[alex_cs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 The old 1200-1700mm Nikkors at F5.6 used to require shutter speeds of almost a full second if the lighting wasn't ridiculously bright. Keep in mind that this is for film, not digital.

film and digital are the same. the medium has nothing to do with apeture, ISO, etc.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex_cs film and digital are the same. the medium has nothing to do with apeture, ISO, etc.

Well, technically they are not the same, a lot of digital bodies are crop bodies (like my 30D I think is 1.6x?)

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaGWiRE Umm? Dude, I don't think you'de use this for sports photography or something where your trying to "freeze" motion because you would probably not be travelling with a lens this size much. And at almost 600 pounds, I'm certain you would have it on a tripod, in which case a 10 second shutter speed wouldn't really matter all that. For the amount of time needed to probably get ahold of one of these things, waiting 10 seconds to get a shot I'm sure wouldn't kill anybody. I use slow shutter speeds all the time in my room because I don't shoot stuff in motion and well, my room has sh1t lighting, even at ISO 3200 your using damn slow shutter speeds. I found a tripod can easily fix this.

Thank you Dr. Spot. You have succesfully repeated what I just said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex_cs film and digital are the same. the medium has nothing to do with apeture, ISO, etc.

This is in someways true. However, film and digital are not at all the same. You can shoot at a much higher ISO with digital. I've found that with the use of noise removal programs with digital, you can shoot up to about 1200 ISO and get decent results. With film, anything over 800 ISO imo, is far too grainy, at least for my tastes.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

And unlike digital, film has a shoulder where the highlights gradually fade into white.

 

[JaGWiRE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 . I've found that with the use of noise removal programs with digital, you can shoot up to about 1200 ISO and get decent results.

I've seen a lot of great shots at ISO 3200. As long as your not pixel peeping, it usually is actually pretty decent after some properly run noise removal software.

Also, I've seen a LOT of indoor sports photographs that are quite good at ISO 1600, so I don't get your 1200 comment. A lot of outdoor sports photographers use really high ISOS to shoot high shutter speeds and therefore freeze a lot of motion :|. (Indoor too for that matter.)

Also, what was needed with that other comment? I don't think this lens has many practicla uses if any really, so why does it matter that I was just stating some laws of exposure?

I forgot though, your a Nikon user. You have noise problems

.

 

[alex_cs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaGWiRE Well, technically they are not the same, a lot of digital bodies are crop bodies (like my 30D I think is 1.6x?)

my point is, the raw product of both is the same. sure you can manipulate digital a bit easier, but my points were firstly directed at film cameras. digital is just easier to do post on, and the quality of sensors obviously helps these days. 1.6x has no bearing on the sensitivity or apeture, simply the crop of the lenses input. and the 1ds, 1dsmk2 is 1x anyway.



i was commenting on skylines point concerning a difference at shooting dig v film. the same factors still apply. whatever post you apply is determined by skill and knowledge.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

A digital sensor really isn't the same as film when it comes to exposure. The average piece of film responds to only 1% of the light hitting it. A digital sensor picks up significantly more. A digital sensor has more dynamic range issues, especially in the highlight area. Its response to light is linear, not logarithmic. When I'm exposing with film (not slide film) I know I have a little leeway in the highlight area. With digital, if overexpose even a little, oops, that part of the image is gone forever. On the other hand, shadow detail can be recovered more easily from a digital image.

There's also the fact that about 99% of digital sensors don't capture full red, green, and blue color information at each photosite.

 

[alex_cs]

yes that great, but do you spend much time with current digital SLR's and the most recent film SLR's? im assuming you dont, becuase at similar ISO's and apetures they both expose the image at much the same rate, that is to say almost identical. i am commenting from experience in current hardware, not celluloid theory.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

Oh, I wasn't really talking about that, sorry.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alex_cs yes that great, but do you spend much time with current digital SLR's and the most recent film SLR's? im assuming you dont, becuase at similar ISO's and apetures they both expose the image at much the same rate, that is to say almost identical. i am commenting from experience in current hardware, not celluloid theory.

Perhaps my experience is not quite valid since my SLR is the Nikon F2 from the '70s and my DSLR is a D70, both not the leading edge in technology however, I've shot the same subject (Surfers down at Kewalos and paddlers at Ke'ehi lagoon) using a 210mm Vivatar tele at 400 ISO/ASA both on film and digital, and the F2 ended up with an exposure about 1/4 to 1/2 second longer than the D70 almost every time. The F2 just had the spring replaced for the focal plane shutter too since it had a rather nasty fall earlier this summer and needed to be serviced anyway, so I believe the shutter actuations were accurate. I got to use my dad's new F6 last week as well, and got nearly the same results. I don't know the technical explanation for it, but for me, film always has had a longer exposure time compared to when I shoot digital. I've always thought of the F2, F6, and D70 to be quite good cameras however, maybe the higher eschelon pro SLRs and DSLRs that you're using give different or more accurate results than the consumer SLRs I'm using?

 

[$qwuzzy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb3k Looks like a heavy telescope WHat's the focal point?

next door