 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Impossible to rationally pick a winner? (10 meg DSLRS)
The current crop of 10 meg DSLRs. Olympus, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax and Samsung. Lets say you had no irrational fealty to a specific brand. Given the specs and noting that performance is very similar to one another (from the ones they've tested) could you pick one solely based on it's feature set and the importance of those features for you? Would the system choice (lenses, flashes, etc) make any difference to you over and above the camera feature set? > The current crop of 10 meg DSLRs. Olympus, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax > and Samsung. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Would the system choice (lenses, flashes, etc) make any difference to > you over and above the camera feature set? Perhaps the question should be (to you, Rich): Are you finally going to buy your first DSLR? ;) -And if so, which one?  SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> The current crop of 10 meg DSLRs. Olympus, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax >> and Samsung. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >;) >-And if so, which one? i think my question indicated the difficulty there. >>> The current crop of 10 meg DSLRs. Olympus, Canon, Sony, Nikon, >>> Pentax and Samsung. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > i think my question indicated the difficulty there. Do you have any 35mm lenses (of a particular brand)? If not, then I think your best bet will be sticking with either Canon or Nikon...mainly because they offer far more selection within their systems as a whole. Olympus, Samsung and Sony would be scratched off of my list immediately... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > If not, then I think your best bet will be sticking with either Canon or > Nikon...mainly because they offer far more selection within their systems > as a whole. Olympus, Samsung and Sony would be scratched off of my list > immediately... Why? The Samsung is made by Pentax in the same factory and simply has the badges changed. I am guessing that for many they will see the in body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. >> If not, then I think your best bet will be sticking with either Canon or >> Nikon...mainly because they offer far more selection within their systems [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Why? The Samsung is made by Pentax in the same factory and simply has the >badges changed. It's a little more than that (but only a little). The switches on the body (and therefore the body casing itself) are redesigned for the Samsung models. I've also heard reports that the firmware is different, and in particular that firmware upgrades for specific Pentax bodies can't be applied to the equivalent Samsung units (presumably there will be a different upgrade for the Samsung bodies - I haven't heard anything one way or the other on that). >>> If not, then I think your best bet will be sticking with either Canon or >>> Nikon...mainly because they offer far more selection within their [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the Samsung bodies - I haven't heard anything one way or the other on > that). Firmware aside, the pictures I have seem show them as the same. The same goes for the DS/DL and the G1S/G1L. >> If not, then I think your best bet will be sticking with either >> Canon or Nikon...mainly because they offer far more selection within [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Why? The Samsung is made by Pentax in the same factory and simply has > the badges changed. Notice I didn't scratch Pentax off the list? Why would you want Samsung when Pentax is the same body, but with a full history of support? Samsung has no such history, yet they're selling the exact same thing. Given the choice, Pentax gets the nod over the newcomer. >I am guessing that for many they will see the in > body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. I've seen no evidence that suggests in-body IS is as effective. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>> If not, then I think your best bet will be sticking with either >>> Canon or Nikon...mainly because they offer far more selection within [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I've seen no evidence that suggests in-body IS is as effective. Actually there is some things that in body will do better than in lens, but the point I was making was that if someone can pay once for in body IS that is 75% as effective as in lens then many consumers will see that as a very big plus, especially when they clip on one of Uncle Elmers old lenses and it works with IS, gotta be happy with that. >>I am guessing that for many they will see the in >> body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. > >I've seen no evidence that suggests in-body IS is as effective. Any evidence that it isn't? >>>I am guessing that for many they will see the in >>> body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. >> >>I've seen no evidence that suggests in-body IS is as effective. > >Any evidence that it isn't? There's plenty of anecdotal evidence from users. In-lens IS seems to be getting better and better, with at least three and possibly four stops improvement. In-body IS seems to struggle to provide two stops, regardless of brand. Sony's publicity for the new A100 certainly does not seem to be supported by users' experience, which points to it being no better than the previous Konica Minolta system on which it is based. In the absence of any accepted objective test of effectiveness, user opinions are about the best "evidence" you will get. This isn't a satisfactory situation but I don't see it changing anytime soon. >>>>I am guessing that for many they will see the in >>>>body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > opinions are about the best "evidence" you will get. This isn't a > satisfactory