Lens construction

Although this is a Canon lens, there are 3 videos showing the complete building of a 500mm lens.

What is involved in putting together a $7,000 lens | SnapBlog - Snapsort and LensHero

Amazing! Thanks for sharing...those Canon folks are known for some great super telephoto lenses and zooms. I had a chance to play with a Canon 7D with a couple of different zooms on a few occasions recently and although it was pretty darn cool I think I am more impressed with a D5000 particulary in regard to the price. An anecdote about that 7D - it's owner does not use the camera for stills at all...young folk nowadays are weird...hahhaha

Eye-Level- You are so right,,,,,Young people are very weird these days (LOL). If you're going to spend that much on a camera for video,,,,just buy an actual video camera !!! Is that too much to ask,,,I mean,,,does it not make sense ??? Just curious.

Wow, I never realized that those 500mm lenses are 3k, my god! But some good videos!

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

Nikonite1222 said:

Eye-Level- You are so right,,,,,Young people are very weird these days (LOL). If you're going to spend that much on a camera for video,,,,just buy an actual video camera !!! Is that too much to ask,,,I mean,,,does it not make sense ??? Just curious.

Click to expand...

lol.....I couldn't agree more. Still cameras and video cameras are two different animals in my opinion, and never should the twain meet!

Video cameras don't offer the ability to mount a 50 mm f/1.2 lens to it and enjoy shallow DOF. Or a fisheye. Or a 500 mm tele. Nor do they offer ISO 25,600 and higher. The best video-capable DSLRs approach Hollywood quality. One episode of the TV show "House" was filmed entirely with a Canon 5D Mk II. Someone also did one feature film, but the title escapes me.

I have never even tried the video mode in my D3s, not interested, but the video-DSLR output quality seems to be from a different planet when compared to a typical video camera. So, if someone is serious about shooting video, I can understand the desire to upgrade to a DSLR.

pforsell. my point about video having no place in a still camera is not about the quality of the video. I've no doubt that the video is fantastic. I, too, have seen whole videos shot with Canons and Nikons. What I'm trying to say is.....if you're going to take still pictures, the video feature is useless. It just takes up space that could be used for some other great feature that a still camera could use. It also adds to the cost of the camera. It's just good marketing by the camera companies.......something else to dazzle a potential customer.
And seriously....how often are you going to use ISO 25,000? I rarely go over ISO 800 with my D200.
Consider this: would you buy a video camera with the intent of taking still pictures? Seems absurd, doesn't it.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth here.

I agree with you, the video has no use nor interest to me. What I wanted to point out is that it is not just another gimmick, it is a feature delivering pro caliber footage that nothing else can even approach, sans $100,000 dedicated movie cameras. Furthermore, video is a freebie, offspring of liveview, that doesn't cost anything. But I'm not here to argue.

pforsell said:

I agree with you, the video has no use nor interest to me. What I wanted to point out is that it is not just another gimmick, it is a feature delivering pro caliber footage that nothing else can even approach, sans $100,000 dedicated movie cameras. Furthermore, video is a freebie, offspring of liveview, that doesn't cost anything. But I'm not here to argue.

Click to expand...

We're not arguing, pforsell, we're just having a spirited discussion on the pros and cons of video featured in cameras. And we both feel the same way about it anyway, so it's all good, bud.