 |
 | 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 / February 2007Are any of these better for landscape/night photography?
Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: Nikon D40 (maybe a refurbished D70) Canon Digital Rebel XT (or possible a refurbished XTi) Basically, I'm looking for a cheap but functional DSLR body that I can practice with for the next year, after which I'll probably upgrade. I'll want to be able to reuse any lenses that I buy during that time, though, and so I'm guessing I need to make a brand commitment now. With that in mind, are either of the cameras above better for landscape and night shots, which are my main interests? Are Canon vs. Nikon cameras/lenses better in general for either of those areas? The prices aren't all that divergent, so that's not the main deciding factor for me. Thanks for any help. Mike > Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of > research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The prices aren't all that divergent, so that's not the main deciding > factor for me. For night/low light I'd go with a D50 rather than a D40, as using a fast prime on the D40 will not autofocus. cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk >Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of >research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >landscape and night shots, which are my main interests? Are Canon vs. >Nikon cameras/lenses better in general for either of those areas? ] Nikon doesn't have a 10mm lens, to go that wide you need to go to a Sigma or other third party with Nikon, while Canon does have such a lens. Since generally for landscape you want wide angle, this might e the deciding factor all by itself. >The prices aren't all that divergent, so that's not the main deciding >factor for me. > >Thanks for any help. >Mike >> Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of >> research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > lens. Since generally for landscape you want wide angle, this might e > the deciding factor all by itself. Hogwash. You don't need a 10 mm lens for landscape, and the existence of such a lens is surely not a deciding factor. However, the Sigma 10-20mm lens is a very good lens. All 10mm lenses have problems with vignetting, by the way.  SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >>> Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of >>> research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >All 10mm lenses have problems with vignetting, by the way. So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? As for "problems with vignetting", if you consider the 10s to have problems then the 12mm Nikon has even more "problems". >>>> Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of >>>> research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > As for "problems with vignetting", if you consider the 10s to have > problems then the 12mm Nikon has even more "problems". One needs what one needs. I wasn't aware that the Nikkor 12-24 had more light fall-off than a Canon 10-22. Both are pretty good lenses for aps-c / dx but cost more than most of the cameras that they're designed for. If you're going to get picky, then the Sigma 10-20 on a Nikon is a little wider than a Canon 10-22 on a Canon :-) >So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? Autostitch. Or any other stitching software of choice. SignatureAl Gore attended Grammy Awards parties in Beverly Hills on Sunday. Everybody assured the former vice president that he will take home the Academy Award for Best Documentary. This time they're just going to keep counting the ballots until he wins. >>So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? > >Autostitch. >Or any other stitching software of choice. And where does one get the images that one stitches? >>> So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? >> Autostitch. >> Or any other stitching software of choice. > > And where does one get the images that one stitches? From a longer focal length lens. This image was taken with a 65 mm focal length lens giving a 90 degree field of view assembling 59 images, equivalent to about an 18 mm lens and resolution greater than a 4x5 large format camera (1.3x crop 8 megapixel camera): http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics I routinely travel light, e.g. to Europe on business and carry only a 10D and 28-135 mm IS lens. If I want a larger field of view, I simply take 2, 3, or more frames and mosaic them together. I have shorter focal length lenses, but rarely use them as I can get higher resolution images of wider field of view if I desire. I haven't use my 4x5 in over a year, as I can do better with my 8-megapixel digital camera and mosaics. Roger >>>> So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? >>> Autostitch. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > From a longer focal length lens. By that reasoning all one needs for landscape photography is a 2000mm lens and a stitching program. >This image was taken with a 65 mm >focal length lens giving a 90 degree field of view assembling 59 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I haven't use my 4x5 in over a year, as I can do better with my >8-megapixel digital camera and mosaics. I'm not taking issue with the point that one can use a stitching program, but what percentage of photographers would rather do that than use a wide lens? Seems like Hell of a lot of work to go through to make a 6x7. >Roger >>>>> So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? >>>> Autostitch. