on a full-frame camera, then make it a 17-55mm f/2. [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] $1,539.95 They call it "fast" while it's slower than an f/4 lens on a full frame body. [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] What I'm saying is aps-c fast should be f/2 or below, the same way that fast for a full frame is 2.8 or below.

idk cos like you're not gonna get mad dof or atleast that much more with f/2 than f/2.8 on a wide angle and the fastness is more for having a fast shutter rather than a thin dof so like a fast wide is the same f stop as on a ff

[QUOTE=Eltro102;45970748]idk cos like you're not gonna get mad dof or atleast that much more with f/2 than f/2.8 on a wide angle and the fastness is more for having a fast shutter rather than a thin dof so like a fast wide is the same f stop as on a ff[/QUOTE] The shallower DoF between f2 and f2.8 is noticeable, it's a whole stop. The amount of light falling over the sensor area with an f2 lens on a aps-c sensor will be the same amount of light as an f2.8 lens on a full frame.

yeah but the shutter speed is the same for the same exposure cos the intensity of the light (watts/m^2) is the same

I agree it's a small difference, but I'm annoyed at how camera manufacturers are using "fast" as a generic marketing buzzword now, regardless of whether or not a lens is trust "fast". [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Eltro102;45970783]yeah but the shutter speed is the same for the same exposure cos the intensity of the light (watts/m^2) is the same[/QUOTE] If the megapickles are the same, then you will have more light per pixel, so you can crank it up.

and yeah it's a whole stop but at distances where havin a thin dof is important i.e. portraits esp with a wide you're probably doing full/half body shots the difference is pretty small i mean you'd notice obv if it was side by side but its not much [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Roll_Program;45970786]I agree it's a small difference, but I'm annoyed at how camera manufacturers are using "fast" as a generic marketing buzzword now, regardless of whether or not a lens is trust "fast". [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] If the megapickles are the same, then you will have more light per pixel, so you can crank it up.[/QUOTE] n cos the pixels are bigger so the potential well is bigger, so you can't crank it up cos it takes more light to fill up the well exposure remains the same regardless of size of sensor

[QUOTE=Him1411;45970325]why would you buy a crop sensor aimed lens for a full frame body though?[/QUOTE] Well in most cases you can't even use them, which is why it sucks its APS-C only. A cheap and small 24mm would be awesome for full frame, but at around a 38mm f4ish converted for DoF and AoV (essentially f4.48 if you do the 1.6x) it's just not that exciting. I mean they made a 22mm f2 for the EOS-M which was quite small, built well, and good quality. Just not a great effort imo The 24-105mm USM and 400mm DO are pretty cool, this lens just feels like a missed opportunity.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;45970814]and yeah it's a whole stop but at distances where havin a thin dof is important i.e. portraits esp with a wide you're probably doing full/half body shots the difference is pretty small i mean you'd notice obv if it was side by side but its not much [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] n cos the pixels are bigger so the potential well is bigger, so you can't crank it up cos it takes more light to fill up the well exposure remains the same regardless of size of sensor[/QUOTE] This can't be true, a large sensor area will have more like falling onto it than a smaller area, otherwise why not make sensors as small as you can and you'd just get the same noise performance as if you made that same sensor larger? There will be more total light energy collected over a larger area than a smaller area.

A small, empty swimming pool and a large pool should have puddles of the same depth after a perfectly even rain storm. Yes, the large pool has collected more water but it is also spread out over a larger area. You can easily test this by using the same lens on two different sensor-sized cameras with the same settings. The exposure will be the same.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;45971906]This can't be true, a large sensor area will have more like falling onto it than a smaller area, otherwise why not make sensors as small as you can and you'd just get the same noise performance as if you made that same sensor larger? There will be more total light energy collected over a larger area than a smaller area.[/QUOTE] noise performance of smaller pixels is worse cos the potential well of each pixel is smaller, so it takes less random heat electrons and other noise to fill it up and make an erroneous pixel

[QUOTE=bopie;45972139]A small, empty swimming pool and a large pool should have puddles of the same depth after a perfectly even rain storm. Yes, the large pool has more water but it is also spread out over a larger area. You can easily test this by using the same lens on two different sensor-sized cameras with the same settings. The exposure will be the same.[/QUOTE] Filling a tank of water to its brim is a good metaphor for exposure.

