photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
bud kuenzli | profile | all galleries >> alaska >> aurora_miscellaneous >> jan_7_2005 tree view | thumbnails | slideshow
_V5U7651web.jpg
_V5U7651web.jpg		 _V5U7658web.jpg
_V5U7658web.jpg		 _V5U7665.jpg
_V5U7665.jpg		 _V5U7667web.jpg
_V5U7667web.jpg
_V5U7668web.jpg
_V5U7668web.jpg		 _V5U7675web.jpg
_V5U7675web.jpg		 _V5U7688web.jpg
_V5U7688web.jpg		 _V5U7690web.jpg
_V5U7690web.jpg
_V5U7681web.jpg
_V5U7681web.jpg		 _V5U7662web.jpg
_V5U7662web.jpg		 _V5U7663web.jpg
_V5U7663web.jpg		 _V5U7664web.jpg
_V5U7664web.jpg
_V5U7679web.jpg
_V5U7679web.jpg		 _V5U7684web.jpg
_V5U7684web.jpg		 _V5U7687web.jpg
_V5U7687web.jpg		 _V5U7686web.jpg
_V5U7686web.jpg
_V5U7785web.jpg
_V5U7785web.jpg

comment | share
bud kuenzli09-Jan-2005 19:51
Brian,

It's the sensor, not the camera. Much of what you pay for with the MKII is 8 fps in a pro body that is weather sealed. I think the 20D has the same sensor and would take shots of the Northern Lights just as well as the MKII. A used 10D would be under $1000 and can also take very good Aurora. Maybe not quite as good as a 20D, but good, none the less. I think the 20D would be an excellent option, combined with a 16-35 zoom or a 20mm prime. Best of luck.
Brian M 09-Jan-2005 17:18
Hi Bud,
thank you for your in depth discussion on the subject. You have a good point that pixels on the screen that appear as noise- don't necessarily transfer to the finished print. Sometimes I may tend to try to remove more noise than is really necessary, forgeting that I am looking at a much more magnified image than the size the print will be.
Now comes the decision to fork over the money for the camera; I have also read reviews and the new Canon looks head and shoulders above everything else. I know it will take a few years of print sales to recoup the investment- however that is not what it is all about, right? My Sony digital that I just spent $1000 on just ain't doin the job, sorry to say, and I am back to testing different 400 slide film.
Again, thanks for your indepthness.
bud kuenzli09-Jan-2005 02:42
Noise is a complicated subject. The short answer is that sometimes I use software as virtually all digital shooters do at some time with some image if they are attempting to create the best noise free image at high ISO. Only high ISO images appear noisy. The Canon 1D MK II is one of the cleanest digital cameras on the market today but no 35mm camera today, including film, shoots a 30 second exposure at ISO 400 that is clean and totally noise free. Some bright auroras can allow you to shoot at lesser ISO's for less noisy images, but a MKII image at ISO 400 is pretty darned good. I just got back a 20x30 print for a client. Truth is, I never even thought about the noise. Experience tells me that if I shoot ISO 400, print to 20x30 after my normal PS work, everyone is happy with the image. I have not had one client every complain about noise, and MOST of my images are NOT put through Noise Ninja. But I use it when I think it's warranted, IE ISO 1600 images that need to print huge and be as noise free as possible.
I just grabbed my most recent 20x30 printed for a client off the counter and looked at it closely. I can't say it's noise free because some of the color texture may be due to noise, but even at close inspection it shows no obvious noise. Last night I was shooting at ISO 1600 early in the evening when the aurora was very faint, with no moon. Those, I'm sure, will be very noisy. There is no 35mm noise free 1600 ISO film or sensor. Some are better than others, with this Canon sensor being very, very good.
I have moved from film to cheap digital cameras to decent digitals to good digitals to the MKII, which is certainly ate least one of the very best 35mm digital cameras out there. (no brand wars here) Along the entire path there was something better in the wings I lusted after. Not any more. Totally satisfied with this camera.
And....there is a real disconnect from screen noise and ink-jet print. An image that looks noisy viewed at 100% on the screen can look clean printed on an ink jet - or dye sub, as those single-pixel color changes blend in the ink stream if they are fine and random enough, and this Canon sensor excels at creating noise that is very random and small so when printed, it looks very good. Bad noise, of course, shows as nasty, course splotches, but if you're looking for a noise-free 35mm, this is a good camera. I'm not sure if the 1DsMKII is any better (in terms of noise). It may be, just not sure. Bigger sensor.
The eqipment is indeed quite an investment. Wanting to be able to shoot wide angle at f2.8 or faster is a bigger investment than many lower end DSLR cameras! Next? A 400mm. It's time for a Canon prime. :)
Melissa 09-Jan-2005 00:03
Now that's what I'm talkin' about! Saint Johns, Michigan here. We had cloud cover last night. 80(
brian miller 08-Jan-2005 23:16
Bud,
I see the camera you use has a price tag around $4000 for just the body. You must have quite a bit socked away with lenses, software, media, etc. Do you have to use software to remove noise or does the price tag buy a clean digital image?
Keith Arnett08-Jan-2005 19:42
Bud your photo's are absolutely amazing. This was a nice show for you!
Keith
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment
click on thumbnails for full image