Digital SLR Selection Criteria (from http://DigitalCameraShortList.com)
Steven M. Scharf
comparisons, here is the Digital SLR Selection Criteria from
http://digitalcamerashortlist.com.
Digital SLR Criteria (from http://digitalcamerashortlist.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
When looking for a digital SLR, you should use the "Absolute Requirements"
list (below) to help narrow down your choices. These requirements are based
on all the complaints of users and reviewers. Fortunately, there are enough
models available that meet these requirements that it isn't necessary to
compromise on any of the absolute requirements.
Absolute Requirements
-----------------------
Minimum 6 megapixel resolution.
------------------------------------------
There is no reason to go below 6 megapixels at this point in time. You don't
want to go crazy looking only at megapixels, but you also want to have
sufficient resolution for large prints.
Maximum 1.6 crop factor.
------------------------------------------
The crop factor mainly relates to how wide angle, a wide angle lens actually
is. For instance, with a 1.6 crop factor, a 10-22mm lens is actually
equivalent to a 16-35 lens on a 35mm camera.
Low noise sensor
------------------
Some sensors are high resolution, but have high noise levels at higher ISO
settings. For example, the 14 megapixel Fill Factory sensor in the Kodak
models, and the 3.4 megapixel Foveon sensor in the Sigma models, have
unacceptably high noise levels at the higher ISO settings.
Compact Flash (CF) Memory Cards
-------------------------------------
For point and shoot cameras, Secure Digital memory is okay, since you can
now purchase 1GB SD cards for not much more than 1GB CF cards. But for high
resolution digital SLRs, you may want to buy 2GB and 4GB memory cards, or
Microdrives (especially if shooting in RAW mode, which uses a lot of memory
per photo). There are some 2GB SD cards available, but that's the top limit
as of now. CF cards are available in 4GB and 8GB as well.
Almost every D-SLR does use Compact Flash, so this isn't a difficult
criteria to meet, but for some reason (probably cost), Pentax went from
Compact Flash to Secure Digital on the *istDs (the *istD uses Compact
Flash). Pentax may have wanted to draw a clear distinction between the two
cameras, with one being amateur level, and on being consumer level.
Uses same lenses from manufacturer's film models
--------------------------------------------------
This is only really an issue on digital SLRs that are following the 4/3
standard. These cameras are already unacceptable due to the 2x crop factor.
This issue really boils down to the limited lens selection in 4/3. If 4/3
takes off, this will be a non-issue as more lens models are introduced, but
at this juncture, 4/3 should be avoided.
USB 2.0 and/or Firewire (IEEE1394) Interface
-----------------------------------------------=
For high speed transfer without removing the memory card from the camera,
you want to avoid cameras that are only USB 1.1. Some people may not care
about this because they prefer to remove the card to a card reader, but it's
better for the camera to minimize the number of insertion/removal cycles of
the memory card. USB 2.0 is probably better for most people, since nearly
every new PC has USB 2.0 as standard. Many of the low-end PCs don't have
Firewire ports (though they can be added to desktop PCs very inexpensively).
Computers from Apple all have Firewire and USB 2.0. Click
http://www.softwareandstuff.com/ and search for "Firewire" to find
inexpensive PCI and CardBus/PCMCIA adapters for Firewire.
Available wide-angle zoom lenses (even if wide-angle zoom lens cannot be
used on film models.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
You want a camera where you can buy lenses that are wide enough to
compensate for the crop factor. Eventually you're going to want a wide angle
lens. Now I'm sure that eventually companies like Pentax will produce a good
wide-angle zoom for cameras like the *istD. Sigma does have a 12-24/4.5-5.6
lens with a Pentax mount, but it has received poor reviews. The Canon EF-S
10-22/3.5-4.5 is a faster and wider lens, for about the same price as the
Sigma lens (see
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml
for a comparison of the Sigma and Canon wide-angle zooms). You want to think
ahead before you decide which manufacturer's system to commit to.
Uses proprietary Li-Ion batteries, not AA, not RCRV-3
---------------------------------------------------------
While NiMH AA batteries are cheaper, they are not as energy dense, and they
have a much higher self-discharge rate than Li-Ion batteries. The RCRV-3
Li-Ion batteries are a kludge that should be avoided (many people have had
problems with RCRV-3 batteries on Sigma D-SLRs). Some higher end D-SLRs have
a vertical grip accessory, which allow the use of either Li-Ion or AA
batteries. Most D-SLRs do use Li-Ion batteries.
Accessory Availability
-----------------------
Besides lenses, make sure that any accessories that you may be interested
in, are actually available (not just promised). These include such items as
vertical grips, dioptric adjustment lenses, eyepiece extenders, off-camera
flash shoe cords, remote controls, etc.
For example, Nikon does not make a vertical grip/battery holder for the D70,
but Canon has one available for the EOS-20D. Pentax has a vertical grip for
the *istD, Konica-Minolta has one for the Dynax 7D, and Nikon has one for
the D100). Most amateurs would not dream of buying a camera without a
vertical grip. In general, the consumer level cameras (Nikon D70, EOS-300D,
and Pentax *istDs), do not have vertical grips available. The lack of a
vertical grip for the D70 is a source of endless complaints by D70 owners on
the Nikon forums.
Upgrade Path
--------------
If you expect to move up from consumer to amateur, or from amateur to
professional, select a system that allows this transition without buying
every piece over again. At this time, only Canon has products in all
segments of the market, and there are technical issues with the Nikon lens
mount that preclude Nikon from moving into the professional market without
moving away from their current lens mount. So If you aspire to become a
professional, don't start buying lenses for a lens mount that doesn't have
any professional bodies available.
Ratings of Currently Available Digital SLRs
-------------------------------------------
Unacceptable
--------------
Fuji FinePix S2 Pro, S3 Pro
Kodak SLR/c, SLR/n
Olympus E1, E-10, E-20, Evolt (E-300)
Pentax *istD, *istDs
Sigma SD9, SD10
Acceptable
-----------
Canon EOS-300D Digital Rebel (install Russian firmware hack)
Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D
Nikon D70
Nikon D100
Superb
-------
Canon EOS-20D
Canon EOS-1D Mark II
Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II
Tony Hwang
Hmmm, we have 5 digital cameras in the family(2 are dSLRs)
All are on the recommended list. After all we did our homework
then, LOL.
