 |
 | 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 / December 2006Camera choice
Hi About a year ago I started thinking about moving to digital having been taking slides and B&W since 1984. Asked a few questions here, and from the answers I got (thanks guys) I decided my budget wasn't big enough to satisfactorily replace by beloved Contax 159 and various Yashica and Contax lenses - 28mm, 50mm, 35-105, 80-200. Tried handling a Nikon D50 in a shop but it felt clumsy after the Contax and the options just seemed confusing to one used to taking everything in manual mode and more often as not at hyperfocal distance settings (I shoot mostly landscapes). I'm now looking again and my budget is at the following approximate range of cameras: Nikon D80 Canon 400D or 30D Sony A100 My main questions are 1. Go for the more expensive camera body or the slightly cheaper and go for an extra lens or a better lens? e.g. I could get an extra lens with the Sony compared to the Canon 30D 2. How good/bad are the lenses that generally come with the bodies? Should I be looking at body only and pricing other lenses? Can I really get anywhere close to the quality of that fab Contax 28mm without remortgaging the house?!! 3. How usable are the cameras in manual mode? Or do I have to get used to manipulating in auto modes. 4. Is memory media type important? Is there any difference in write speeds for instance. Having been used to the Contax, good handling and light weight are one priority. Anyone with these cameras have any comments on how they handle? I was briefly tempted by the latest Pentaxes as they seemed to handle well but I suspect the 6MP level is a bit on the low side. Thanks for reading this far. All opinions gratefully received. cheers Bill Marshall > My main questions are > > 1. Go for the more expensive camera body or the slightly cheaper and > go for an extra lens or a better lens? e.g. I could get an extra lens > with the Sony compared to the Canon 30D Complex question. If you go with the Canon you are then availing yourself of a wide variety of lenses, flashes, etc. > 2. How good/bad are the lenses that generally come with the bodies? > Should I be looking at body only and pricing other lenses? Can I > really get anywhere close to the quality of that fab Contax 28mm > without remortgaging the house?!! I, as many who post here, find the newer digital cameras better than the good 35 mm film cameras of 10 years ago. Kit lenses are worth what they cost. Some folks knock them but one must always understand that economy lenses are not to be compared to serious lenses. > 3. How usable are the cameras in manual mode? Or do I have to get used > to manipulating in auto modes. The ones that I am familair with (like the 30D) are eminently useable in manual mode. > 4. Is memory media type important? Is there any difference in write > speeds for instance. Yes, for sports photography and for shooting RAW, it can pay to buy faster cards. > Having been used to the Contax, good handling and light weight are one > priority. Anyone with these cameras have any comments on how they > handle? I was briefly tempted by the latest Pentaxes as they seemed to > handle well but I suspect the 6MP level is a bit on the low side. Handling is a personal issue. I find the 30D very comfortable and easy to control. > > My main questions are > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Complex question. If you go with the Canon you are then availing yourself > of a wide variety of lenses, flashes, etc. As he would with either Nikon or Pentax too. My money would be on Canon or Nikon though, switched from Pentax to Canon as the best choice when I moved to digital, I'd be torn between Nikon and Canon now if was starting afresh now. > > 2. How good/bad are the lenses that generally come with the bodies? > > Should I be looking at body only and pricing other lenses? Can I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cost. Some folks knock them but one must always understand that economy > lenses are not to be compared to serious lenses. Yes but the kit lenses, especially Canon's 18-55 is just a bunch of tosh, and a waste on any camera it was built for. You may as well buy a compact. If you are shopping on a budget, take the 50mm f1.8, its a cracker for sub £80, you should be able to get it for much less, if you shop around. > > 3. How usable are the cameras in manual mode? Or do I have to get used > > to manipulating in auto modes. > > The ones that I am familair with (like the 30D) are eminently useable in > manual mode. The 30D (semi pro) is very easy to use in manual, the 400D requires a little bit more dexterity, it is still useable, the 30D is just faster, and takes less thinking about it. I'd suggest going and handling them in a shop, and feeling which handles best to you, and what trade off you are willing to sacrifice. > > 4. Is memory media type important? Is there