Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2005
D50, 350d, or P&S
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Per Ting - 17 Sep 2005 14:13 GMT Hi;
After ahving Fujifilm 2800 for 4 years, and being frustrated by its low light performance, speed, flash, and lack of controls I have decided to move one step up. My usage is general indoor and outdoor, some nature, mainly family occasion (indoor, with and without flash) and some portrait. The low noise and speed od DSLRs is attarctive to me but if I choose a DSLR I will use it with a single zoom lens, I will not be carrying multiple lenses around.
I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). From the reviews it seems D50 has better noise characteristics but 350D has higer resolution and is sharper. The kit lens of D50 seems better than that of 350D. If I go with d50 probably I will go with the 18-70 zoom that is standatd on D70.
I would appreciate sharing your experience and thoughts. My case agains most P&S's is their high noise level and speed, but if there are good candidates, I will consider them.
Thanks
Far
JD - 17 Sep 2005 15:22 GMT If noise is the main concern, then consider the Pentax *istDs. It's in the same category as the Canon and Nikon you mentioned.
Jean.
> Hi; > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Far tlai909@visto.com - 17 Sep 2005 15:40 GMT The Pentax DS has some strengths... IMO it 'handles' better than the 350D, the pentaprism wipes the floor with the others.
It has some weaknesses. A relatively poor JPEG engine... a very poor selection of lenses IMO but it's backed up well with Sigma lenses.
IMO the Nikon is probably better all round but it's bigger and over here as much as 60% more expensive... and let's not talk about lenses.
This is kinda like luxury cars... if people get off their BMW and Mercedes fetishes they'll find there is quite strong competition from... Audi???
T.
Tony Polson - 17 Sep 2005 16:13 GMT >The Pentax DS has some strengths... IMO it 'handles' better than the >350D, the pentaprism wipes the floor with the others. > >It has some weaknesses. A relatively poor JPEG engine... a very poor >selection of lenses IMO but it's backed up well with Sigma lenses. A very poor selection of lenses? Which planet are you on?
The Pentax *ist D, DS, DS2 and DL all accept virtually every Pentax lens ever made, whether M42 screw mount Takumars or SMC Pentax K, KM and KA, or any of the Pentax AF lenses. There is also a huge range of compatible lenses from Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, Kiron, and Zeiss as well as Sigma.
Most of the older Pentax lenses are excellent performers and the majority are available used at very low prices. Obviously, the wider angles are in greater demand thanks to the "1.5X factor" but there are still some good bargains to be had on eBay and elsewhere.
Pentax are just about to introduce a 12-24mm zoom which will address the perceived weakness of the current AF lens range in the shorter focal lengths.
tlai909@visto.com - 17 Sep 2005 16:35 GMT There's ONE 80-200mm f2.8! I went with the Sigma version.
The only other lens I would be intersted in is the 28-70mm f2.8 - I also went Sigma for that.
Two lenses I really want... that's terrible IMO.
I'm not interested in the compatibility with old lenses, I know many people are.
T.
Tony Polson - 17 Sep 2005 16:47 GMT >There's ONE 80-200mm f2.8! I went with the Sigma version. > >The only other lens I would be intersted in is the 28-70mm f2.8 - I >also went Sigma for that. So you are actually *complaining* that Pentax offers a top quality lens in each of your two chosen focal length ranges? It seems that you don't really know what you are complaining about.
Having used Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 and 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses I would not even consider buying either. The best reason for buying a Pentax DSLR is the optical quality of Pentax lenses. Using inferior lenses might save you money, but the quality simply isn't there - that's both optical quality and build quality.
Rich - 17 Sep 2005 17:41 GMT >Hi; > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >reviews it seems D50 has better noise characteristics but 350D has higer >resolution and is sharper. According to one review, the Canon is not sharper at the higher ISO settings and the jpeg compression on the D50 is too severe. So get the D50, forget the P&S (except for perhaps the new Sony R1 which is at least acceptable) and shoot RAW. -Rich
Frank ess - 17 Sep 2005 18:26 GMT > Hi; > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > agains most P&S's is their high noise level and speed, but if there > are good candidates, I will consider them. Consider "horses for courses".
Get all three, or all three and a half-dozen more, each meeting your needs for a given set of circumstances. Buy a Senior Citizen scooter to tow a trailer around, so you can reach in and pull out what is appropriate. While you're at it, hire an accomplished assistant or three, who have worked with professional photographers in several _genre_. They will be able to respond to your instructions with exactly the equipment, exposures, and post-procedures required to produce the photograph you have described to them. Then your agent(s) will present, promote, and sell your work, and you will be rich and famous. Then you will be so bored with all that Johnnie-Come-Easily luxury, you'll have to start hanging out in Usenet groups just to keep your intellect from evaporating altogether.