Tony
Mark Roberts
<snip>
>there are technical issues with the Nikon lens mount that
>preclude Nikon from moving into the professional market...
That preclude Nikon *moving into* the professional market???
I had no idea that Nikon wasn't already in the professional market!
Seriously, I think Canon *is* probably a better choice than Nikon for
many purposes, but this whole treatise is so obviously biased that it's
laughable.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Steven M. Scharf
news:cuosq...@news2.newsguy.com...
> That preclude Nikon *moving into* the professional market???
> I had no idea that Nikon wasn't already in the professional market!
I think you understood that I was referring to the professional digital
market, where Nikon has no presence yet.
> Seriously, I think Canon *is* probably a better choice than Nikon for
> many purposes, but this whole treatise is so obviously biased that it's
> laughable.
The one thing it isn't, is biased. It's brutally honest, and no doubt will
offend many people into claiming it's biased.
Steven M. Scharf
news:P1SPd.381519$6l.227741@pd7tw2no...
> Hmmm, we have 5 digital cameras in the family(2 are dSLRs)
> All are on the recommended list. After all we did our homework
> then, LOL.
Let me guess, you have a family of engineers.
It's amazing to me how many of my colleagues have independently chosen the
same cameras, without consulting each other.
Tony Hwang
How did you guess that? I am a retired EE, son is civil, two
brothers-in-law are mechanical dicipline PEs. One Nikon and rest
are Canon. My film stuff was all Minolta for years.
Technological changes are going ahead of us. By the time we barely
get familiar with something, there is newer already on the market.
Keeps this retired guy hopping busy to catch up, LOL.
Tony
Stacey
> With all the inquiries regarding various D-SLRs, and requests for
> comparisons, here is the Digital SLR Selection Criteria from
> http://digitalcamerashortlist.com.
Then again you COULD engage your own brain and decide what's important to
you, like hmm maybe do you like the images a certain camera produces better
than with another? Nah, it's MUCH easier to let someone else decide this
for you...
--
Stacey
Charlie Self
Pentax and get an average of around 1000 shots. Using problems with a
Sigma is a joke, isn't it? The battery factors they use make me wonder
just how accurate the other factors are...especially the blather about
moving from amateur to pro or back in an immature field. We can readily
expect dozens of models over the next five years, yet these listings
are written as if everything that's going to be out is out now.
Some good tips. Some nonsense, a bit of bullshit.
Lourens Smak
"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
> Uses same lenses from manufacturer's film models
> --------------------------------------------------
> This is only really an issue on digital SLRs that are following the 4/3
> standard. These cameras are already unacceptable due to the 2x crop factor.
> This issue really boils down to the limited lens selection in 4/3. If 4/3
> takes off, this will be a non-issue as more lens models are introduced, but
> at this juncture, 4/3 should be avoided.
hahahaha...limited, yes. Now try to find a f/2.8 standard zoom, or f/2.8
wide zoom, for a 20D. Kind of disappointing if you chose this body
because of the huge lens-range. Also, the f/4.5-5.6 models are the same
price as Olympus's f/2.8 ones. But, it all depends on what you need I
guess.
Also, in reality it has no crop-factor because it doesn't use
legacy-lenses. The factor is just for calculation, and does not
determine the degree of uselessness of your old gear. It's a non-issue.
The "bigger is better" mantra that is being chanted allover the web is
also nonsense; even this post mentions that the 14MP fillfactory 24x36
chip should be avoided because of high noise.
Lourens
ch...@go.com
reviewers.`
(Hmm. wonder how he got all of those, and decided how to rank them. )
`There is no reason to go below 6 megapixels at this point in time.`
(Don't even *think* about a second hand 1D, even if they pay you to
take it...)
`you also want to have sufficient resolution for large prints.`
(Oh, OK. Ummmmmm, *how* large?)
`..have unacceptably high noise levels at the higher ISO settings.`
(Oh, OK again. How *much* is unacceptable to you, exactly?)
`These cameras are already unacceptable due to the 2x crop factor.`
(Because......?)
`If 4/3 takes off, this will be a non-issue`
(Oh, OK.)
`..but at this juncture, 4/3 should be avoided.`
(Oh, OK, maybe later and if I want lotsalenses, but I'm getting
confused..)
`For high speed transfer.. you want to avoid cameras that are only USB
1.1.`
(hands up all those who think the difference between 1.1 and 2.0 is a
significant imposition on their total workflow - wow, look, *everyone*)
`Eventually you're going to want a wide angle lens.`
(Oh, OK.)
`Most amateurs would not dream of buying a camera without a
vertical grip.`
(God, NO!)
`The lack of a vertical grip for the D70 is a source of endless
complaints`
(Or maybe just several loud ones..)
`If you aspire to become a professional, don't start buying lenses for
a lens mount that doesn't have any professional bodies available.`
(I'm sure no Nikon users would *ever* dream of calling themselves
professional.. (O;)
Forgive my flippancy, and I actually agree with a lot of your basic
points, but really.... there is just a tiny little flaw in your system
that I'm hinting at.
Not
everyone
shoots
like
you
do
PS - I just went to take a quick look at the site, and I am literally
stunned. On the first page, there is NOT ONE clear reference to what I
consider the very first and primary question - WHAT ARE YOU
SHOOTING???? (and why, etc, but you get my drift..?)
Eric Gill
news:smak-37605D.0...@news.wanadoo.nl:
> In article <73QPd.1086$SO....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>> Uses same lenses from manufacturer's film models
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> This is only really an issue on digital SLRs that are following the
>> 4/3 standard. These cameras are already unacceptable due to the 2x
>> crop factor. This issue really boils down to the limited lens
>> selection in 4/3. If 4/3 takes off, this will be a non-issue as more
>> lens models are introduced, but at this juncture, 4/3 should be
>> avoided.