any difference in write > > speeds for instance. > > Yes, for sports photography and for shooting RAW, it can pay to buy faster > cards. Though at certain points the cards tend to be faster than the cameras, so the speed gains then only pay off at download times. But something like an Sandisk Ultra II is worth the extra over a bog standard Sandisk card for as it is over 2x as quick, the Extreme III is then only a little bit faster than the Ultra II. > > Having been used to the Contax, good handling and light weight are one > > priority. Anyone with these cameras have any comments on how they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Handling is a personal issue. I find the 30D very comfortable and easy to > control. I've, because of budget just gone from (a broken) one of the 30Ds predecessors, to the 400D. The 30D line is bigger & heavier, but handles so much nicer, manual is so much easier than the 400D, and it fills the hands a lot better for low light stabilty, and as a left eyed person, my thumb and nose don't want to be in the same place, so I'm having to adjust shooting on the 400D.  SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enough to satisfactorily replace by beloved Contax 159 and various > Yashica and Contax lenses - 28mm, 50mm, 35-105, 80-200. I guess that's a rangefinder so you couldn't use them even on a Canon? The kit lenses are not so bad but if you are used to great primes, you certainly can continue with that. You might consider a D200 and hunt down some nice old manual lenses. The D200 is not compact or lightweight but it is excellent to use manually with more buttons on the outside for making adjustments. I think you will appreciate at least aperture priority matrix metering, it works quite well. It's hard for me to even imagine working completely manually but you could mount old lenses on a D80 without metering, or the Sony, I'm not sure if it will meter with old minolta lenses. All the dSLRs work just fine in manual mode except that the Canon's smaller viewfinders are hard to focus but even then you can use the green light to confirm focus. > Tried handling a Nikon D50 in a shop but it felt clumsy after the > Contax and the options just seemed confusing to one used to taking [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Bill Marshall I have used a Canon point/shoot G3 (4mp) and now have a Nikon D200 (10mp) and have given this considerable thought. 1. The new zoom lenses are so good that a lot of good amateurs buy one wide range zoom lens (Nikon 18-200mm) and leave it on the camera. This sorta makes the DSLR irrelevant except for the through the lens framing. 2. I have a 20x24 landscape enlargement from my 4mp Canon that is clear and sharp. Don't get hung up on pixel count. Nowadays, I think the internal camera processing is more important, and if you can create Raw files, you have even more control. 3. There is still nothing more important than a good lens. 4. Ergonomics matter if you like to futz around with exposure and shutter speed. Menu operations are a nuisance. This is the single thing I like best about the D200: nearly every control I need is right there on the case. > Nikon D80 > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > go for an extra lens or a better lens? e.g. I could get an extra lens > with the Sony compared to the Canon 30D Unless you're making your living or a good chunk of $ with the gear, I personally opt for the cheaper camera and better glass. I own a canon 300D. > 2. How good/bad are the lenses that generally come with the bodies? In the case of canon, I'm not at all a fan as that hunk of plastic crap that comes with it. Feels horrible. I replaced it with their $1200 EF-S 17-55m f/2.8 IS lens and am thrilled with its performance. > Should I be looking at body only and pricing other lenses? Can I > really get anywhere close to the quality of that fab Contax 28mm > without remortgaging the house?!! The canon 50mm f/1.8 we're talking about in another thread costs a whopping $80 and is sharp as hell. :-) > 3. How usable are the cameras in manual mode? Or do I have to get used > to manipulating in auto modes. The 30D and 400D are a snap in manual mode. 30D easier than 400D given the dedicated wheel the 30D I believe has. > 4. Is memory media type important? Is there any difference in write > speeds for instance. I don't imagine it's much worth worrying about. > Having been used to the Contax, good handling and light weight are one > priority. Anyone with these cameras have any comments on how they > handle? I was briefly tempted by the latest Pentaxes as they seemed to > handle well but I suspect the 6MP level is a bit on the low side. > > Thanks for reading this far. All opinions gratefully received. One factor you haven't mentioned--what do your photographer friends that live near you shoot? This is handy if sharing glass and accessories might be a possibility. Personally, as a Canon person, I wouldn't begrudge anyone the Nikon gear. Sony I have no experience with other than they remain the company that thought it was a good idea to install a goddamn rootkit on their audio CD's, and I'm among the many folks who'll have a long memory about that sh.t. Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://www.toddh.net/ > Personally, as a Canon person, I wouldn't begrudge anyone the Nikon > gear. Sony I have no experience with other than they remain the > company that thought it was a good idea to install a goddamn rootkit > on their audio CD's, and I'm among the many folks who'll have a long > memory about that sh.t. Sony is also the company that made horrible engineering decisions about quality/price in recent years. Sony products not only sometimes catch fire, they generally suck. I'm a thrice burned Sony customer who has jumped ship and will never swim back. >> Personally, as a Canon person, I wouldn't begrudge anyone the Nikon >> gear. Sony I have no experience with other than they remain the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > they generally suck. I'm a thrice burned Sony customer who has jumped ship > and will never swim back. I've had excellent results with Sony, but my last purchase was a rear projection Hi Def set ca. 60", and ca. four years ago. It's been perfect. Since then, I've needed to buy only cameras and lenses, a number of cell phones, iPods, and a replacement cordless phone (Panasonic). [Yes, need is in the eye of the beholder....], so for whatever reason, no more Sony has come into my life, though my stereo rack is filled with their stuff. One thing I've come to dislike about them is their anti Macintosh stance. Any particular dogs you've experienced? SignatureJohn McWilliams >>> Personally, as a Canon person, I wouldn't begrudge anyone the Nikon >>> gear. Sony I have no experience with other than they remain the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Any particular dogs you've experienced? Sony is anti-Mac because iPod ate Walkman/Minidisc overnight and lost them a big market. Their recent 'recalls' have included batteries, CCD sensors and the latest one is LCD screens. However, not all the recalls have been due to Sony components - they have outsourced manufacturing, in China, and the chicken chow mein has come home to roost. Apparently - based on an unauthoritative but possibly informed post elsewhere - they have have just scrapped plans to put the Zeiss/Sony lens facility in China and firmly relocated lens production in Japan. The Chinese, of course, banned some Sony digital cameras on electrical compliance grounds last year - government enforcement. Anyone who owns Pentax, many Nikon, Samsung DSLRs and countless other pocket digicams is using Sony anyway. David >>> Personally, as a Canon person, I wouldn't begrudge anyone the Nikon >>> gear. Sony I have no experience with other than they remain the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Any particular dogs you've experienced? Sony-----I wouldn't give them Hell room, or as the old saying goes--If their hair were on fire I wouldn't p*ss on it to put it out. I have bought a lot of Sony over the years. I'm not talking about their cheap crap, I'm referring to their top of the line crap, all extremely expensive. In order, their Betamax; reel-to-reel tape recorder; CD player; Walkman; Monitor TV; Cassette Tape recorder; their first remote control color TV; etc. etc. Every damn item required repair, some multiple times and some couldn't be repaired. Period of time from about 1965 through 2003, so it's not a case of "their old stuff was gold, but their new stuff is crap" as a few say. A lot of people I know have had good luck and that's what probably kept me with them early on. I can't imagine what it would take to get me to buy Sony now, free wouldn't even do it. Bob > I can't imagine what it would take to get me to buy Sony now, free > wouldn't even do it. I seem to recall you shoot Nikon gear. Many of them have sensors made by Sony, in which case any you have laying can be sent to me. :-) >> I can't imagine what it would take to get me to buy Sony now, free >> wouldn't even do it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > :-) Good catch Bill. However, as you say, many don't as well. Nothing I depend on depends on Sony. Even my backup DSLR uses a Nikon sensor. Now that I think more about it, I don't have even one piece of Sony gear left operating that I could send to you. Not even a clock radio still works. Last piece was the Cassette recorder and it had been repaired and subsequently quit. I kid you not. Bob >Good catch Bill. However, as you say, many don't as well. Nothing I depend >on depends on Sony. Even my backup DSLR uses a Nikon sensor. All the sensors in Nikon digital cameras, DSLR and point and shoot, are made by Sony. Nikon may have had a hand in the design of one or