Barring that, the modern entry-level dSLRs all have functions that emulate point-and-shoot. The disadvantage in that line is bulk: they are bigger than P&Ss that can accomplish somewhat the same ends. If you expect to use a single zoom lens, you have defeated the principal underlying reason to operate a dSLR. The Pantosonic, Nickon, and Cannon troups will each suggest their prosumer P&S efforts will meet your needs one way or another, and thay are right. If the remaining reservation has to do with 'noise', you can trade off your unwillingness to carry more than one lens, by adding a NoiseNinja or other such smoothing program to your arsenal, usually to good effect. Your single zoom-lens is not going to do much for non-flash low-light stuff.
You didn't mention how your "My usage is general indoor and outdoor, some nature, mainly family occasion (indoor, with and without flash) and some portrait" work is to be viewed. If it is on-screen, and/or not larger than 8x10 home- or WalMart-made prints, dSLRing, even with a single zoom lens, will be a waste of resources. Within those parameters, P&Sing is the best compromise, investmently speaking. If you expect your original purchase to be the last, get a High-End P&S and live with its shortcomings.
My choice would be Canon 350D with the alternate 'kit' lens and a Canon 50mm 1.8 for indoors low-light and portrait. And an assumption that I'm going to like it and buy more stuff, later.
Easy-peasy from my view.
 Signature Frank ess
DoN. Nichols - 17 Sep 2005 19:57 GMT According to Per Ting <perting2002@yahoo.com>:
> Hi; > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I will use it with a single zoom lens, I will not be carrying multiple > lenses around. Hmm ... not *carrying* multiple lenses -- this might suggest the possibility of actually *owning* multiple lenses, and opting to carry only one at a time -- selected for the kind of photography which you plan at that particular moment.
I own a Nikon D70, and at present have five lenses which I consider to be necessary at different times. I'll list them in the order in which I acquired them:
1) 28-105mm f3.5-4.5: Equivalent zoom range to 42-157.5mm on a 35mm film camera. I prefer this one for shooting people at portrait ranges, plus it has an excellent macro mode for extreme close-ups (if your nature photography includes insects and individual blossoms.)
2) 180mm f2.5 Manual focus:Converted to a CPU so it could be used with the camera's metering system. Equivalent focal length of 270mm.
3) 50mm f1.4: Excellent for low-light photography, and nice for close-in portraits (equivalent to 75mm.)
4) 18-70mm f3.5-4.5: The traditional "kit" lens for the D70. I finally got this for the wide angle coverage, and find it to be sharper than an older 20mm f2.8 which I need to use in manual exposure mode. Equivalent film focal lengths will be 27-105mm -- very close to the first lens above if I were using it on a film camera.
5) 200mm f5.6 med. Nikkor: Built-in ring flash, designed for hand-held close-ups up to a 3:1 magnification ratio. Antique, but excellent for the purpose.
Now -- if I were doing what I consider nature photography (squirrels, deer, chipmunks, birds, and whatever else comes within reach, I would want a longer lens -- perhaps a real 300mm (450mm equivalent) -- and somewhat faster than the two zooms listed. I would want at least an f2.8 -- and ideally with VR (Vibration Reduction) which takes the lens' price totally out of my reach.
Note that the D70 (and presumably the D50) can be set for "auto ISO" -- so if the light is too low to allow a reasonable shutter speed for handheld shooting, it will boost the ISO (sensitivity) until you can take the shot. This has allowed quite a few shots in low light even with the f3.5 maximum aperture of the first lens in the list. But the 50mm f1.4 lets me go down into "available darkness"
> I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). From the > reviews it seems D50 has better noise characteristics but 350D has higer > resolution and is sharper. The kit lens of D50 seems better than that of > 350D. If I go with d50 probably I will go with the 18-70 zoom that is > standatd on D70. Both cameras will take excellent photos. I would suggest that you go into a local photo store, and try each camera. See how it feels in your hands. I would include the D70 or D70s in the collection to try. Different people find different cameras to feel "right" in their hands, and since you don't have an existing collection of lenses to sway your choice, the choice should be made on what is easiest for you to use. (I had quite a few Nikon lenses already -- so for me the choice of the D70 made sense.)
And I really believe that you will find that more than one lens will eventually find its way into your hands, as each does some things better than others. Don't be afraid to get a used lens from a good photo store. Of the lenses above, three were obtained used (and at least one no longer available new). Those are the 180mm f2.8 (from a hamfest -- think giant electronics flea market), the 50mm f1.4 (from the camera store where I got the D70), and the 200mm f5.6 Medical Nikkor (from an eBay auction). I already had an earlier version of that lens, which had an AC-only power supply for the ring flash. This one had the battery powered supply (eight "D" cells). (I could not have just gotten the supply because the connector changed between the two lens versions.)