>
> hahahaha...limited, yes. Now try to find a f/2.8 standard zoom, or
> f/2.8 wide zoom, for a 20D.
I've got constant-zoom f/2.8 from 16 to 300mm.
> Kind of disappointing if you chose this
> body because of the huge lens-range.
What competition can claim this?
<snip>
Steven M. Scharf
news:smak-37605D.0...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> The "bigger is better" mantra that is being chanted allover the web is
> also nonsense; even this post mentions that the 14MP fillfactory 24x36
> chip should be avoided because of high noise.
Bigger is not always better, but there is still a lower limit to resolution.
Steve
http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria.html
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
news:1108377778.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> PS - I just went to take a quick look at the site, and I am literally
> stunned. On the first page, there is NOT ONE clear reference to what I
> consider the very first and primary question - WHAT ARE YOU
> SHOOTING???? (and why, etc, but you get my drift..?)
This self-anointed know-it-all just shoots himself in the foot - on the rare
occassion it's not in his mouth.
Skip M
That's crap, Lourens, and you know it! Depending on what you mean by
"standard zoom," there's either the 24-70 f2.8L or the 16-35 f2.8L. And the
f4.5-5.6 lenses from Canon are far less expensive than the f2.8 lenses from
Oly. Or would be if such lenses actually existed. Compare the Canon 70-300
f4.5-5.6 IS to the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 ED Zuiko. Bit of a difference in price,
isn't there? B&H lists exactly no f2.8 zooms from Oly, just a few 2.8-3.5s.
Of course, Canon doesn't produce any with that aperture range. But, then,
Oly only produces 8 lenses for the two cameras in their 4/3 range, don't
they?
And the "bigger is better" mantra is not nonsense, the fillfactory sensor is
just a poor example. You can't beat the laws of physics, but you can fall
prey to them.
Oly makes some superb optics, and their cameras are interesting in design,
but there's no reason for you to attack Canon so vociferously, or so
inaccurately.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Steven M. Scharf
"Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:qj1Qd.31093$xt.4689@fed1read07...
> That's crap, Lourens, and you know it! Depending on what you mean by
> "standard zoom," there's either the 24-70 f2.8L or the 16-35 f2.8L.
Sigh, of course it's crap I knew this thread would bring out people that
desperately defend whatever they bought. That was not the intention. There
have been a lot of inquiries lately about which D-SLR to buy. Louren
continuously claims that everyone looks only at megapixels, but this is
untrue. There is no reason to go below 6 megapixels at this point in time,
yet no one is claiming that 14 or 17 megapixels are necessary.
I have redone the DSL criteria section of my page, and moved it to a
seperate URL: "http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria.html"and have
changed the required criteria slightly. Also put up a table that compares
the specs of all the D-SLRs.
Steve
http://nordicgroup.us/digicam/dslrcriteria.html
Mark Roberts
He's apparently the Canon-compatible version of George Preddy ;-)
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> At this time, only Canon has products in all segments of the market,
> and there are technical issues with the Nikon lens mount that
> preclude Nikon from moving into the professional market without
> moving away from their current lens mount.
Sigh, this again. The only "problem" that anyone has managed to come
up with is that it might be difficult for Nikon to make a lens faster
than f/1.2. I don't think that's going to bother many people.
Andrew.
Steven M. Scharf
> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> > Let me guess, you have a family of engineers.
> How did you guess that? I am a retired EE, son is civil, two
> brothers-in-law are mechanical dicipline PEs. One Nikon and rest
> are Canon.
Engineers have a reputation of exhaustive research prior to making a
technology purchase. The recommendations on my list are an outgrowth of all
the research I did, and I should not have been surprised to see all my
colleagues and friends coming to the same conclusions; the data is all out
there for anyone to see, but many people buy on emotion.
Steven M. Scharf
> Oly makes some superb optics, and their cameras are interesting in design,
> but there's no reason for you to attack Canon so vociferously, or so
> inaccurately.
Alas, if he relied on accuracy, he wouldn't have anything to say.
Lourens Smak
"Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote:
> That's crap, Lourens, and you know it! Depending on what you mean by
> "standard zoom," there's either the 24-70 f2.8L or the 16-35 f2.8L.
The first is more of a short telephoto on a 10D/20D class camera, the
second one is more like it, but both are 2-3 times the price of the
Zuiko. That's all I meant... I know Canon has a lot of lenses. The nice
ones are aimed just at 24x36 bodies though, and that won't change...
> Compare the Canon 70-300
> f4.5-5.6 IS to the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 ED Zuiko. Bit of a difference in price,
> isn't there?
Of course. Just like the 40-150mm Zuiko is cheaper than that Canon lens.
And the Sigma 55-200 is even less. Now what was your point?
> And the "bigger is better" mantra is not nonsense, the fillfactory sensor is
> just a poor example.
A poor example... you're a funny guy! Maybe take a look at the Contax
N1-digital then? (Philips 24x36 6MP sensor) oh no... not another poor
example...this one has even more noise, and also has even bigger pixels!
(Does it dawn on you yet? There is more to noise than pixel size, MUCH
more.)
> Oly makes some superb optics, and their cameras are interesting in design,
> but there's no reason for you to attack Canon so vociferously, or so
> inaccurately.
I just like to put some oil on the fire every now and then, when I read
something really stupid, like the original posting.
;-)
Lourens.
Steven M. Scharf
<andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:1111b34...@news.supernews.com...
It isn't just the ability to build a fast lens at any price, it's how easy
or hard it is to do so. The Canon mount makes it possible to design high
speed lenses at less expense.
You are correct, that this issue won't bother many people. But it does
bother professionals. All I stated was that if a buyer expects to move into
the professional space that they should make sure that the system they
commit to has a professional level body available. Nikon doesn't have any
professional digital bodies, Canon does. End of story.
papenfus...@juneaudotmedotvt.edu
: ------------------
Absolutely. That's the most frustrating part of looking at camera specs... no
real objective means to compare one model to another. As mentioned on this thread,
larger sensors are a necessary, but not sufficient condition for low-noise.