two of the sensors, but they are all manufactured by Sony. 100%. Time you changed brand? <g> The only major brand of DSLR that does not use Sony-made sensors is Canon. Low volume brands not using Sony-made sensors are Sigma, who use Foveon sensors, and FujiFilm, who use their own, distinctive design of CCD sensor in the Nikon D200-based FinePix S5 Pro. >>> I can't imagine what it would take to get me to buy Sony now, free >>> wouldn't even do it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I depend on depends on Sony. Even my backup DSLR uses a Nikon > sensor. Uh-oh...I don't think you're going to like this... The only Nikon DSLR that uses a non-Sony sensor is the D2H series, which is a JFET design. I think, but I'm not sure, that the D2X series uses a CMOS sensor mady by Sony. All of their current P&S and DSLR cameras use Sony CCD sensors, made to specs for Nikon. My Nikon D80 has a Sony 10mp sensor, so does the D200. I'm not fond of Sony at all, but I really like my D80. I just hope Sony didn't make yet another lemon. > Now that I think more about it, I don't have even one piece of Sony > gear left operating that I could send to you. That's ok, just send me the gear you have and I'll be happy! :-) >>>> I can't imagine what it would take to get me to buy Sony now, free >>>> wouldn't even do it. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > :-) The D2Hs is a "current" DSLR and it uses the LBCAST Nikon sensor as did the D2H (in my opinion it produces better images than does the CMOS of the D2X and the D2Xs). To each his own, however. I also have a 4300 (the third Nikon digital) which I use for some projects, but as I mentioned, I have the "LBCAST backup" (in case the Sony derivation goes TU unexpectedly!). Bob > The D2Hs is a "current" DSLR and it uses the LBCAST Nikon sensor as > did the D2H (in my opinion it produces better images than does the > CMOS of the D2X and the D2Xs). To each his own, however. I wasn't sure about that one. As long as the sensor in my D80 continues to perform well, I'll be a happy camper. > I also have a 4300 (the third Nikon digital) which I use for some > projects, but as I mentioned, I have the "LBCAST backup" (in case > the Sony derivation goes TU unexpectedly!). So no Christmas gifts from you? Well that's it! Yours are going right back to the store, and I'm crossing you off my list. Heh. :-) >> The D2Hs is a "current" DSLR and it uses the LBCAST Nikon sensor as did >> the D2H (in my opinion it produces better images than does the CMOS of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Heh. :-) Please Sir, may I have some more supper? Bob >Unless you're making your living or a good chunk of $ with the gear, I >personally opt for the cheaper camera and better glass. I own a canon >300D. Even then, I still feel it's better to start out with a cheaper camera and better glass. I started with the 300D and the 70-200 L IS f2.8 lens. I upgraded the body (1DMII), and am still using the same lens. I expect to use this lens for 20+ years. I never expected to use the 300D for more than a few years - it died after about 2 year's use (hard use) and the repair is about what the body is worth so I'm just going to sell it for parts. I've been shooting professionally for 3 years now. The shots with the 300D aren't "as nice"as the shots from the 1DMII, but they met my needs and my buyer's needs. jc Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Thanks for reading this far. All opinions gratefully received. If you shoot mainly landscapes, the Sony A100 is probably the best choice. It starts off with a higher extinction resolution (extremely fine detail, like leaves and grass) than the Canon or Nikon and adds to this anti-shake sensor based image stabilisation. A lot of people think the real use of this is to shoot 1/8th at f2.8 and get it sharp, but in practice what it does is to make 1/250th or 1/125th produce tripod-sharp images, instead NEARLY tripod-sharp images, hand held. The Nikon would be my second choice (it is so close to the Sony in fine detail resolution you would never notice, and has a better standard zoom lens) but on most landscapes subjects it consistently overexposes, and I'm not alone in seeing this. It's brilliant in against-the-light conditions and at its worst in over the shoulder sunshine. Perversely, the Canon (which has the softest image sharpness out of the camera) regularly underexposes, and many users set as much as +1 (especially when shooting raw) for optimum quality. The Sony neither under or over exposes with its kit lenses, but consistently gives one stop under with its 11-18mm (many user reports confirm) and is unpredictable in extreme contrast or against the light (you have to make tests and adjust). The 30D is an odd man out because it's 8 megapixels. For low light work, I'd recommend it above the others. For landscape, go for megapixels. 