Yeah. It covers such a wide range that its hard not to miss it when its gone.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
My (new) Sigma 10-20mm is still sealed, in the box. The temptation to go out and buy a 1000D "for now" is huge...
Wouldnt a 400D be cheaper? . . . and better
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
If I can find one new. I'm not so keen on not having the sensor shaker though - it works really really well.
Then dont get the 350D - I think that was the last one they made without the sensor cleaner.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
I had no plans to, especially after shooting an event with one. Low light AF is not great on it.
I think that was the last one they made without the sensor cleaner.
Oh, I thought the 400D didn't have it either. Or did you just get your sensor so dirty that you had to clean it manually?
Some things even the shaker cant loosen. Sensors get dirty - its only once you notice the dust that it begins to bug you and sometimes its better not to even test for it.
But yeah - the 400D and the 40D share the same sensor cleaning technology as the 1000D. It isnt perfect but its better than nothing.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
Good, then the 400D is an option. They're getting scarce new though.
Interesting. I've had no problems with low light focussing with either of my 350Ds. High ISO noise is not pretty when compared to my 40D though.
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
I didn't say it's bad. It's just not what I was used to (40D). Yeah, high ISO is bad on it. So much for the "physics" argument of pixel size...
Which argument is that.. . . and does it take into account the technological advancements that might have been made as a result of more than two years and millions in R&D?
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
C'mon bwana, you know what I'm talking about. The idea that noise will be worse at a higher resolution than on a lower resolution on the same size sensor.
No, it doesn't, and that's the problem with the argument.
The pixel size argument is around isolation (insulation) of the individual pixels. They are getting much smaller and closer together, so quantum effects (such as tunneling) are no longer negligible.
Does this make it sound as though I know what I'm talking about, or should you be reaching for the foil?
Does this make it sound as though I know what I'm talking about, or should you be reaching for the foil?
koffiejunkie
Executive Member
You are right, BigAl, but the problem is the argument assumes that the sensor elements fill the sensor surface edge to edge with no space in-between, which is not the case. There is a lot of space in-between each element, and that space is getting smaller. If I remember correctly, the sensor elements on the 40D sensor are larger than on the 30D.
Meanwhile back on topic . . . I've noticed my creep lock isnt working again.
I'm not overly phased as I was planning on sending it back once more before the warranty expires and now I have a valid excuse to
I'm not overly phased as I was planning on sending it back once more before the warranty expires and now I have a valid excuse to
Meanwhile back on topic . . . I've noticed my creep lock isnt working again.
I'm not overly phased as I was planning on sending it back once more before the warranty expires and now I have a valid excuse to
i have the same problem with my lens :/ creep lock doesnt hold that well. it's not a train smash and not major enough to be sent in. I'll miss it if it has to go in again