 |
 | 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 / January 2007Camera Choice - further thoughts
Hi All At the beginning of December a number of you gave me some useful thoughts about possible camera choices - I was considering the Sony Alpha, Canon 400D, Canon 30D and Nikon D80. I had almost convinced myself that the 30D was the most likely but since then I've had some opportunity to handle the latter three cameras and found that the 30D felt a bit heavy/tiring and doesn't really fit my hands. The Nikon was rather better in that regard while the 400D felt much closer to my old Contax 159. So I've now narrowed the choice to the 400D or the D80 and have started to look more closely at lenses. As a mainly landscape snapper (with the occasional foray into theatre work) I need a decent wide angle of around 28mm in film terms so I guess I'm looking at 17 or 18 mm for the bottom figure. The salesman I was talking to recommended the Canon 17-85 IS or a Sigma 18-50 (2.8). Does anyone have any experience with either of these two? His pricing for the latter along with the body came out around £850 with the Canon lens being a bit more. What about Nikon alternatives if I were to go with the D80? Looking at the catalogues so far it looks like the 18-70 DX or the 18-135 DX and from looking at online prices that would be about £100-130 less. Any other lenses from either camp that I should be considering? (I'm a bit wary of the Sigma as the last time I saw one in use - ok it was 20 years ago - they seemed to be rather soft and were considered the lowest of the 4 main independents at the time Vivitar, Tamron, Tokina and Sigma) Thanks again for any suggestions Bill Marshall > Hi All > > At the beginning of December a number of you gave me some useful > thoughts about possible camera choices - I was considering the Sony > Alpha, Canon 400D, Canon 30D and Nikon D80. I would suggest you add and look at the Pentax K10D, it has the same Sony CCD as the Sony Alpha A100, and the Nikon D80. The K10D feels solid, and is similar to the D80 in the human engineering aspect. (more follows below) > I had almost convinced myself that the 30D was the most likely but > since then I've had some opportunity to handle the latter three [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the catalogues so far it looks like the 18-70 DX or the 18-135 DX and > from looking at online prices that would be about £100-130 less. Pentax has several great lenses for landscape work I own the SMC DA Pentax 14mm f:2.8 this is a wonderful lens that retails in Canada for about $650 (cdn). The field of view is similar to a 20mm on 35mm. They also make (as does Nikon) a 12~24mm f:4 zoom, that equals the Nikon, but is around $750(cdn) (Nikon's 12~24 sells for almost double $1300(cdn) In Nikon the 18~70 has a better build than the 18~135. Locally the Pentax K10D body and the Nikon D80 both retail for around $1100(cdn), but the Pentax features some innovations over the Nikon; K10D body is weather sealed, like the Nikon D200, D80 no seals. K10D body is image stabilized x,y,z axis, The Sony A100 x and y axis K10D has dust reduction in the form of an antistatic coating on the sensor cover, and it shakes the dust off K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the common 12 bit that Nikon, Canon and Sony use. So you may want to pop around and look at the Pentax before settling on the others. OK, I am biased as a long time Pentax user... My next body will be a K10D to upgrade from my 6.1 mp *ist D Darrell Larose http://DarrellLarose.ca Pentax images in Galleries [] > K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the > common 12 bit that Nikon, Canon and Sony use. Has anyone actually checked this? Looking at one of the top ADC manufacturers, the best they offer is 2MSPs at 18 bits or 2.5MSP/s at 24 bits. http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionTable/?selection_table_id=398 With the Pentax K10D offering 10MP, using just one of the ADCs mentioned about it would take 4 seconds to digitise each frame, however, Pentax are claiming 3 frames per second. There's an order of magnitude gap here - why? Cheers, David > darrell.larose@gmail.com wrote: [] >> K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Cheers, David Cite: Pentax PRIME engine based on the NuCore NDX2240 processor http://www.nucoretech.com/nu3/images/80_downloads/pres_technology.ppt.us.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/yxkl28 >> darrell.larose@gmail.com wrote: [] >>> K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/yxkl28 Thanks for pointing that out - a most interesting document. But I feel it leaves lot of questions unanswered. References to 18-bit and 16-bit processing, in spite of 22-bit ADC? I bet there's a trick in there which means that it's not a true, linear 22-bit ADC working at the bit rates required (30MSP/s). The best that the other manufacturers can achieve at that rate seems to be 16 bits, not 22. David >>> darrell.larose@gmail.com wrote: [] >>>> K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >David There's been quite a bit of discussion of this on a couple of Pentax lists. I'm probably one of the more sceptical voices - I see very little value in a 22-bit processing path if the signal-to-noise ratio from the sensor only gives you 17 bits of signal (which is