10 is not much more than 8 but it counts in landscape work. It's the most 'pro' of the bodies, Nikon next, Sony and Canon 400D about equal though the Sony is a little more comfortable without a vertical grip (and has no such option). Manual mode is perhaps easiest to use on the Nikon, because of its top display, but this only counts when looking DOWN on the camera. I shot a lot at full tripod height - camera at real eye level - and then it becomes a pain because the damn LCD is on TOP of the camera and can't be seen without a stool or step! I now prefer cameras with the display only on the back, like the Canon models or the Sony. I have used all three, and have both the Sony and Canon. Both these have better user interfaces than the Nikon, despite apparently superior controls on the D80. If you have amazingly good close eyesight, the Nikon is fine, but the top LCD screen has been compressed in size and some of the symbols (for self timer, advance, compensation) are so small and so far positioned close to the edge that they are next to impossible to see. Both the Sony and Canon use extremely clear large displays on their rear 2.5 inch screens. You would need to be blind as a bat not to be able to use these. The Sony is great for users with very poor near vision as the menus can be enlarged to a 'giant print' font and simple form, and they rotate automatically if you hold the camera vertically. All three cameras have very good 2.5 inch screens for viewing shots. For a Contax user, Canon is worth considering as many adaptors have been made which allow Contax lenses to be used manually on the Canon - but no such adaptors are made for Nikon or Sony. But if you do that, for landscape, the Canon 5D is such a superior option to either the 30D or 400D when used with Contax optics that you would be well advised to fork out the extra, get an adaptor, and do your manual work on a 5D with your old (excellent) glass. The Sony will have Zeiss glass available, at very high RRPs, in 2007. Around April or so, it should be available with a $1000+ 16-80mm Zeiss zoom in place of the cheap but optically OK 18-70mm or the useful 18-200mm kit bundle option which Sony now have on sale. It is the only one of the cameras mentioned which has permanent, all-lenses camera shake reduction (the others all need special IS/VR lenses). The Pentax K10D is a 10 megapixel model with Zeiss-quality lens options (the special primes made in Japan) and fantastic build quality, much more like your Contax, and controls - and built-in anti shake like the Sony. But it's twice the price, closer to the 30D. David David > The Nikon would be my second choice (it is so close to the Sony in > fine detail resolution you would never notice, and has a better > standard zoom lens) but on most landscapes subjects it consistently > overexposes, and I'm not alone in seeing this. It's brilliant in > against-the-light conditions and at its worst in over the shoulder > sunshine. Most of your post was reasonable, but I have to address this apparent exposure issue. I've owned the Nikon D80 for several weeks now and have had no such issues with backlit, shaded, night, etc. The camera does not have an exposure problem, it's working as intended but few people realize what's going on. Let me explain. I've put the camera through a lot of tough shooting conditions the first week to evaluate its performance, and it never let me down - it exposes the way I expect every time. In matrix mode it meters for a focus point (meter tracks focus point) or area of the frame, but that's to be expected since matrix mode tries to figure out what the subject is in the frame. In center-weighted or spot, there are no problems if the focus point is correct. The few examples of exposure issues I've seen from people on the net are the result of them not knowing what they're doing with focus points, metering modes, exposure lock, manual control, etc. The D80 exposes as expected and I'd say it's pretty much bang-on for accuracy. Photos like this are the fault of user error: http://photo.net/bboard/big-image?bboard_upload_id=33435084 The guy probably let the camera pick the focus point (he doesn't say but it's f/11 in A mode) and the camera then metered on the darkened wall or doors (meters to focus point as expected). EXIF data shows he used pattern (matrix or evaluative) mode which tries to figure out the whole scene, and then he wonders why the background is overexposed. Well duh... The camera did what it was designed to do. If the user had a brain, he would have set the focus point or made sure the camera picked the right one, and spot-metered off that subject (valley or mountains?), then he would have the shot he wanted. User error is to blame, not the camera. One of the first things I do with any camera is switch to manual focus points because I've yet to find a camera that can check a scene or read my mind 100% of the time when it comes to focusing choices. Cameras