: Compact Flash (CF) Memory Cards
: -------------------------------------
I don't know that I'll agree on this one. Since the price/MB are now
comparable, having the "new standard" of memory being SD works. CF isn't that big,
but for smaller-sized camera it may be significant. Expensive, proprietary formats
(e.g. MemoryStick) should die.
: Uses same lenses from manufacturer's film models
: --------------------------------------------------
Absolutely. The sensor size vs. noise argument means that largish (1.0-1.5
crop factors) will be around for digital for a long while. There are *lots* of very
useable old lenses on the used market for those that can't afford $600+ to drop on
modern lenses.
: USB 2.0 and/or Firewire (IEEE1394) Interface
: -----------------------------------------------=
Not completely irrelevant, but not a big deal either.
: Uses proprietary Li-Ion batteries, not AA, not RCRV-3
: ---------------------------------------------------------
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Li-Ion batteries are great when they're used in a
high-turnover energy-dense environdment (like laptops). For something like a camera,
having to shell out $75 now for a spare battery, and $200 for two more in 3-4 when the
first two die is not acceptable. Proprietary batteries should be avoided since
they're proprietary. Even though they last longer than NiMH rechargables initially,
you can't swap them out with a fresh set unless you've blown a big wad on extra
batteries. There's no guarantee that they'll be available for a reasonably long time
in the future. Standards are exactly that... standards. Just like your CF argument,
batteries should be standardized since they're not inherently expensive.... only when
wrapped in expensive proprietary plastic housings.
Keep in mind that I fall under the "engineer" category that researches
everything before a purchase. I do not aspire to be a professional photographer, but
I would like to have access to good quality components as inexpensively as possible.
"The cutting edge of yesterday's technology" is the best place to buy for that... thus
keeping compatibility and standards is paramount.
Flame on... :)
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
ch...@go.com
debate - you might need to look it up. When debating, you get thrown
off the team if you attack the person, not the topic. Same in sports.
And of course that type of behaviour usually indicates you have no
counter argument, just abuse.
So, try attacking the point. It should be easy if I'm wrong. I mean,
I have listed a whole pile of examples up there - tear them to shreds,
one by one. Then I might take you seriously.
PS for Mark below - I have never owned a Canon Or Nikon. I also don't
own a site that gets revenue from Adorama, etc...... And the comments
above apply to you, too.
Tony Hwang
How about heavier is better?
Tony
Scharf-DCA
news:cur0v6$g77$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu...
> : Uses proprietary Li-Ion batteries, not AA, not RCRV-3
> : ---------------------------------------------------------
> ABSOLUTELY NOT! Li-Ion batteries are great when they're used in a
> high-turnover energy-dense environdment (like laptops). For
something like a camera,
> having to shell out $75 now for a spare battery, and $200 for two
more in 3-4 when the
> first two die is not acceptable.
You're right, it isn't acceptable. Fortunately, spare batteries don't
cost $75. For example, you can buy the aftermarket BP511 batteries for
the Canon 300D/10D/20D for $12 each, about the same price as four
2500mAH NiMH cells,
http://sterlingtek.com/ln03-canon-bp-511-dlc511.html
I wish that there were a "standard" for Li-Ion battery packs, but there
isn't. I don't worry about the availability of the BP511, since it's
being used in a plethora of products. Perhaps I would avoid a Li-Ion
pack that isn't so widely used.
>only when
> wrapped in expensive proprietary plastic housings.
It's a little more complex than that for Li-Ion. You cannot use plain
Li-Ion cells because there are electronics in the pack, not just the
cells. This is for safety reasons.
> "The cutting edge of yesterday's technology" is the best place to buy
for that.
For PCs this statement is true. In digital cameras, the opposite is
often true. Look at the Canon 20D versus the 10D. The 20D replaced the
10D at the same price point, but is far superior. There are cases where
later products are inferior, or higher priced, but this is by no means
a given.
Scharf-DCA
> Hi,
> How about heavier is better?
> Tony
Actually there is something to that. The higher end compact point and
shoots are often made out of steel because a plastic body would make
them _too light_, while the digital SLRs can be made out of
polycarbonate, which in some ways is better than a metal body.
Skip M
"Lourens Smak" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-EE68EC.1...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> In article <qj1Qd.31093$xt.4689@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> That's crap, Lourens, and you know it! Depending on what you mean by
>> "standard zoom," there's either the 24-70 f2.8L or the 16-35 f2.8L.
>
> The first is more of a short telephoto on a 10D/20D class camera, the
> second one is more like it, but both are 2-3 times the price of the
> Zuiko. That's all I meant... I know Canon has a lot of lenses. The nice
> ones are aimed just at 24x36 bodies though, and that won't change...
16-35x1.6 figures out to 25-55mm. They are also both single aperture
lenses, which the Zuiko is not.
>
>> Compare the Canon 70-300
>> f4.5-5.6 IS to the 50-200 f2.8-3.5 ED Zuiko. Bit of a difference in
>> price,
>> isn't there?
>
> Of course. Just like the 40-150mm Zuiko is cheaper than that Canon lens.
> And the Sigma 55-200 is even less. Now what was your point?
You're the one who said that the Canon 4.5-5.6 lenses were more expensive
than the Oly 2.8(-3.5) lenses. The 40-150 isn't an equivalent focal length
lens compared to the one I mentioned on a 20D.
>
>> And the "bigger is better" mantra is not nonsense, the fillfactory sensor
>> is
>> just a poor example.
>
> A poor example... you're a funny guy! Maybe take a look at the Contax
> N1-digital then? (Philips 24x36 6MP sensor) oh no... not another poor
> example...this one has even more noise, and also has even bigger pixels!
> (Does it dawn on you yet? There is more to noise than pixel size, MUCH
> more.)
Good, Lourens, compare present day cameras to a long out of production
camera that also had "issues." Compare the 2x 8mp Oly to the Canon 20D 8mp
noise, there is a difference, and then to the 1.3x 1D and then there's an
even greater difference. Yes, there is more to it, but it is also a factor.
You can't make that go away.