all you can get if a full well holds around 100,000 electrons). Note, too, that the nucore device comes in a few different configurations, with different number of final output bits. That said, though, I can see a few advantages. There's no real need to build different versions of the digital processing path - if you've already got a 22-bit engine laid out in silicon you might as well use it, even if a 17- or 18-bit version would suffice. And if, as I suspect, the eventual 645D uses basically the same imagine processing, there's an economy of design (although I expect the 645D to use the 16-bit RAW output option). I wouldn't be too surprised, either, to see a K1D with 14-bit RAW output. So in my opinion for the K10D the "22" is mostly marketing, but I expect later digital cameras to make more use of those extra bits. But I do see a couple > In article <baNoh.28207$k74.20825@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, > David J Taylor [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > expect > later digital cameras to make more use of those extra bits. Thanks for your input, John. I question if the 22-bits is even real (as in accurate and meaningful - no missing codes, linear etc.). I could believe 16-17 bits, and I would be delighted to see a camera offering better quantisation than the inherent photo-limited noise. But I agree with you that the "22-bits" is probably just marketing-speak, and not engineering-speak! Cheers, David > That said, though, I can see a few advantages. There's no real need to > build different versions of the digital processing path - if you've already [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So in my opinion for the K10D the "22" is mostly marketing, but I expect > later digital cameras to make more use of those extra bits. Can anyone explain how this relates to DACs in cd-players? The cd itself is only 16-bit, yet hi-end DACs offer 20 or 24-bit and claim better audio quality. Ton > I had almost convinced myself that the 30D was the most likely but > since then I've had some opportunity to handle the latter three [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the choice to the 400D or the D80 and have started to look more > closely at lenses. I had a different quandry some time ago and opted for the Nikon D80. The handling is vastly superior to the Canon 350/400 models and it offers more usability features and a much better viewfinder. The D80 performance is better in most areas where it matters for photography, like responsiveness and ease of use. Just snapping off a few frames in the store with similar lenses is enough to convince most people of the advantages. Another person mentioned the Pentax K10D which is another option and appears to be fairly good. But it wasn't on the market when I bought the Nikon so I can't offer much advice there. > As a mainly landscape snapper (with the occasional foray into theatre > work) I need a decent wide angle of around 28mm in film terms so I > guess I'm looking at 17 or 18 mm for the bottom figure. The salesman I > was talking to recommended the Canon 17-85 IS or a Sigma 18-50 (2.8). I've used the 17-85 IS on a Canon 350D/XT and was not impressed. It's too soft when used wide open and it suffers from bad chromatic abberations at the wide end. It's not a very good lense, but it covers a big zoom range and has IS, which are its two greatest features. When I was using the Canon XT, I bought the Canon 17-40 f/4 L to use for wide angles. It's better than the 17-85 - not just a bit better either, a LOT better. Some people complain that the 17-40 L is too short for a "walk around" lense, and I tend to agree. But if you're willing to live with interchangeable lenses (that's why we use SLRs), then it's not a deal breaker. > What about Nikon alternatives if I were to go with the D80? Looking at > the catalogues so far it looks like the 18-70 DX or the 18-135 DX and > from looking at online prices that would be about £100-130 less. I use the Nikon 18-70 on my D80 and it's great. It blows away the Canon 17-85 in every aspect over its zoom range. It's sharp enough to use wide open and it has all of the performance features of the Canon, like fast autofocus with internal design, non-rotating front element, aspheric and ED glass, etc. And it costs a lot less too. I've sampled the newer Nikon 18-135 on the D80 but found it wasn't quite as good as the 18-70. It's still a lot better than the Canon 17-85 though. The only negative aspect of the Nikon 18-70 is the zooming which is a bit non-linear at the wide end. It jumps from 18 to 24mm quickly, so it takes a gentle touch to fine tune the zoom in that area. But you get used to it, and I find myself at 18mm far more often than just above it anyway. Once above the wide angle range, the zoom is fairly normal. It also has some barrel distortion at the wide end, but most lenses in the 18mm range have some, and if you're shooting architecture you generally won't want any of the zoom lenses mentioned here. > Any other lenses from either camp that I should be considering? In this price range I think the Nikon 18-70 is impossible to beat. It's a price/performance gem in the Nikon lineup. If I was still using Canon, I'd be using the 17-40 L without a doubt since Canon doesn't have a good model in the same zoom range. And since I'm