Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

sifu said:
I went to internet and found this!
click
Click to expand...

Hmm, err, oh, oh my, wow... :| ... :lmao:

epp_b said:
The reason for this is because Nikons read distance information from the lens for matrix metering
Click to expand...

Yeah, and that makes no sense. The light will be whatever intensity it is no matter where you're focused. It's not like the meter can tell which bits of lightness are three metres away and which are thirty metres away so I don't see how lens information can have any real effect on the metering process. I don't get it.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, the distance information is used when using flash with iTTL. The distance information gives exposure priority to the area at the focus distance, as it allows the camera to compensate for light falloff from the flash.
 
Well, I guess every company has stupid foibles in their system.

Nikon is obsessed with forward and backward compatibility (which isn't always a bad thing, but it's only for their more expensive, high-end gear), but this means that the lens mount is still full of mechanical couplings. They seem to cripple their metering system by making it dependent on the lens to communicate information. There's a plethora of what lenses will work fully, partially or at all on what bodies. With Canon, EOS is EOS is EOS (which the exception of EF-S lenses on an EF body, but who would want to do that anyway?) and the couplings are completely electronic. Canon's metering is also lens-independent.

On the other hand, rear-curtain flash sync (which I use all the time) on a Canon requires eTTL communication between the body and flash. Nikon just pops the "fire" signal at end of the exposure. This means you can't use affordable-but-perfectly-good alternative products (Vivitar flashes, Alienbees Cybersyncs) to their full potential. Holding a Canon feels like holding a brick; Nikon bodies are crafted by Giorgetto Giugiaro and seem fit your hands, no matter what size they are (seriously, I'm comfortable holding everything from a D40 to D3). Canon has long-winded, disorganized custom function menus that sometimes require referencing the manual (seriously? The 1980's called, they want their functionality back). Nikon's menus are organized, clearly-labeled and just seem to always be exactly where you'd expect to find them.
 
Last edited:
epp_b said:
OK, so manual lenses do "work" on lesser bodies than the D200, they just don't meter. You set the aperture with the ring on the lens and you set the shutter and ISO with the body, as usual; you basically have to guess or use Sunny 16. The reason for this is because Nikons read distance information from the lens for matrix metering (that's "evaluative metering" for you Canonites). What I'm saying as that all Nikons should, at least, be able to give you spot and center-weighted metering simply by letting you tell the camera what you've set the aperture ring to.
Click to expand...

You'll have to excuse my ignorance in regards to Nikon gear, but do they still MAKE these lenses that don't meter or is this just stuff that's around second hand and is good optically but just more challenging to use because of the metering issue?


Also on an unrelated note, has anyone used the Canon 200mm f/2.8 L USM Prime MkI and MkII variants and see any reason why I shouldn't get the original? From what I can read, they are optically and functionally the same except the MkI has a built in hood that is also tougher than the hood you can get for the MkII. DoN uses the MkII so while he's been quite helpful in discussing any potential drawbacks with a 200mm prime, he can't help with this one last query.
 
Last edited:
You'll have to excuse my ignorance in regards to Nikon gear, but do they still MAKE these lenses that don't meter or is this just stuff that's around second hand and is good optically but just more challenging to use because of the metering issue?
Click to expand...
Mostly second-hand, but they do still make a 50mm f/1.2 AI-S.
 
Maybe I am used to the Canon menus, but the day I tried using a D3000, I had trouble finding what I wanted. Everything looked "for dummies".
 
Maybe I am used to the Canon menus, but the day I tried using a D3000, I had trouble finding what I wanted. Everything looked "for dummies".
Click to expand...
The D3000 includes diagrams and example images in the menus because it's the lowest end DSLR Nikon makes. Once you get to the D90, things become more sophisticated and efficient.
 
epp_b said:
The D3000 includes diagrams and example images in the menus because it's the lowest end DSLR Nikon makes. Once you get to the D90, things become more sophisticated and efficient.
Click to expand...

Ah, fair point. I would be greatly disappointed if the "professional" Nikons had those diagrams and images. :lol:
 
Yeah back when I bought my 20D I tried the equivalent Nikon and didn't like the menu because I had to go in, in, in - back, back, back if you know what I mean, whereas with the 20D every menu was just one function deep. I also preferred the feel of it. Those areas really are just personal preference and considering how close they are in features and price you could really say the whole decisioncomes down to personal preference.
 
Well I shot on a Nikon digital body for some time and can say that the menu system was pretty damn annoying to begin with. Luckily after a while you have all the options you use frequently at the very top which makes it all very bearable. The CLS is extremely annoying though, I'd much rather use an infra-red trigger and the flash in manual than bother with all that, especially when the pre-flash effects the resulting exposure!
 
epp_b said:
The D3000 includes diagrams and example images in the menus because it's the lowest end DSLR Nikon makes. Once you get to the D90, things become more sophisticated and efficient.
Click to expand...
First time I tried a D3 it took me a quarter of an hour to understand how the flipping heck I could put in a custom WB. With a Canon, I understood that in one minute from day one.
 
SileNceR said:
Better than the Ken Rockwell "special" edition:

"Follow [Pro Athlete] home, and shoot him there! Who needs a [focal length] zoom lens?"
Click to expand...

Ken's final words as the restraining order was finalized, "But I just wanted to get a better shot at him! You need to follow them home for a good clean shot!"
 
epp_b said:
Ugh, I can't believe I'm about to do this...

In all fairness, there is no substitute for being able to "get close".

Case in point: http://1x.com/photos/action/32739/
Click to expand...

I am srs epp_b, internet r srs bizness. :p

Come on, there's, like, five people in the stands. You can't do that at big time sporting events. Nobody's disagreeing that closeness in winness, but you can't get close to pro football players (either kind) during games or wild animals. The point isn't "ololol KRockwell likes wideangles", the point is "ololol KRockwell would rather follow an athlete home than photograph him doing his thing".


and the Sigma 8-16 should be out by the end of the month for ?800... don't know about $. Now how long until the other four lenses come out :hmm:
 
Last edited:
OK, I clearly overstepped my boundaries here. I'm just saying that, sometimes, he has a point of about wide angles. But, overall? He's craptacular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top