>
>> Oly makes some superb optics, and their cameras are interesting in
>> design,
>> but there's no reason for you to attack Canon so vociferously, or so
>> inaccurately.
>
> I just like to put some oil on the fire every now and then, when I read
> something really stupid, like the original posting.
> ;-)
> Lourens.
Pouring oil on a fire doesn't help the credibility of the reply. Nor does
inaccuracy...
Stacey
>
> : Uses same lenses from manufacturer's film models
> : --------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely.
Not. Have you actually compared "film" lenses to lenses designed for
digital? If you had, you wouldn't use old film lenses.
--
Stacey
Bernard P Rother
Hi Stacey, I'm curious. How does a film lens compare to a digital lens (
apart from the crop factor ) ? I'm not being funny here ..... genuinely
curious ;-)
I've a D70 with a Cosina 17-35 & a Tamron 75-300 but was considering
trading in the Cosina for something else ( based on mediocre reports )
BUT .... after going to a vintage motor show on Saturday and shooting
all that polished brass and glass on beautifully maintained old Fords
and then printing it out on a Canon S9000 on A5 paper I was impressed
with the sharpness & quality. So much so that I've decided to keep what
I have and learn to work with & get to know their weak / strong points.
Here in SA ( South Africa ;-) ) there is a huge markup by the importers
and the cost of upgrading all the time is financially daunting.
Nikon's markup here is around 40% .... and the retailer adds a small
2.5% to that. I got the D70 body from the USA at almost half price.
I'm just a "serious amateur" and would love all the "right stuff" but
have changed my outlook on life. I do mountain biking and now no longer
look at all the glossy adds and sigh ..... I get on the bike and go
"improve" myself with what I have ... now I'm applying that principle to
my photography as well. To cut a long story short ... I'm gonna master
the tools at my disposal and use the money for cycling entry fees or
photo outings etc. Cheers.
Bernard.
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1111b34...@news.supernews.com...
>> Steven M. Scharf <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>>
>> > At this time, only Canon has products in all segments of the market,
>> > and there are technical issues with the Nikon lens mount that
>> > preclude Nikon from moving into the professional market without
>> > moving away from their current lens mount.
>>
>> Sigh, this again. The only "problem" that anyone has managed to come
>> up with is that it might be difficult for Nikon to make a lens faster
>> than f/1.2. I don't think that's going to bother many people.
> It isn't just the ability to build a fast lens at any price, it's
> how easy or hard it is to do so. The Canon mount makes it possible
> to design high speed lenses at less expense.
But not sell them at less expense, apparently -- there doesn't seem to
be much price difference in this country.
> You are correct, that this issue won't bother many people. But it
> does bother professionals. All I stated was that if a buyer expects
> to move into the professional space that they should make sure that
> the system they commit to has a professional level body
> available. Nikon doesn't have any professional digital bodies,
But Nikon does have professional digital bodies, and you know that.
What I don't understand is why you continue to say otherwise. And,
preposterously, present your opinions as unbiased advice.
Andrew.
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> Stacey wrote:
>>
>> Not. Have you actually compared "film" lenses to lenses designed for
>> digital? If you had, you wouldn't use old film lenses.
> Hi Stacey, I'm curious. How does a film lens compare to a digital
> lens ( apart from the crop factor ) ? I'm not being funny here .....
> genuinely curious ;-)
I think he's referring to the fact that some of the new digital lenses
are a good deal sharper than film lenses of the same focal length.
Smaller and lighter too.
Andrew.
Steven M. Scharf
news:1113de9...@news.supernews.com...
> But Nikon does have professional digital bodies, and you know that.
The closest they have is the upcoming D2x. But with the high crop factor,
this body won't be purchased by portrait or wedding photographers, who will
opt for the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II or the EOS 1D Mark II.
> What I don't understand is why you continue to say otherwise.
Because it's true. Nikon hasn't announced full-frame or even 1.3 crop
factor. The Kodak SLR/n was the only hope, and it was a dissapointment.
rafe bustin
wrote:
That's really the selling point of the whole "4/3"
concept, isn't it.
Do you have actual MTF measurements that compare
one of these new 4/3 lenses against its traditional
(made-for-35mm) counterpart?
I mean -- there's some logic to the 4/3 concept...
if you can't make the sensors larger... make the
cameras and lenses smaller. Plus, if you cut the
image circle in half or in third, it ought to be
an easier lens to design.
What's surprising though is that Stacey would
buy into and defend all that... coming as she
does from MF and LF film cameras. Seems like
a radical role reversal.
"4/3" appeals in the same way that APS and half-
frame 35mm appeals; ie., for its diminutive size
and weight. But not necessarily for its image
quality.
And by the way, I agree that lenses for digital
capture (with small sensors) *need* to be very
sharp. With a 1.6 crop, you have 40% of the
imaging surface of 35mm -- you need the sharpest
lens you can get if you think this sensor will
compete in any way with 35mm. The crop factor
for the Oly E300 is even more severe than for
the 10D/20D.
rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> news:1113de9...@news.supernews.com...
>> But Nikon does have professional digital bodies, and you know that.
> The closest they have is the upcoming D2x. But with the high crop
> factor, this body won't be purchased by portrait or wedding
> photographers, who will opt for the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II or the EOS
> 1D Mark II.
Says you. However, the reason you'd want a full-frame sensor for
weddings and portraits is what, exactly? Can't be for wide angle, and
low order noise isn't important either.
>> What I don't understand is why you continue to say otherwise.
> Because it's true. Nikon hasn't announced full-frame or even 1.3 crop
> factor.
There's no earthly reason why a professional body has to have a sensor
exactly the same size as a piece of 35mm film. Most don't.
Andrew.
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:46:37 -0000, andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> wrote:
>>Bernard P Rother <bprother_RE...@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>>> Stacey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not. Have you actually compared "film" lenses to lenses designed for
>>>> digital? If you had, you wouldn't use old film lenses.
>>
>>> Hi Stacey, I'm curious. How does a film lens compare to a digital
>>> lens ( apart from the crop factor ) ? I'm not being funny here .....