are better at it today than 10 years ago, but it's still very easy to fool them. And meters also need help sometimes, which is why we have center-weighted and partial or spot. Not to mention the myriad of other controls so we get what WE want, not what the camera wants. Of course, one also needs a bit of experience to realize the camera is not super intelligent and you may actually have to push a few buttons or switches to get the right shot. But that's what creative photography is all about. YMMV. >> The Nikon would be my second choice (it is so close to the Sony in >> fine detail resolution you would never notice, and has a better [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > switches to get the right shot. But that's what creative photography is > all about. I test cameras professionally - it's been my work for the last 30 years. I understand the workings of the Nikon (and other) matrix and evaulative scene-based metering systems. The Canon 400D has similar aspects of behaviour (focus point linked to metering response) but it makes entirely different decisions. The D80 is remarkable in backlit, shaded and night situations - one of the best DSLRs I've ever used when it comes to handling extremes, and avoiding unwanted influence from very bright reflections (off focus point) or large dark areas (off focus point). However, when confronted with a plain target (a flat scene, a grey card, or a similar neutral frame filling subject) it gives typically one stop more exposure than the Canon 400D and half a stop more than the Sony A100. I've asked a couple of other D80 users to report back and this is confirmed also in relation to the D200 and other earlier Nikon bodies, including the D70S. During the month I used the D200, it was midwinter which is not very fair, and I felt the D200 tended to underexpose if anything; certainly over a wide sample of images a burned-out highlight would be a very rare thing. But Scottish winter gives that impression anyway. The D70S I tested in Morocco, because that's where Nikon took us for the D200 launch - and then decided we could not use the D200 :-( Obviously it got great sunny conditions most of the time, but I did a good number of night shots, sunsets and stuff in contrasty souks etc. Overall the D70S probably got about as good as it gets for exposure consistency, and meeting user control expectations (when I used over-ride, I was generally judging correctly). The D80 took me by surprise in point and shoot mode (P and full matrix and wide AF) because it never, under any conditions, underexposed. I shot several pictures expecting unusable images and it beat me. But at the same time, I had many 'normal' scenes which were just too light or had highlights entering the burn-out zone. Since I shoot RAW and the D80 has two stops of clear headroom this was never a critical issue, and I wrote in my reviews that in some ways I preferred the D80's lighter, brighter results. I was using the Canon 400D for the first time alongside the D80, and you certainly would want the D80 in-camera JPEGs not the 400D JPEGs. Light, with open shadows and good skin tones - versus dark and distinctly muddy in appearance. The point is not that the D80 is 'wrong' but that it differs from previous Nikon models and from the typical competitor. There are other DSLRs which generally benefit from underexposing relative to their meter recommendations or auto setting (Dynax 7D is an example) and some which benefit from overexposing (most Canon models). Nikons have been very neutral in my past experience. The D80 is the first one I've used where a minus override to many everyday scenes would improve the JPEG. David > I was briefly tempted by the latest Pentaxes as they seemed to > handle well but I suspect the 6MP level is a bit on the low side. ??? The latest Pentax is the K10D, and it is 10MP - arguably the bet feature set and best deal in 10MP cameras around. Note that you shouldn't write off the older 6MP cameras, either. Unless you are routinley doing 16x20" prints of small crops, you're unlikely to notice any difference, except in the lower noise of the 6MP cameras. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ >>I was briefly tempted by the latest Pentaxes as they seemed to >>handle well but I suspect the 6MP level is a bit on the low side. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you are routinley doing 16x20" prints of small crops, you're unlikely to > notice any difference, except in the lower noise of the 6MP cameras. On that I would differ. The 10 megapixel models produce a print from full frame at 12 x 16 (A3) which is very much better than any of the 6 megapixel models. You can just get away with 5 or 6 - I've done it from the first introduction of 5 megapixel consumer models and the 12 x 16s still look pretty good - but 10 megapixels has an edge which even a non-photographer can see. What makes a big difference is combining a move from 6 megapixels/kit zoom to 10 megapixels/top grade fixed focal length - put the two improvements together and you really see a difference. 