now shooting with Nikon, the 18-70 is my preferred walk around lense. For a fair bit more money, the Nikon 18-200 VR is a surprisingly good lense and makes for a good walk around as well. But I still prefer the 18-70 for casual use. If I want more reach, I get out the telephoto lenses that are made for the long end. > (I'm a bit wary of the Sigma as the last time I saw one in use - ok it I've used a few Sigma lenses over the years and have never been impressed. Some of their lenses are fairly good optically, but they often lack in performance compared to Canon and Nikon - that's how they're able to keep prices low, they have to cut corners somewhere. But if you don't need all the features of the Canon and Nikon lenses, then using third-party is an option. > The only negative aspect of the Nikon 18-70 is the zooming which is a > bit non-linear at the wide end. It jumps from 18 to 24mm quickly, so it > takes a gentle touch to fine tune the zoom in that area. But you get > used to it, and I find myself at 18mm far more often than just above it > anyway. Once above the wide angle range, the zoom is fairly normal. I agree, it's a very good lens for the money. I would say its main optical weakness is the type of distortion at the wide end, it's impossible to correct with Photoshop (but I think PTLens does it). Otherwise, it's very good for the money, as I said. > It also has some barrel distortion at the wide end, but most lenses in > the 18mm range have some, and if you're shooting architecture you [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > often lack in performance compared to Canon and Nikon - that's how > they're able to keep prices low, they have to cut corners somewhere. There seem to be good Sigma wide angles. I have the Sigma 10-20 and it is optically very good (sharp thhroughout), very little distortion, very little chromatic aberrations etc. The main problem is flare, but it is not so bad. And vignetting. As for performace, it is very well built, solid and well-made. It focuses using a "hyper-sonic motor", ie like Canon's USM and so on, quick and quiet, and with full-time manual override. But I have not heard many good things about their longer lenses, I must admit. And the lens cap is impossible to remove with the lens hood on. Idiots. > But if you don't need all the features of the Canon and Nikon lenses, > then using third-party is an option. Thanks guys, interesting thoughts on the lenses. I plan on going to another camera shop on Saturday to try the D80 and get an alternative view, and will ask about their lens range and recommendations at the same time. Much obliged Bill Marshall > Thanks guys, interesting thoughts on the lenses. I plan on going to > another camera shop on Saturday to try the D80 and get an alternative > view, and will ask about their lens range and recommendations at the > same time. > > Much obliged Be wary of suggestions or recommendations from salespeople. They're usually more interested in markup, commissions, and making a sale than giving you the best performance for your dollar. I know that sounds cynical, but that's why they're there - to make money first, and assist the customer second. They often push extra third-party lenses because they have a higher markup (more profit) than the camera brands, and they push extended warranties because they have a very high commission. Accessories are also high markup items and they will surely push a UV "protection" filter for each lense (which you don't need as lenses and digital cameras filter UV and IR light) as well as any other over-priced items they can (like house-brand memory cards). You should look at various brands and check out everything, but if you're unsure of the quality of an item, hold off and ask here for opinions where you'll get more honest answers from people who have used the equipment. Good luck! >Be wary of suggestions or recommendations from salespeople. They're >usually more interested in markup, commissions, and making a sale than >giving you the best performance for your dollar. I know that sounds >cynical, but that's why they're there - to make money first, and assist >the customer second. Don't worry, I come from a long line of cynics ;-) >They often push extra third-party lenses because they have a higher >markup (more profit) than the camera brands, and they push extended >warranties because they have a very high commission. I *never* take extended warranties on anything. > Accessories are >also high markup items and they will surely push a UV "protection" >filter for each lense (which you don't need as lenses and digital >cameras filter UV and IR light) Funny you should say that.... >Good luck! After some more research and handling I decided on the Nikon D80 and bought it on Saturday. They've had to order the 18-70 for it (about 10 days to get one) but have lent me an 18-55 to use in the meantime while I get to know the camera. Cue much reading of the manual. So far I'm very happy with it - the proof of the pudding will be once I can get out to the hills and use it in earnest. I'll still keep the Contax 159 to hand as well though - even Nikon don't make lenses like that Zeiss 28mm. Thanks for all the advice guys. Even the ones I didn't take were useful. Much obliged. Bill Marshall |
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.