Yeah but a 10x10 meter pool is gonna have more water in it than a 1x1 meter pool. [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Eltro102;45972207]noise performance of smaller pixels is worse cos the potential well of each pixel is smaller, so it takes less random heat electrons and other noise to fill it up and make an erroneous pixel[/QUOTE] Yeah that's what goes with what I was saying.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;45972424]Yeah but a 10x10 meter pool is gonna have more water in it than a 1x1 meter pool. [/QUOTE] and it has a larger collection area, so it collects more water per second these two effects exactly cancel out, so both the pools fill from a perfect rainstorm above at exactly the same rate

But pixels don't work like that, if they did, then pixels would be as small as possible to save manufacturing cost and camera size.

analogy: surface area of pool = area of pixel depth of pool = iso percentage pool is filled = brightness of pixel

[QUOTE=Eltro102;45972207]noise performance of smaller pixels is worse cos the potential well of each pixel is smaller, so it takes less random heat electrons and other noise to fill it up and make an erroneous pixel[/QUOTE] I mean this is true to an extent, but not fully. Signal to noise ratio is hugely electronic and each sensor generation the performance gets a bit better, and the theoretical maximum has not been reached. The pixels on the old 5D original are quite large, but the noise performance of the much more pixel dense Sony a7r is significantly better. Again I'm sure the 20mp 1" chip in the Sony RX100 easily bests something like the Nikon D100 or Canon D30, despite the immense size differences and pixel pitch. I would say it's a good theoretical when considering similar sensor generations, but more modern sensors have much better noise control than older ones, even when factoring in pixel pitch. It's just easier to make larger sensors better at noise performance. Exposures will be the same, but longer focal lengths have thinner depths of field, and that's where the theoretical conversions come from. It's just a quick conversion. That's why f2.8 is kind of slow for APS-C for primes, it limits separation which is one of the cool things about getting a non compact sensor in the first place.

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;45972528]But pixels don't work like that, if they did, then pixels would be as small as possible to save manufacturing cost and camera size.[/QUOTE] no, they wouldn't, for a number of reasons: Really small pixels need you to get really nice, expensive silicon cos micro-defects in the silicon crystal fucks up small pixels more than big ones Really small pixels will be filled up faster by heat electrons and other noise: E.G. A small pixel has a potential well of 10 units, a big one a potential well of 100 units. A random heat electron fills a well up by 2 units, so it'll fuck up the level of the small pixel by 20% but only 2% for the big pixel. There are more heat electrons hitting a large pixel cos of its larger surface area, but because this is a random statistical effect each large pixel is going to affected roughly the same amount cos the random electrons are averaged out over the large area Really small pixels need nicer lenses and are more affected by diffraction, cos the circle of confusion covers more pixels

[QUOTE=Eltro102;45972534]analogy: surface area of pool = area of pixel depth of pool = iso percentage pool is filled = brightness of pixel[/QUOTE] I think we've been saying the exact same thing.

reason number 1 also limits screen densities and stuff too [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] honorary mention: really small pixels have harder to make nice microlenses

Yes, the exposure would be the same, what I meant was noise performance. The exposure would be the same, but if quadruple the photons hit a pixel of a FF sensor of the same pixel count as an M43 sensor, then the FF will have less noise because it's easier for the camera to differentiate what is noise and what is signal. [editline]13th September 2014[/editline] You could crank up the ISO higher on FF with the same lens and get similar results.

oh everyone thought you said that bigger pixels would need a darker exposure for the same final image as smaller ones