>>> genuinely curious ;-)
>>
>>I think he's referring to the fact that some of the new digital lenses
>>are a good deal sharper than film lenses of the same focal length.
>>Smaller and lighter too.
> That's really the selling point of the whole "4/3" concept, isn't
> it.
> Do you have actual MTF measurements that compare one of these new
> 4/3 lenses against its traditional (made-for-35mm) counterpart?
I don't think we mentioned 4/3". The conversation was about lenses
for 1.5ish crop bodies. See
http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/dx/zoom/af-s_dx_ed_12-24mmf4g_if.htm for an example.
> And by the way, I agree that lenses for digital capture (with small
> sensors) *need* to be very sharp.
Indeed.
Andrew.
Michael Meissner
> Steven M. Scharf <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
> > <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:1113de9...@news.supernews.com...
>
> >> But Nikon does have professional digital bodies, and you know that.
>
> > The closest they have is the upcoming D2x. But with the high crop
> > factor, this body won't be purchased by portrait or wedding
> > photographers, who will opt for the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II or the EOS
> > 1D Mark II.
>
> Says you. However, the reason you'd want a full-frame sensor for
> weddings and portraits is what, exactly? Can't be for wide angle, and
> low order noise isn't important either.
Portraits perhaps, but for weddings I would imagine you often times finding
yourself in cramped quarters trying to take pictures of the whole wedding
party. In addition, many churches and such tend to forbid flash during the
actual ceremony, and low noise at high ISO becomes important.
--
Michael Meissner
email: mrm...@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org
paul
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> <andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1111b34...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>Steven M. Scharf <scharf...@linkearth.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>At this time, only Canon has products in all segments of the market,
>>>and there are technical issues with the Nikon lens mount that
>>>preclude Nikon from moving into the professional market without
>>>moving away from their current lens mount.
>>
>>Sigh, this again. The only "problem" that anyone has managed to come
>>up with is that it might be difficult for Nikon to make a lens faster
>>than f/1.2. I don't think that's going to bother many people.
What exactly is wrong with the mount? I don't understand how the mount
could make any difference.
Steven M. Scharf
news:1113vc1...@news.supernews.com...
> Says you. However, the reason you'd want a full-frame sensor for
> weddings and portraits is what, exactly? Can't be for wide angle, and
> low order noise isn't important either.
Wide angle is extremely important for weddings.
> There's no earthly reason why a professional body has to have a sensor
> exactly the same size as a piece of 35mm film. Most don't.
Not exactly the same, but a professional may want to utilize his high end
lenses without running out to buy new wide angle lenses costing thousands of
dollars, if they are available at all.
If you don't understand why wide-angle lenses are so critical for weddings,
then you don't understand what's important to a professional.
papenfus...@juneaudotmedotvt.edu
: You're right, it isn't acceptable. Fortunately, spare batteries don't
: cost $75. For example, you can buy the aftermarket BP511 batteries for
: the Canon 300D/10D/20D for $12 each, about the same price as four
: 2500mAH NiMH cells,
: http://sterlingtek.com/ln03-canon-bp-511-dlc511.html
Aren't these the ones that spontaneously catch fire? :) Seriously, though...
some of the no-name brand batteries are pretty crappy from what I understand.
: I wish that there were a "standard" for Li-Ion battery packs, but there
: isn't. I don't worry about the availability of the BP511, since it's
: being used in a plethora of products. Perhaps I would avoid a Li-Ion
: pack that isn't so widely used.
... which by definition means avoiding a camera that isn't so widely used.
While all models of Canon might used the same battery (at least today), it can't be
used in any other devices. If Canon decides to go with another form factor tomorrow,
all the spare batteries are useless. The supply/demand advantage goes away, and in a
few years it'll be tough to get them reasonably priced.
I like the idea of using the same battery for my camera body, flash, mp3
player, flashlight, etc. If they all use a different proprietary battery, that means
expensive spares or downtimes while they recharge, different chargers for all, etc.
Right now, standard batteries are NiMH AA's. Li-Ion has more capacity, but if one is
griping about only getting 600 shots out of a charge vs. 900, that's down in the
noise and well offset by the utility of exactly 1 type of battery for all gadgets..
In a pinch even primary (non-rechargable) ones work.
: It's a little more complex than that for Li-Ion. You cannot use plain
: Li-Ion cells because there are electronics in the pack, not just the
: cells. This is for safety reasons.
I know this. That's exactly *why* there isn't a standard Li-Ion battery pack.
It's also why the no-name packs often combust or work poorly. They often don't have
very good individual cell equalization.
: > "The cutting edge of yesterday's technology" is the best place to buy
: for that.
: For PCs this statement is true. In digital cameras, the opposite is
: often true. Look at the Canon 20D versus the 10D. The 20D replaced the
: 10D at the same price point, but is far superior. There are cases where
: later products are inferior, or higher priced, but this is by no means
: a given.
Ah, but if you buy the older model at an appropriately discounted price, then
it still works.
Anyway, to each there own. I've got a friend with a Canon camera I've argued
with about this in the past. I, personally, think that the 2xCRV3/4xAA is a good
compromise. "Standard" rechargable (via R-CRV3) for Li-Ion folks, "Standard"
rechargables (via NiMH AA's) for AA folks, and either expensive (CRV3) or
available-anywhere-cheap-in-a-pinch Alkaline AA's
-Cory (Damn engineering tradeoffs... ) :)
Bill Tuthill
> ...
> Absolute Requirements
> ...
> Maximum 1.6 crop factor.
Why not make the cutoff 1.59?
Thus disqualifying the Canons but none of the Sony-CCD models.
What I'm saying is: 1.6 is a silly place to draw the line.
It would make more sense to require that lenses be available
with appropriate focal lengths for whatever the crop size.
Olympus wins here, followed by Canon (for amateurs, although
not for pros, where there is a dearth of f/2.8 wedding lenses
compared to Nikon). Minolta, Nikon, and especially Pentax
are disadvantaged by the lack of appropriate longer lenses.