situation but I don't see it changing anytime soon. My experience is that the best in-body IS is in prosumer models, like the Konica Minolta A2. Technically, they claim about the same as for the A100 or its predecessors. In practice, the A2 enables almost any shot to be sharp, the A100 gets there about half the time with 'beyond the range' examples. I've been using the Nikon D80 next the A100, and found something I had not really considered. Pix taken at safe speeds - 1/60th hand held at 40mm focal length say - were significantly sharper from the A100, as the Nikon often had tiny amounts of shake degradation. I had been turning the anti-shake off in good light, but now I don't. I does not enable hand-held 1/2 seconds, but it can really enhance hand-held 1/125ths. This is not how they market it of course. David >>>>> I am guessing that for many they will see the in >>>>> body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > enable hand-held 1/2 seconds, but it can really enhance hand-held > 1/125ths. This is not how they market it of course. The more significant difference isn't so much whether it is body-based...but rather in-lens vs. sensor-based. There are a number of point%shoots with IS, but it is optically built into the lens. The other option is a sensor which actually moves. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>>> I am guessing that for many they will see the in >>>>>> body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > the lens. > The other option is a sensor which actually moves. I also note that the people that are saying that in lens IS is so much better are people that have spent a lot on lenses with IS and they are poo pooing in camera IS from it would seem cameras that they (mostly) don't have or have had limited experience with. My experience is that for 30 plus years of photography I have never used IS/VR/SR yet I have managed to to take many very good shots so I see no great need to spend up big on IS lenses for the photography that I am doing, however if IS/SR/VR is offered in camera at no extra cost and promises the potential for 2 to 4 stops (PentaxK10D) then I for one see it as a great plus, even it if is 60-70% performance of in lens IS then it is very good idea. The Pentax K10D of course uses the sensor shift method so has the potential to be just as good as the in lens systems and under some circumstances even better. >>>>>>> I am guessing that for many they will see the in >>>>>>> body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > sensor shift method so has the potential to be just as good as the in > lens systems and under some circumstances even better. If sensor-based IS solutions can be shown to be equally effective across all ranges of extension, I'll happily support it. I just haven't seen or heard much in the way of praise or samples. If you know of a link, I'm all eyes... SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>>>>> I am guessing that for many they will see the in >>>>>>>> body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > heard much in the way of praise or samples. If you know of a link, I'm > all eyes... Please read what I said again. If it can be shown (and it would seem that it has in the K10D) to be 60-70% as effective for in camera IS compared to in lens IS then a lot of people will see that as good enough and under some circumstances 100% as good as in camera IS, means that if I only have to buy IS once then I fully support it. The K10D is claiming to be useful out to 800mm. If you have a link showing how much better in camera IS is over in camera IS I am all eyes too. I can show you lots of links with shots taken with no IS and they are pretty damn good. >>>>>>>>> I am guessing that for many they will see the in >>>>>>>>> body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > camera IS I am all eyes too. I can show you lots of links with shots > taken with no IS and they are pretty damn good. I think you interpreted my post as more confrontational or "challenging" than I intended. I really do welcome ANY tech from ANY company that pushes the field forward...or prices of other items down as competition increases. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >>>>>>>>>> I am guessing that for many they will see the in >>>>>>>>>> body IS and decide that paying for it once is enough. [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > I really do welcome ANY tech from ANY company that pushes the field > forward...or prices of other items down as competition increases. Didn't mean it that way. :-) Cheers. [] > I also note that the people that are saying that in lens IS is so much > better are people that have spent a lot on lenses with IS and they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > sensor shift method so has the potential to be just as good as the in > lens systems and under some circumstances even better. Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than lens-element-shift? David > Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than > lens-element-shift? > > David Pentax can compensate for rotational movements which is impossible to achive with an in-lens system. The sensor is able to rotate in addition to move in X and Y direction. Stig Vidar Hovland >> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >> lens-element-shift? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stig Vidar Hovland Ah, yes, I had forgotten about that. To me, the trade-off is that moving the sensor may take more energy than moving a lens element, so may either reduce battery life more, or may be more limited in the speed of movements it could make, and hence less effective in reducing jitter. David >>> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >>> lens-element-shift? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > David According to Pentax the battery hit is very small or negligible. I can't find the link at the moment but will post it when I do. >> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >> lens-element-shift? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Stig Vidar Hovland Thats the one, thanks. Will it make a difference though? Maybe, maybe not but I do know that the technology is getting better and that the new version in the Pentax K10D has the potential to be very good. > Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than > lens-element-shift? When the lens at hand doesn't have built-in lens-element-shift. In those circumstances, sensor-shift obviously works better. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >> lens-element-shift? > > When the lens at hand doesn't have built-in lens-element-shift. > In those circumstances, sensor-shift obviously works better. Well, of course! <G> David >>> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >>> lens-element-shift? >> When the lens at hand doesn't have built-in lens-element-shift. >> In those circumstances, sensor-shift obviously works better. > Well, of course! <G> No <G> here. For me, this is the most compelling argument in favour of choosing a sensor-shift system. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >>>> lens-element-shift? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No <G> here. For me, this is the most compelling argument in favour > of choosing a sensor-shift system. OK, but I was actually asking for a comparison of the two systems. Clearly, if only one system is available it's better than nothing. David >>>>> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >>>>> lens-element-shift? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David A fellow over in the dpreview forum Pentax SLR did informal tests and came away with ~equal results. I just ordered a k100d, after selling my new DL, to help with some telephoto jitters. I used a Canon S3 for a couple weeks and can say that at even 48x , that cam was great (excepting pixelation). Hoping the K will be all it can be as well. >> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >> lens-element-shift? > >When the lens at hand doesn't have built-in lens-element-shift. >In those circumstances, sensor-shift obviously works better. When it comes to stating the obvious, you have no equals. ;-) > When it comes to stating the obvious, you have no equals. When it comes to being snide, you have no equal, especailly for one who doesn't "put up" ... where *is* the fruit of 50 rolls per average *week* Tony? How about your Paris Match cover? Can we please see that? >> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >> lens-element-shift? > >When the lens at hand doesn't have built-in lens-element-shift. >In those circumstances, sensor-shift obviously works better. The lens has to communicate its focal length to the camera. So you still need compatible lenses, not just any-old-lens. I imagine implementing the communication would be considerably cheaper than implementing a movable lens element though. >>> Under what circumstances would sensor-shift be better than >>> lens-element-shift? >> When the lens at hand doesn't have built-in lens-element-shift. >> In those circumstances, sensor-shift obviously works better. > The lens has to communicate its focal length to the camera. So you > still need compatible lenses, not just any-old-lens. I imagine > implementing the communication would be considerably cheaper than > implementing a movable lens element though. Looking at my EXIF, I notice that the focal-length for all my AF lenses is embedded in the EXIF, so i presume this means that all my AF lenses is "compatible" with sensor-shift IS already? As far as MF lenses go, I presume this could be fixed too, with a menu option where you tell the camera what the focal length of the lens is? Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > As far as MF lenses go, I presume this could be fixed too, with > a menu option where you tell the camera what the focal length of > the lens is? And this is implemented at least on Pentax cameras. I don't know about KM or Sony. Stig Vidar Hovland : > As far as MF lenses go, I presume this could be fixed too, with : > a menu option where you tell the camera what the focal length of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : Stig Vidar Hovland Do you know jeremy clarkson by any chance? >>I've been using the Nikon D80 next the A100, and found something I had >>not really considered. Pix taken at safe speeds - 1/60th hand held at [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the lens. > The other option is a sensor which actually moves. The A2 is sensor-based. I wouldn't have raised this had it been like a Lumix etc and lens based. David >> There's plenty of anecdotal evidence from users. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >be sharp, the A100 gets there about half the time with 'beyond the >range' examples. That doesn't come as a surprise. Whether anti-shake is obtained by moving the sensor, or with a moving optical element, the smaller the sensor, the easier it is to correct for more camera shake. I have no experience of the Konica Minolta models you mention but have been seriously impressed with the anti-shake abilities of Panasonic models such as the FZ-30 with its 35-432mm (equivalent) zoom lens. The results at the tele end are nothing short of remarkable. Sadly, as with most Panasonic models, the results are ruined by high noise levels even at lower ISOs - but that takes nothing away from the technical achievement of the Panasonic "Mega O.I.S" system (what an atrocious name!). >I've been using the Nikon D80 next the A100, and found something I had >not really considered. Pix taken at safe speeds - 1/60th hand held at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >hand-held 1/2 seconds, but it can really enhance hand-held 1/125ths. >This is not how they market it of course. I value optical quality over almost all other features, so although I use a Canon EOS 5D, I tend to buy lenses that don't have anti-shake. For example, almost all my wide angle glass