Joe

The right combination of body, lens and photographer are required to have a consistent level of "quality". These three attributes cannot always adjust in the right ratios...for example a good photographer might not be able to overcome the technical limitations of "crap" equipment.

Interesting tidbit: MNR (it was really their predecessor, but the name escapes me) did the acceptance testing for the Cosmopolitans on the LIRR. There are photos of M2s at Shea Stadium on nycsubway.org.

Image noise doesn't solely depend on either resolution or sensor size, but if for a second we imagine that those are the only two variables that we're looking at, it would be wiser for us to say that pixel density plays an important role. Higher pixel density = poorer performance at all ISOs = decreased dynamic range. Lower pixel density = better performance at all ISOs = increased dynamic range. Dynamic range is the full range of tonal values that a sensor can capture. As ISO is increased on a digital sensor, dynamic range decreases.

Ah, didn't know Paint.NET had a noise reduction routine. Last time I used that app...well, R32s dominated the during the same timeframe.

After doing a quick Google search I found that Noiseware Community Edition is still available for free. While not as feature-packed as some other solutions out there, it should serve as a decent tool to reduce the amounts of noise present in your photos. Note that these programs are not usually the type where you should simply "max every slider". They require careful attention to a 100% crop of the photo in question while you find the optimal settings. It is better to apply sparingly than to go overboard and smudge out all the details. Edit: another useful tool for reducing blur is present as a Photoshop plug-in: Gaussian Blur. By applying a sub-1.0px blur to the photo, followed by a light Unsharp Mask, you can essentially "blur out" the chrominance noise* while retaining detail within the photo. * chrominance noise refers to the multicolored spots one sees in a noisy file; the other type of noise: luminance noise, refers to the black and white hot spots present.

Image noise can be rectified, blur cannot.

D5000 kit runs $750 at B&H I believe. Good deal.

Slight overexposure is not a bad thing. However, it is a technique that requires proper usage to reap the full benefits. The meter shouldn't be trusted 100%. You've got to know the weak spots of your cameras' particular meter.

She can't say no to all eight of them at the same time! :cool:

You should know better than to trust the meter all of the time. Hell, you still have my book that tells you to always second-guess the meter.

Looks wonderfully Japanese, IMO. If only it came with [female] passengers from the motherland...

Fifties are golden on full-frame cameras, but they're a bit tight when you use them on a crop sensor. It's the main reason why my 50 usually stays in my bag, where my 35mm f/2 practically lives on my camera. I've got a number of lenses, if you're interested i'd be willing to meet up with you so you can try them out before you go out and buy something.

AF isn't foolproof, sometimes it's better to focus on a specific spot, then release the shutter as soon as the train rolls into that spot. Are you comfortable with the field of view that a 50mm lens would provide you with?

A 50mm lens on a crop sensor can be a bit tough to use underground. Also note that when shooting wide open, nailing the focus is essential.

A GH1 setup for $1845...wow. Just wow.

For many people, medium format is a solution in search of a problem. I will admit however that one day while toying with my FG, I instinctively went for the nonexistent "Preview" button after firing the shutter. B)

The GH1 takes Micro 4/3rds lenses natively. 4/3rds lenses can be used with an adapter, as well as Leica M, Nikon F and Voigtlander lenses. If one was looking for a [relatively] cheap way to use Leica M glass, the GH1 would be a great body to use. If Dave does get the GH1, i'd be very interested to see how it performs.

If you're looking for a point and shoot, i'd go with either Canon or the Panasonic Lumix line. The Panasonic LX3 is a very capable P&S and i've seen some impressive material from it. For SLRs, Canon, Nikon and Panasonic all make great cameras. The model you quoted, the GH1 is an impressive camera. It can take Nikkor and Leica lenses in addition to [Micro ]4/3rds lenses. The deciding factor between the three would likely be the cameras' ergonomics, that is, how it feels in your hand.

Why would you want to crop such a large percentage of the image out? Those smaller sensors (the ones smaller than 4/3rds on the chart above) really suck at well, everything. Larger sensors are less noisy at higher sensitivities, not to mention they have increased dynamic range at all sensitivities. Increased dynamic range (DR can be thought of how wide a tonality the sensor can capture) makes photos look so much more alive than the drab P&S look.

Don't know what your shooting style is, but some of the fast f/1.8 & f/2 primes can be a lot of fun to use. They really force you to think about composition rather than turning a ring.

Nope. The actual focal length of your 18-55mm lens is 18-55mm. The apparent focal length is 27-82.5mm. Actual focal length does not change ever (unless you take your lens apart and remove pieces of glass from it heh heh).

When using a lens on a crop sensor, you would multiply the focal length by 1.5 to obtain what the apparent focal length would be on full-frame. For example: a 50mm lens on a crop sensor "looks like" a 75mm lens on a full-frame body. A 35mm lens on a crop sensor "looks like" a 52.5mm lens on a full-frame body.

Your T1i has an APS-C sized sensor. These are also known as "crop sensor", "1.5x" or "DX" (Nikon specific term) sensors. As you can tell, they are smaller physically than a full-frame (or FX) sensor. An FX sensor is the same size as a frame of 35mm film. Since the sensor is smaller, it only "sees" a smaller part of the image circle projected by the lens. In Canon terms, EF-S lenses are designed to be used by only the cropped sensor bodies. They are physically unable to mount on full-frame bodies. Now as to your question regarding focal lengths: let's imagine a 50mm lens. No matter whether you mount it on your T1i or a 1Ds, the lens will always have a focal length that equals 50mm. What changes is the field of view between the two cameras. Compared to the 1Ds (a full-frame camera), your T1i will show a narrower field of view. This is because the smaller sensor of your camera only sees a smaller portion of the image projected by the lens. With the exception of medium format/large format systems (if you don't know what these are, don't worry, just keep reading), lens focal lengths are always expressed in terms of 35mm cameras. We'll take the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens and for the purposes of explaining this, we'll imagine that a Canon EF 10-22mm lens also exists (the EF being designed for full-frame or 35mm cameras). If you kept the lenses set at 10mm, they would both show the same field of view on your T1i. This is because the actual focal length of the lens does not change, focal length depends on the arrangement of the glass elements inside the lens. I hope this clears up any confusion you might have, this very topic used to puzzle me when I first got interested in SLRs.

I wouldn't really consider its small size to be a huge benefit, especially seeing as 4/3rds is the smallest DSLR sensor. Smaller sensor generally means higher pixel density, decreased dynamic range & increased noise. Sensor size comparison.