Sad to say, but Canon wedding shooters might be best served
by the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC.
Bill Tuthill
>>> Not. Have you actually compared "film" lenses to lenses designed for
>>> digital? If you had, you wouldn't use old film lenses.
>
> Bernard P Rother <bprother_RE...@intekom.co.za> wrote:
>> Hi Stacey, I'm curious. How does a film lens compare to a digital
>> lens ( apart from the crop factor ) ? I'm not being funny here .....
>> genuinely curious ;-)
>
> I think he's referring to the fact that some of the new digital lenses
> are a good deal sharper than film lenses of the same focal length.
Hard to say what Stacey means.
So far all Canon EFS lenses are worse than their non-digital counterparts,
the 17-85/4-5.6 EFS IS by a significant margin when considering its cost.
The Nikon 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX might be sharper than the aforementioned EFS,
but it suffers from severe geometric distortion at the wide end. Owners
say the Nikon 17-55/2.8 G DX is acceptable but costs too much.
Aside from Olympus 4/3 lenses (which might be what Stacey wrote about)
the only digital lens documented to perform well within its price point
is the Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6 DC. I posted its Pop Photo SQF last week.
Scharf-DCA
news:4212...@news.meer.net...
> Why not make the cutoff 1.59?
> Thus disqualifying the Canons but none of the Sony-CCD models.
> What I'm saying is: 1.6 is a silly place to draw the line.
Not really. 1.5 would have eliminated the Canon models. Even going to
1.7 wouldn't have helped Sigma, which suffers from so many other issues
that the crop factor is lost in the noise (no pun intended).
> It would make more sense to require that lenses be available
> with appropriate focal lengths for whatever the crop size.
>
> Olympus wins here.
Huh?
> followed by Canon (for amateurs, although
> not for pros, where there is a dearth of f/2.8 wedding lenses
> compared to Nikon).
> Minolta, Nikon, and especially Pentax
> are disadvantaged by the lack of appropriate longer lenses.
Yeah, for now. Sigma lenses, while not great quality, will change this.
> Sad to say, but Canon wedding shooters might be best served
> by the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC.
Ouch.
Actually, while not a zoom the EF 14mm f/2.8L will solve the problem.
But the bottom line is that a professional committed to Canon will have
a full-frame body and the EF 17-35mm f/2.8L zoom and won't need the
super-wide zoom to compensate for the crop factor.
Scharf-DCA
news:4212...@news.meer.net...
> Olympus wins here
The issue with Olympus, is that their is no true wide angle lens, other
than the $1800 Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 E-ED. The Olympus Zuiko 11-22mm
f/2.8-3.5 E-ED ends up being 22-44mm, which is not a true wide-angle
lens. You really don't want to go beyond 17mm on the wide end, with
20mm being the absolute minimum to be considered wide angle.
What's needed is a 9-18mm lens, at a reasonable price, for the 4/3
system. Certainly something like this will be available eventually, but
AFAIK, it isn't available yet.
In any case, I have modified the section on crop factor and wide angle
lenses, since as was pointed out, just looking at the crop factor
doesn't tell the whole story.
Scharf-DCA
come up with something more clever.
As I point out, if a person already owns a load of lenses from a film
camera with the same mount as a digital camera, small differences in
image quality can be overlooked. But if starting from scratch, there is
no reason to make this compromise. It's not that the Pentax *istD is
horrible, but there are much better choices for the "uncommitted."
I'm not trying to be like dpreview.com where virtually everything they
review is "recommended" or "highly recommended," and the visitor to
their site can leave more confused than ever. After the *istD review,
Phil wrote (in comparison to the EOS-300D): "So which one should I buy?
A question I get asked several times a day, and I wouldn't like to
say." I do say, and I explain the reasons for my view.
Skip M
anything wider than 28mm, a 28-70 f2.8 does just fine, I've needed to use my
17-35 just a couple of times in the last 10 weddings.
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
Neither of these is really relevant. DSLRs with a 1.5 crop factor are
perfectly good for this; their noise is low enough, and their wide
angles are plenty wide enough.
Andrew.
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> news:1113vc1...@news.supernews.com...
>> Says you. However, the reason you'd want a full-frame sensor for
>> weddings and portraits is what, exactly? Can't be for wide angle, and
>> low order noise isn't important either.
> Wide angle is extremely important for weddings.
Are you saying that the available wide angle lenses for 1.5 crop
factor cameras are not suitable for weddings?
>> There's no earthly reason why a professional body has to have a
>> sensor exactly the same size as a piece of 35mm film. Most don't.
> Not exactly the same, but a professional may want to utilize his
> high end lenses without running out to buy new wide angle lenses
> costing thousands of dollars, if they are available at all.
While that might be true for a few people, it does not come anywhere
near disqualifying said cameras for professional use. If it were
true, all professionals would use cameras with a sensor the same size
as 35mm film.
> If you don't understand why wide-angle lenses are so critical for
> weddings,
Note: I did not say that. I know perfectly well why wide angles are
useful.
> then you don't understand what's important to a professional.
Andrew.
Steven M. Scharf
news:1116ji5...@news.supernews.com...
> Are you saying that the available wide angle lenses for 1.5 crop
> factor cameras are not suitable for weddings?
No. Once the D2x is available, you'll have a semi-professional body of
sufficient resolution to use with a lens of around 12mm at the wide end,
i.e. the 12-24mm Nikon lens, but this is not a professional lens, and is
very slow. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is not wide enough once you make the focal
length correction it's 25.5-82.5 (though for some reason the B&H site says
25.5-85.5). Nikon does have their 10.5mm wide-angle non-zoom that would be
okay.
Even the semiprofessional Canon EOS 1D Mark II, with its 1.3 crop factor,
doesn't get you there with a 16-35mm L lens; you're at 20.8mm, which.won't
be wide enough for most professionals.
With the D2x, Nikon now has an incentive to produce a professional quality
super-wide-angle zoom, i.e. similar to the Sigma 10-20mm, but professional
quality, rather than consumer quality.