20 x 16 cropped from part of a 6 megapixel image? Emergency use only. And 20 x 16 is a really peculiar size, heritage of camera club and salon exhibition mount 'rules'. The K10D has everything - pretty much - anti dust, anti shake, sealed body, excellent build, some cracking lenses. To date I have only used a pre-production sample and I would not comment on the image quality - it had, er, stripes :-) Clearly not much more than a prototype. David >> Note that you shouldn't write off the older 6MP cameras, either. >> Unless you are routinley doing 16x20" prints of small crops, you're [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > full frame at 12 x 16 (A3) which is very much better than any of the 6 > megapixel models. Not having tried it myself with a 10MP camera, I can't disagree from personal experience. But I *can* say that the majority of opinions I read say otherwise - that most people really *can't* see much if any difference until you get rather larger. At best, the differences at 12x18 / A3 sizes are visible only at extremely close range - much closer than anyone would actually be viewing the print at. I *have* printed 12x18" from my 6MP camera, and it looks pretty darn good. And let's face it - for most people, printing even *this* large would be at most a once-a-year experience. So while I'm not disagreeing that there is improvement in resolution to be had, I still don't think one should rule out a 6MP camera just because it isn't 10MP unless one knows for a fact that they'll be one of the few who would actually be doing work for which the difference would matter. For most people, whatever marginal difference you might see on the rare occasions you do print larger might pale in comparsion to the difference in cost or what you lose in high ISO noise performance. YMMV. > 20 x 16 cropped from part of a 6 megapixel image? Emergency use only. Agreed. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ Many thanks for all the ideas and observations - lots of food for thought there. At the moment I'm edging towards the Canon; hadn't realised a converter was available that might allow me to use my old lenses in manual mode - even if that Contax/Zeiss 28 will be more like a 35 on a digital body. (Is there an exact formula for converting the full frame numbers to the reduced size ones?) However I'll certainly spend a lot of time handling and researching the candidate cameras and investigating the lens ranges before finally deciding. Much obliged for all the information, it'll help a lot. cheers Bill Marshall > At the moment I'm edging towards the Canon; hadn't realised a > converter was available that might allow me to use my old lenses in > manual mode - even if that Contax/Zeiss 28 will be more like a 35 on a > digital body. (Is there an exact formula for converting the full frame > numbers to the reduced size ones?) Multiply the focal length by the so-called "crop factor" for that specific camera. The crop factor is a number that expresses how much smaller than a frame of 35mm film is the sensor on that camera. Depending on the sensor, it could be 1.5, 1.6, or something else. Multiply this number by the focal length to get the apparent focal length in 35mm terms. I think most of the Canon's are a crop factor of 1.6, meaning that 28 is going to be rather longer than 35 in terms of field of view - closer to 50, actually. It will still behave like 28 in terms of depth of field, though. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > Many thanks for all the ideas and observations - lots of food for > thought there. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > digital body. (Is there an exact formula for converting the full frame > numbers to the reduced size ones?) Yes 1.5 (1.6 for Canon) so 45mm equivalent FOV which of course is very handy! To work backways it's 0.66 > However I'll certainly spend a lot of time handling and researching > the candidate cameras and investigating the lens ranges before finally [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bill Marshall >At the moment I'm edging towards the Canon Good choice. :-) One thing to keep in mind is that you aren't just buying "a camera", you are buying into a camera system. Over the years you will spend as much (or more) on lenses as the body. But the body is where most of the features and UI is found. So look to buy into a system that you feel confident will meet your needs in years to come without taking the loss of selling your lenses to move into a different system. That's one of the main reasons I choose the Canon "system" when I bought my 300D and 70-200 lens 3 years ago. jc Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA |
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.