Are the D3s of the world killing fast lenses?

[Mike_E]

Ahem, Maybe the fact that Nikon doesn't have a lens comparable to the Canon f4Ls in a normal focal length (<120mm) is hanging some people up?

Evidently Nikon feels that if you're going to spend the money any way they'll go ahead and give you the best. But for this discussion I think that the original post was about like quality with dissimilar max apertures.

In any case, I suggest that you all relax and enjoy the coming technology.

It has always been and will always be about the photographer- not the camera.

 

[Jestev]

Okay, but we are (I am) talking about a trend. A paradigm shift. A process that takes time.
Once every disposable pocket camera will be able to give you the performance of today's D3s and more, which should happen within ten years, will f4 become the new f2.8?

Just a thought, guys.

I would be increadibly surprised if f/4 lenses overtook f/2.8 lenses. I expect that an f/2 or faster lens will be the new f/2.8, and, in some cases, this is already happening.

 

[usayit]

hehehe Mike... your a Nikonian to the fullest.. hehehe lol (and I'm not saying that in a bad way).

 

[Mike_E]

:thumbup:

Thank you Sir!

 

[DeadEye]

I have read this thread with great interest. I was recently asked to be the inside photog at a horse show ( inside arena not the outside arena ) . Absolutely no flash allowed ( spooked horse could throw rider) . I figured no problem , Ill bring the f1.8 and all will be good. Well the light was awful a few very high incandescent bulbs and a few florescent tubes with natural light spilling in through the barn doors. A few test shots and I knew I was doomed. The best I could muster was a shutter speed of 125 , at f1.8 using ISO 800. I managed a few great shots but most were sub par. This was my first indoor low light action event and the resulting images did not thrill me in the least. The lens I used was a 50mm f1.8. The objective lens is 52mm.. If I were to get a nice L lens with its 78mm objective at say 50mm f1.8 would it gather light better? I would like to freeze motion of horse and rider midair in those jumps 1/500 would be nice.
Many Thanks.:thumbup:

 

[usayit]

If I were to get a nice L lens with its 78mm objective at say 50mm f1.8 would it gather light better?

Nope...

Here's one moment that a higher ISO performing camera is necessary. In the old days... we would shoot with even faster film.

 

[DeadEye]

Nope...

Here's one moment that a higher ISO performing camera is necessary. In the old days... we would shoot with even faster film.

Darn I was hopeing there was a way to do better in this arena. I know that with spotting scopes The bigger the objective lens the brighter the view will be. A scope with a 30mm objective is very dark at dusk but the 100mm scope is MUCH brighter at same magnification.

 

[Alex_B]

Is "the chip" pulling the carpet from underneath the quest for the fastest lens? Are the photo companies shooting themselves in the leg?

I understand your idea .. but they are certainly not.


ISO 100 will always be better in IQ than ISO 6400. Even if ISO 6400 is acceptable and ISO 1600 is good, then ISO 100 will be excellent in quality.

Also, a lens can never be fast enough when it gets dark. We will just start to be able to take images in low-light situations where we could not before, but now we can. Especially in wildlife photography.

And keep in mind, that even in studio photography, where you always can make sure you have enough light, even there people use the fastest lenses if they can afford

I could imagine though, that less tripods might be sold on the long run ...

 

[Iron Flatline]

Also, new technology changes how we can use lenses. I have a Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0. The new M from Leica (the M8) has a much faster shutter than older models, and can shoot at 1/8000th of a second. That means I can use the lens wide-open even during bright daylight. It becomes a whole new creative tool.

Cranking ISO will plateau soon, because current technology makes it less useful beyond a certain sensitivity. Some may use it creatively, but it won't really work - at some point you still need enough light to see through the viewfinder to compose a shot, and those cameras with auto-focus need some light as well. Even if your sensor can capture the image, you can't.

But I asked the same question a little differently recently: in a time when we can shoot RAW, do we really need lenses that are extra sharp or well-known for their strong contrast? I can just dial in a little more once I get home in front of a computer...

 

[Garbz]

ISO 100 will always be better in IQ than ISO 6400. Even if ISO 6400 is acceptable and ISO 1600 is good, then ISO 100 will be excellent in quality.

Bearing in mind that while the quality at high ISO improves the range has not. Neither the D3 or the D300 can shoot at ISO100! I could see if this continues ND filters becoming the standard rather than UV filters.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

But I asked the same question a little differently recently: in a time when we can shoot RAW, do we really need lenses that are extra sharp or well-known for their strong contrast? I can just dial in a little more once I get home in front of a computer...

The lens of a camera is its bottleneck. It doesn't matter how much you can crank up the sharpness or the contrast in post, if the details didn't pass through the lens. It's like if you connect a portable music player to an amplifier and turn the volume all (or almost all) the way down on the music player. No matter how much you amplify the incoming signal, if you've got nothing to amplify, then all you get is noise.

RAW is considered to be the raw data - everything is there, you just need to fish out what you need and adjust it how you wish. But even RAW isn't completely raw. The real raw material is the world at the other end of the lens. Once it passes the first element, it ceases to be raw, and becomes an interpretation or rendition.

 

[Garbz]

The music approach doesn't apply here. Assuming the portable produces a signal with no noise to speak of in the real world like a lens does, then yes if your amplifier has a signal to noise ratio and an input sensitivity high enough then you would get a usable signal out of it. The D3 has proved that.

 

[Helen B]

Also, new technology changes how we can use lenses. I have a Leica Noctilux 50mm f/1.0. The new M from Leica (the M8) has a much faster shutter than older models, and can shoot at 1/8000th of a second. That means I can use the lens wide-open even during bright daylight. It becomes a whole new creative tool.

...but you can use a Noctilux at f/1 in bright daylight with a film camera. You can use it at f/1 for very long exposures in bright daylight. What's new, apart from being able to use it at shutter speeds higher than 1/1000 (nominal)?

Best,
Helen

 

[fmw]

I still use a tripod instead of going beyond ISO 100. In the film days I used ISO 100 Fuji Provia almost exclusively. I've used ISO 200 a few times. For journalism or other possibly extreme applications, I can understand having those high ISP options on a digital camera. Personally, I've never used them and probably never will because I don't need photographs, I just like them and I aim for high image quality. I'll stay with the tripod, thank you.

Also Matt pointed out correctly that aperture controls depth of field as well as exposure and fast lenses provide more flexibility in that area.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

The music approach doesn't apply here. Assuming the portable produces a signal with no noise to speak of in the real world like a lens does, then yes if your amplifier has a signal to noise ratio and an input sensitivity high enough then you would get a usable signal out of it. The D3 has proved that.

Does it really produce a signal with no noise? That's the first time i hear that.
In any case, what i meant was that whatever registers on the chip, first passes through the lens, obviously. And if you've got a cheap lens, or a cheap filter that renders some of the details unresolvable, then the quality of the chip doesn't really matter.

Regarding the range of ISO, i didn't know the D300 and the D3's lowest ISO was 200. And i thought that my 30D's 100 was too high...Does anyone know the reason for this?