Today, if you want a professional quality wide angle zoom lens, on a
professional or semi-professional body, the only choice is the Canon EOS 1Ds
or EOS 1Ds Mark II, with the 16-35/2.8 L lens.
There were a lot of professionals with Nikon systems that were very
disappointed that the Kodak 14 megapixel Nikon mount cameras weren't very
good, because they desperately want a full-frame Nikon solution. Ask any
professional about Nikon digital, and you'll touch a nerve.
Steven M. Scharf
news:1116jbd...@news.supernews.com...
> Neither of these is really relevant. DSLRs with a 1.5 crop factor are
> perfectly good for this; their noise is low enough, and their wide
> angles are plenty wide enough.
Nikon does not offer any professional quality wide-angle zoom lenses that
are true-wide angle, once corrected for the crop factor. Soon you'll be able
to buy a Sigma 10-20mm, but it's not professional quality.
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> news:1116jbd...@news.supernews.com...
>> Neither of these is really relevant. DSLRs with a 1.5 crop factor
>> are perfectly good for this; their noise is low enough, and their
>> wide angles are plenty wide enough.
> Nikon does not offer any professional quality wide-angle zoom lenses
> that are true-wide angle, once corrected for the crop factor.
Another untruth. The 17-35, for example, is has a field of view
equivalent to 25.5mm at its wide end.
> Soon you'll be able to buy a Sigma 10-20mm, but it's not
> professional quality.
Ah, you're talking about ultra-wide.
Andrew.
Bill Tuthill
>
>> Olympus wins [in lens selection]
>
> The issue with Olympus, is that their is no true wide angle lens, other
> than the $1800 Zuiko 7-14mm f/4.0 E-ED. The Olympus Zuiko 11-22mm
> f/2.8-3.5 E-ED ends up being 22-44mm, which is not a true wide-angle
> lens. You really don't want to go beyond 17mm on the wide end, with
> 20mm being the absolute minimum to be considered wide angle. What's
> needed is a 9-18mm lens, at a reasonable price, for the 4/3 system.
OK, I see what you mean, thanks for explaining.
For me, 22mm is more than wide enough. I guess I'm not a true
wide-angle guy, although I do like having 24 instead of just 28mm
on my film SLR.
Also for me, it's important that all my lenses take the same filters,
to reduce cost, make the kit easier to carry, and simplify my life.
That's where Olympus wins -- their lenses were designed in pairs.
Canon is lucky in having multiple 58 filter lenses, or 77 for pros.
Nikon has gone very far astray in the matching-filter department.
andr...@littlepinkcloud.invalid
> news:1116ji5...@news.supernews.com...
>> Are you saying that the available wide angle lenses for 1.5 crop
>> factor cameras are not suitable for weddings?
> No. Once the D2x is available, you'll have a semi-professional body
> of sufficient resolution to use with a lens of around 12mm at the
> wide end, i.e. the 12-24mm Nikon lens, but this is not a
> professional lens, and is very slow. The 17-55mm f/2.8 is not wide
> enough once you make the focal length correction it's 25.5-82.5
> (though for some reason the B&H site says 25.5-85.5). Nikon does
> have their 10.5mm wide-angle non-zoom that would be okay.
> Even the semiprofessional Canon EOS 1D Mark II,
Hold on. Do you really expect us to believe that every camera not
equipped with a sensor that happens to be the same size as 35mm film
is not a true "professional" camera?
> with its 1.3 crop factor, doesn't get you there with a 16-35mm L
> lens; you're at 20.8mm, which.won't be wide enough for most
> professionals.
Let me understand. In the world in which you live, a wide angle of
17mm is *essential* for wedding photographers? But somehow, these
same wedding photographers cope with mere Hasselblads?
> With the D2x, Nikon now has an incentive to produce a professional
> quality super-wide-angle zoom, i.e. similar to the Sigma 10-20mm,
> but professional quality, rather than consumer quality.
> Today, if you want a professional quality wide angle zoom lens, on a
> professional or semi-professional body, the only choice is the Canon
> EOS 1Ds or EOS 1Ds Mark II, with the 16-35/2.8 L lens.
> There were a lot of professionals with Nikon systems that were very
> disappointed that the Kodak 14 megapixel Nikon mount cameras weren't
> very good, because they desperately want a full-frame Nikon
> solution. Ask any professional about Nikon digital, and you'll touch
> a nerve.
Of course. Yeah, of course you're right.
Andrew.
Bill Tuthill
>>
>> Sad to say, but Canon wedding shooters might be best served
>> by the Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC.
>>
> Only if they couldn't afford the 16-35 f2.8L. Or a 1Ds. But I rarely need
> anything wider than 28mm, a 28-70 f2.8 does just fine, I've needed to use my
> 17-35 just a couple of times in the last 10 weddings.
What? The 16-35/2.8 L is a 56mm crop factor equivalent on the prosumer
Canon DSLR models! How would you get headshots with that?
I'd buy a 24-70/2.8 L, myself. But 112mm crop factor equivalent
wouldn't be very useful at the weddings I've done.
The Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX DC costs and weighs less than half as much,
and its 80mm crop factor equivalent would be sufficient for me.
I have not seen any reviews of it yet, though.
Skip M
I've not needed anything wider than our 28-135s, except on two occasions.
Once, in a church, with a HUGE family group shot, I had to use the 17-35,
and I used a 15mm fisheye to get a shot of the whole church. The other time
was taking some "getting ready" shots in a very small room.
As far as headshots go, that's where the 28-135 comes into its own.
Steven M. Scharf
news:W2SQd.31852$xt.2687@fed1read07...
> I've not needed anything wider than our 28-135s, except on two occasions.
> Once, in a church, with a HUGE family group shot, I had to use the 17-35,
> and I used a 15mm fisheye to get a shot of the whole church. The other
time
> was taking some "getting ready" shots in a very small room.
> As far as headshots go, that's where the 28-135 comes into its own.
I've had to take family shots in a very small room, where a 20-35mm was
barely enough on a 35mm body. I really could have used a 17-35. The tripod
was all the way up against the wall.
But it's true that you usually don't need a very wide angle lens---but
sometimes you do.