> I would appreciate sharing your experience and thoughts. My case agains > most P&S's is their high noise level and speed, but if there are good > candidates, I will consider them. Note that when you let the "Auto ISO" pump the ISO up to 1600, it will have some noise -- but not nearly as bad as the grain would have been in film at that speed. And not nearly as bad as a P&S with a tiny sensor would have shown.
As for speed -- at least on the Nikon D70, I switch it on while raising it to my eye, and it is ready to shoot as soon as I have my eye to the viewfinder. This contrasts to "wait forever" with the Nikon CoolPix 950 P&S camera which preceded it.
In reasonable light, the autofocus is very quick. As the light gets lower, the autofocus gets slower, but this should be expected with any DSLR. There is an "autofocus assist" option in the menus which will turn on a light to assist in quicker focusing at close ranges. This is obviously counterproductive if you want to be inconspicuous in your photography.
For greater ranges in very low lights, you may well be better off to switch to manual focus (with the 18-70mm "kit" lens, and some other newer lenses, you can simply grip the focus ring and override the autofocus -- but with the autofocus turned off, the camera will shoot when you hit the button, without the delay for the autofocus to complete.
If you have time to pre-focus to the area where your subject will be, this can save you some response time in the actual shot. You can do this either by half depressing the shutter release, or by manually focusing.
Note that you have a collection of "modes" on the selector dial, including "Auto" (in a green box), "P"rogram, "A"perture, "S"hutter, "M"anual, and several specialized modes. In some of those, including the "Auto" mode, the autofocus chooses to focus on whatever is closest to the camera. Sometimes, this is not what you want. The "P"rogram mode allows you to turn this option off or on as you prefer, but otherwise, it is almost as automatic as the "Auto" setting. In the "P"rogram mode, and several others, you can move the autofocus zone to one of five zones, located in the form of a '+' sign. I normally keep it locked in the center, but there are times when it is better to move it to some other location.
You will need to get an answer from someone else to cover details about the 350d, as I do not own one.
I hope that this is some help, DoN.
 Signature Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
David J Taylor - 18 Sep 2005 07:58 GMT []
> Now -- if I were doing what I consider nature photography > (squirrels, deer, chipmunks, birds, and whatever else comes within > reach, I would want a longer lens -- perhaps a real 300mm (450mm > equivalent) -- and somewhat faster than the two zooms listed. I would > want at least an f2.8 -- and ideally with VR (Vibration Reduction) > which takes the lens' price totally out of my reach. Or, with a limited budget (USD ~$400), get an image-stabilised, long-zoom ZLR like the Panasonic FZ20 which has an f/2.8 zoom all the way up to 432mm including manual focus.
David
Alan Browne - 17 Sep 2005 21:45 GMT > I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). Maxxum 5D with 24-105D lens.
 Signature -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Pete D - 18 Sep 2005 07:13 GMT >> I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). > > Maxxum 5D with 24-105D lens. I might even try the 5D with a 18-200mm Sigma, shoould be a pretty good combo.
Alan Browne - 18 Sep 2005 15:15 GMT >>>I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). >> >>Maxxum 5D with 24-105D lens. > > I might even try the 5D with a 18-200mm Sigma, shoould be a pretty good > combo. Ughhh. That's over 11:1 zoom. Terrible regardless of body.
 Signature -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Pete D - 18 Sep 2005 20:57 GMT >>>>I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ughhh. That's over 11:1 zoom. Terrible regardless of body. They apparently are not so terrible, remember the OP was trying to decide between P&S or D-SLR, this would get him started and he could use it as a P&S to start with, perhaps something like a 18-125mm, also remember he does not want to remove the lens.
RichA - 19 Sep 2005 00:10 GMT I think they've kept aberrations in-check pretty well by avoiding fast lens speeds. But, if you've got a DSLR with low noise, you don't need to worry about the lens speed as much. However, if you are in a really low light situation, some kind of prime with a speed of f2 or better is obviously the best choice. I would like to add that one Brit mag did a test on some of these kinds of zooms and the Tamron 18-200 tested slightly better optically than the better-known Sigma.
David J Taylor - 19 Sep 2005 06:56 GMT > I think they've kept aberrations in-check pretty well by avoiding fast > lens speeds. The Leica 36 - 432mm long zoom on the Panasonic FZ20 manages a 12:1 zoom ratio, whilst maintaining a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout its zoom range - a bigger aperture then the so-called kit lenses supplied with many DSLRs.
David
Pete D - 19 Sep 2005 07:43 GMT >> I think they've kept aberrations in-check pretty well by avoiding fast >> lens speeds. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > range - a bigger aperture then the so-called kit lenses supplied with many > DSLRs. Can't really compare them, because of the physical size differences they perform quite differently.