is from either Leica or Carl Zeiss (Contax). The one exception is the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS zoom. I have noticed a significant improvement in the sharpness of hand held shots at weddings using that lens with the IS turned on, even though I am usually working with shutter speeds at which I would have previously been confident to shoot hand held. The difference that the 24-105mm's IS feature has made is that I am using my monopod less and less. > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 07:18:54 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even >>I've seen no evidence that suggests in-body IS is as effective. > > Any evidence that it isn't? Yes. A/S (Konica-Minolta) is effective to about 2 stops in about 7 of 10 photos taken. I've tested it on two lenses and the results are here: http://www.aliasimages.com/KM7D_AS_Test.htm The real advantage of the approach is that for no additional lens investment you get 1.5 to 2 stops of margin for all of your existing and upcoming lenses. With the Nikon/Canon VR/IS you're in for a round of investment. IS and VR are more consistently effective to 2 stops almost 100% of the time, and with a calm person using good technique, 3 stops is feasible more often than not. One of the keys to IS/VR effectiveness is that the shooter can see the effect of the IS/VR whereas with A/S he cannot. There is a little "meter" that indicates when the shooter and the A/S have "calmed" down, but simply not as good feedback as what you see through the lens. Cheers, Alan. 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. > The current crop of 10 meg DSLRs. Olympus, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax > and Samsung. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Would the system choice (lenses, flashes, etc) make any difference to > you over and above the camera feature set? They are all so similar that the "feel" would be much more important than the actual spec list. That - and the menu list; that is, the logical layout of the menus and the ease with which various options could be selected easily and quickly. The actual specs and features? Too close to matter. Does a Ford get you to work better than a GM? -- Jeff R. > The current crop of 10 meg DSLRs. Olympus, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax > and Samsung. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Would the system choice (lenses, flashes, etc) make any difference to > you over and above the camera feature set? Of course you would never do that Rich, it would just be a stupid thing to do. You would actually go and use all the cameras and choose the one that fitted you!! Of course the real answer may be that you will buy what your mate has. > the ones they've tested) could you pick one solely based on it's > feature set and the importance of those features for you? That would be its, not it's, Richie boy, as I've told you many times. Don't you listen? Anyway, why do you ask? Is it because you know you will never ever progress beyond the Walmart 99c throwaway? >> the ones they've tested) could you pick one solely based on it's >> feature set and the importance of those features for you? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Anyway, why do you ask? Is it because you know you will never ever progress >beyond the Walmart 99c throwaway? So Olympus is now $0.99 throw away gear? Still, any picture is better than no pictures, as you should well know. >>Anyway, why do you ask? Is it because you know you will never ever >>progress >>beyond the Walmart 99c throwaway? > > So Olympus is now $0.99 throw away gear? As good as, in my opinion. > Still, any picture is better than no pictures, as you should well > know. I wouldn't know. I made a reasonable living as an employed NHS medical photographer, now I'm making an excellent living as a freelance pro. Your trouble is that you can only believe in what you can see or touch or if it's made of plastic. I have no website, so you assume I have no pictures. Wrong. Want a ride in my Merc S500? No, that's technology which is so far removed from your narrow view of the world that it's indistinguishable from magic. >>> Anyway, why do you ask? Is it because you know you will never ever >>> progress [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > can see or touch or if it's made of plastic. I have no website, so > you assume I have no pictures. Wrong. Want a ride in my Merc S500? It's bad form to try and impress with your vehicle, Helen. -Even if it's Rich... ;) SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson > The current crop of 10 meg DSLRs. Olympus, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax > and Samsung. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Would the system choice (lenses, flashes, etc) make any difference to > you over and above the camera feature set? Wow, I have been absent from this group for months and now, on a return visit (brief), I find that RichA is still trolling. Amazing and pathetic. SNIP > Wow, I have been absent from this group for months and now, on a > return visit (brief), I find that RichA is still trolling. Amazing > and pathetic. Yeah, sad isn't it? SignatureBart > The current crop of 10 meg DSLRs. Olympus, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Pentax > and Samsung. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Would the system choice (lenses, flashes, etc) make any difference to > you over and above the camera feature set? I use 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 most often. The majority on your list do not offer these. So this will trim down the list considerably. I'd like to have in-camera anti shake, especially since Canon/Nikon do not have IS/VR in 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. Hopefully they will have in-camera AS soon. Then I consider the price and performance of the whole system, camera, lenses, and high power flash. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.