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > By that reasoning all one needs for landscape photography is a 2000mm > lens and a stitching program. In theory, yes, but as with most extremist views, they require extreme measures and are not worth it and have side effects, like in your extreme case, need for a tripod and carrying a lot of bulk. If one has a 28mm lens, a 2 or 3 frame mosaic covers a lot of wide angle in my experience. The point is that one can tune the angle of view, the resolution, and the aspect ratio to suit the scene. Once you have a little experience, mosaicking can go very fast; a couple of minutes for a 2 or 3 frame mosaic. >> This image was taken with a 65 mm >> focal length lens giving a 90 degree field of view assembling 59 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > than use a wide lens? Seems like Hell of a lot of work to go through > to make a 6x7. If all you want is 6x7 inch prints, get a point and shoot. The OP was asking about landscapes, and usually that means making some quality images that give quality larger prints. Roger >>>So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? >> >>Autostitch. >>Or any other stitching software of choice. > >And where does one get the images that one stitches? You suggested a 10mm lens; it isn't necessary to go that wide. A 28mm will do fine, with stitching. And auto stitch is a heck of a lot less expensive than a 10mm lens. SignatureAl Gore attended Grammy Awards parties in Beverly Hills on Sunday. Everybody assured the former vice president that he will take home the Academy Award for Best Documentary. This time they're just going to keep counting the ballots until he wins. >>>>So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >will do fine, with stitching. >And auto stitch is a heck of a lot less expensive than a 10mm lens. So why bother with an SLR at all? >>>>>So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > So why bother with an SLR at all? More dynamic range? Nah, just use HDR & bracketed exposures on a cell phone camera <grin>. 35mm SLR is a nice compromise of size & quality. A little stiching brings it into the realm of large format. >>>>So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >will do fine, with stitching. >And auto stitch is a heck of a lot less expensive than a 10mm lens. I didn't realize that a Church Of Stitchology had developed. I apologize for inadvertently entering into a religious debate. >>>>>So what, in your mind, does one "need" for landscape? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I apologize for inadvertently entering into a religious debate. No one is acting like an evangelist here. I'm simply pointing out that a 10mm lens isn't necessary for landscape photography. SignatureThe Weather Channel reported a blizzard in Washington D.C. Wednesday that shut down airports. Some places were running dangerously low on supplies. It was so cold that the Senate waived the rule banning Ted Kennedy's St. Bernard from the floor. > On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:05:49 -0800, C J Campbell > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > As for "problems with vignetting", if you consider the 10s to have > problems then the 12mm Nikon has even more "problems". You don't need super wide to get landacapes, I shoot between 17mm and 70mm (sometimes even 100mm for lanscapes). The superwides often leave too much forground. I find wides more necessary in city photos. Each to there own. Canon does have the best of the superwides, the 10-22, but the Nikon is right there as with the Tokina, remember the sensor difference 1.6 crop for Canon 1.5 for Nikon. Some folks have gotten great Sigma 10-20s, but Sigmas QC always haunts them. All the superwides do vignette BTW, but not an uncontrolable amount. Tom >>Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of >>research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > lens. Since generally for landscape you want wide angle, this might e > the deciding factor all by itself. I've heard folks say Nikon has a stronger lineup of wide angle lenses, perhaps this refers to the Canon 16-35/2.8 being slightly less perfect than the Nikon 17-35 but those are both really expensive lenses. Nikon does have a 10.5mm fisheye btw. If the OP thinks they might upgrade to high end expensive gear, that might change things but on that end, they might chose Canon for the availability of a full frame sensor 5D which Nikon does not offer. Also if the OP wants to do hand held available light night shots, that's a matter of high ISO performance where Canon probably wins as compared to long exposures on a tripod. For moderately high ISO shots, the D70 is not great, the D50 does quite well and the rebels fall in between. High end Canons probably excel for high ISO low noise performance. If the OP might be interested in slowly growing a collection of fixed focal length manual focus lenses, the Nikon D200 offers compatibility with affordable old lenses as well as high pixel count and a sturdy metal body with weather seals which you won't find on a Canon until the very expensive pro bodies. On the other