David J Taylor - 19 Sep 2005 08:29 GMT > "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Can't really compare them, because of the physical size differences > they perform quite differently. Well, I was countering the statement "[point-and-shoot cameras] avoid fast lens speeds" by citing an example of a zoom working at f/2.8. So point-and-shoot cameras don't all avoid fast lens speeds on long-range zooms.
Why is it that such a zoom lens could not be made for a DSLR (or even full frame)? Would it weigh too much or cost too much, or is it that the back-focus requirement would complicate the optical design? Yes, there would be more glass, but the mechanical tolerances would be greater.
David
Pete D - 19 Sep 2005 11:40 GMT >> "David J Taylor" >> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > David Sigma make an 18-200mm and Tamron and Sigma make 28-300mm's, they would be all around the F3.5-F5.6 variable, to make them constant F2.8 would cost you both arms and all your families legs ;-), when teamed with an APS-C sized sensor they will produce much better results than the F2.8 P&S by simply using a higher ISO setting. Most of the big zoom P&S cameras are very noisy except at low ISO settings (the samples I have seen from the FZ-30 are far noisier at ISO400 than say the 350D at ISO1600, that gives you two full stops at least and probably up to three.
David J Taylor - 19 Sep 2005 12:01 GMT []
> Sigma make an 18-200mm and Tamron and Sigma make 28-300mm's, they > would be all around the F3.5-F5.6 variable, to make them constant [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > than say the 350D at ISO1600, that gives you two full stops at least > and probably up to three. The Sigma 28 -300 sounds nearer. If it's f/5.6 then at the long end the sensitivity of the two systems would be similar (ISO 400 at f/2.8 c.f. ISO 1600 at f/5.6), perhaps one stop in favour of the DSLR. Any idea how the two compare in aberrations and geometric distortion?
David
Pete D - 19 Sep 2005 12:25 GMT > [] >> Sigma make an 18-200mm and Tamron and Sigma make 28-300mm's, they [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > David If you want to see a side by side comparison go to DP Review and pull up the cameras you want to compare, they will have some sample photos.
Cheers.
Pete
David J Taylor - 19 Sep 2005 12:48 GMT > "David J Taylor" > <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Pete Unfortunately, they don't cover the Sigma lens.
David
Philip Homburg - 19 Sep 2005 18:12 GMT >>> The Leica 36 - 432mm long zoom on the Panasonic FZ20 manages a 12:1 >>> zoom ratio, whilst maintaining a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >back-focus requirement would complicate the optical design? Yes, there >would be more glass, but the mechanical tolerances would be greater. Well, the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 weighs slightly less than 4.5 kg. And then you want a zoom?
Anyhow, the lens is really a 6-72/2.8 lens. That suggests a 6x crop. So the corresponding full frame 35mm lens would be 36-432/16. Nobody would buy such a lens because it is far too slow. (Does shooting a DLSR at ISO 2400 give the same noise as the FZ20 at 400? The DLSR would probably come out ahead).
 Signature That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
David J Taylor - 19 Sep 2005 19:48 GMT > In article <aNtXe.111234$G8.77760@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > David J Taylor [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > probably > come out ahead). There's something wrong with the f/number sums, btu I'm not sure what. The sensitivity difference (for the same noise) is about a factor of 8 (IIRC), so that's f/2.8 to f/8, not f/16.
David
Philip Homburg - 19 Sep 2005 21:23 GMT >> Anyhow, the lens is really a 6-72/2.8 lens. That suggests a 6x crop. >> So [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The sensitivity difference (for the same noise) is about a factor of 8 >(IIRC), so that's f/2.8 to f/8, not f/16. You are right. The corresponding sensitivity difference would have to be a factor of 36. Hmm, tricky.
 Signature That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
David J Taylor - 20 Sep 2005 07:08 GMT > In article <iKDXe.111578$G8.40869@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > David J Taylor [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > be > a factor of 36. Hmm, tricky. Correction: the area ratio of the sensors is about 13, XT is 329 sq. mm and FZ20 24.7 sq. mm.
David
Philip Homburg - 20 Sep 2005 08:18 GMT >>>> Anyhow, the lens is really a 6-72/2.8 lens. That suggests a 6x crop. >>>> So >>>> the corresponding full frame 35mm lens would be 36-432/16. Nobody >>>> would >>>> buy such a lens because it is far too slow.
>Correction: the area ratio of the sensors is about 13, XT is 329 sq. mm >and FZ20 24.7 sq. mm. I was talking about full frame. A 1.6x crop from full frame gives 23-270/10.
 Signature That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
|
|
|