hand Canons can mount Nikon lenses with an adapter if the OP is patient enough to work without metering. Lastly if the OP is doing hand held night shooting, the Sony (Minolta) anti-shake system on the body is pretty handy and that will mount old Minolta lenses as well. Both Nikon & Canon require expensive image stablized lenses to get this feature. A used Minolta is probably quite affordable to get started with and that saves money to start with some nice lenses. >>The prices aren't all that divergent, so that's not the main deciding >>factor for me. >>>Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of >>>research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >perhaps this refers to the Canon 16-35/2.8 being slightly less perfect >than the Nikon 17-35 but those are both really expensive lenses. And on a Nikon DSLR the 17-35 is not very wide. >Nikon >does have a 10.5mm fisheye btw. Yes, a fisheye. Canon has a rectilinear. > If the OP thinks they might upgrade to >high end expensive gear, that might change things but on that end, they [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>>The prices aren't all that divergent, so that's not the main deciding >>>factor for me. > Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of > research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'll want to be able to reuse any lenses that I buy during that time, > though, and so I'm guessing I need to make a brand commitment now. Why have you ruled out Pentax? > <screenacco...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Why have you ruled out Pentax? Everything I've read suggests that, at least for beginners like myself, Canon or Nikon is the way to go -- I believe because of the wider range of choices in lenses and bodies and whatnot. > Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of > research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Thanks for any help. > Mike Nikon and Canon cameras and lenses are not all that different and no one can truthfully say that one is 'better' than the other. Go with the camera that feels best and is easiest for you to use. The camera that is 'best' for someone else is not necessarily 'best' for you. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of > research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Thanks for any help. > Mike Low light performance is directly tied to pixel size: larger pixels collect more photons. The D40 has 7.9 micron pixel pitch and the XT (300D) has 7.4 micron pixel pitch, so close to the same, with an edge to the D40 (it actually depends on effective active area and we don't have that info). This page describes the effects and shows some data on sensors: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary The Nikon D50 may have the same sensor as the D40, and the D50 has great low light performance. So does the 300D. Canon's sensors have the lowest read noise so you can pull the lowest signals out of the shadows in low light high iso images, giving the canon the edge at that end. So both cameras should do very very well. Regarding landscapes, even a 6-megapixel camera is capable of very high resolution images: simply mosaic multiple shots. For example: Large Digital Mosaics as a Substitute for Large Format Film http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics With mosaicking, you don't even need a wide angle lens. I do 180 degree mosaics with a 28-135 zoom. It works very well. Now I'm even doing animal mosaics (see the Africa gallery from the home page below). Roger Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com >Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of >research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Thanks for any help. >Mike Aside from the Nikon vs Canon (or Canon vs Nikon - to give each top billing :-)) wars your question will probably generate... Either will do what you want. The deciding factor will probably be how well you interact with the camera; ergonomics. Get some hands-on time with each; see how you like control placement, menus, and the general feel of the camera in your hands. Both Nikon and Canon (and the other brands, too) will have the accessory support you need for your stated desires. Picking one brand over another should, IMO, be based on how the camera feels, because any of them will meet your needs. Landscapes are relatively easy; you can take multiple images,and stitch them together to get then. Low light shots are more dependant on the lens than the camera; you'll need fast lenses, which can get more pricey than the camera itself for good quality. Whatever you get, have fun! SignatureAl Gore attended Grammy Awards parties in Beverly Hills on Sunday. Everybody assured the former vice president that he will take home the Academy Award for Best Documentary. This time they're just going to keep counting the ballots until he wins. On Feb 18, 6:22 pm, screenacco...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi. I'm entering the digital SLR world and have been doing a lot of > research on cameras, and I'm considering the following bodies: > > Nikon D40 (maybe a refurbished D70) > Canon Digital Rebel XT (or possible a refurbished XTi) The Canon. If you are buying refurbs, you might want to avoid the D40 because of it's highly restricted lens compatibility. |
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.