 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / May 2008Camera recommendations sought
Hello, I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which most point-and-shoots do not have: 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of portraits, for example). 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO. Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact. Thanks, Joe > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of > portraits, for example). This is always going to be a problem with the slow, short focal length lenses in P&S's. > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO. I presume you mean "noise", not "distortion"... > Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform > substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I > would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact. You could look at a Canon G9 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ I'm very happy with mine. You still won't get the lovely creamy OOF backgrounds you want, even though the Canon has aperture-priority mode. Even at max telephoto, its only at 44mm f.l. Wide open its f/4.8 (at that f.l.) This ain't gunna compete with a basic SLR. Its better than most P&S's, though. Noise at high ISO is good. Mind you, a D40 probably costs about the same... If a short DOF is important, get a cheap DSLR and a fixed-focal length fast telephoto. That can be a cheap option, if you are prepared to sacrifice auto-focus. Anyways... roll on the contrary opinions... -- Jeff R. >You could look at a Canon G9 >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ >I'm very happy with mine. Jeff, I'm also looking at the G9 but the other one in the frame (pun) is the SX100-IS. Did you also consider that at the time? I can't really understand why there is so much difference in price between them. >>You could look at a Canon G9 >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I can't really understand why there is so much difference in price > between them. Can't speak for the bean-counters, but I bought the G9 because it has: * top-mounted dial for ISO setting * program, Aperture and Shutter settings * 3" LCD (luxury!) plus rave reviews from critics I tend to trust. Didn't look at the SX100. Apart from dodgey auto-focus in low light (it shouldn't damn-well acknowledge focus lock if it hasn't got it!) I'm very happy with it. -- Jeff R. >> Jeff, I'm also looking at the G9 but the other one in the frame >> (pun) is the SX100-IS. Did you also consider that at the time? >> >> I can't really understand why there is so much difference in price >> between them. >Can't speak for the bean-counters, but I bought the G9 because it has: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Apart from dodgey auto-focus in low light (it shouldn't damn-well >acknowledge focus lock if it hasn't got it!) I'm very happy with it. Thanks for that info. A big issue for me is the difference between the two models on zoom length. I like the look and feel of the G9 more but its zoom is only 210mm, whereas the X100 has 360mm. 210mm is on the very bottom end of my requirements. That makes it a difficult decision. I wonder if a new G10 will have a longer zoom? I'm not overly concerned by the G9's on-top ISO setting as I have my current camera (S70) set to 100 and it can be changed quite quickly when necessary. The 3" LCD would be nice. > Thanks for that info. A big issue for me is the difference between > the two models on zoom length. > I like the look and feel of the G9 more but its zoom is only 210mm, > whereas the X100 has 360mm. 210mm is on the very bottom end of > my requirements. That makes it a difficult decision. I've had nothing but grief from the long end of the long-tele P&S's I've bought. (The Panasonic FZ30 comes to mind first). CA in abundance and really soft. The G9 does support an accessory tele lens, but I can't comment as I've never used it. > I wonder if a new G10 will have a longer zoom? Don't hold your breath. > I'm not overly concerned by the G9's on-top ISO setting as I have my > current camera (S70) set to 100 and it can be changed quite quickly > when necessary. The 3" LCD would be nice. Fair enough. I really like the ergonomics. No menus to wade through. ...and the 3" LCD *is* nice. Good luck with the decision. -- Jeff R. Thanks Jeff. You're right - I meant noise, not distortion. Still learning the terminology. Thanks for the suggestion of G9 and D40. I will check out those models. >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > -- > Jeff R. : > Hello, : > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : This is always going to be a problem with the slow, short focal length : lenses in P&S's. Short FL, yes. Slow? Not necessarily. My Canon G-5 has an f/2.0 lens. On my DSLR I have only one lens that's faster than f/2.8. : > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO. : : I presume you mean "noise", not "distortion"... In this context "noise" is a form of distortion. (The image's colors and/or sharpness are distorted by spurious interference.) That's why you didn't hesitate to presume the OP's intended meaning. Even when our photographic argot assigns highly specific meanings to common English words, those words don't necessarily lose their original, broader meanings. Bob >In this context "noise" is a form of distortion. (The image's colors and/or >sharpness are distorted by spurious interference.) That's why you didn't >hesitate to presume the OP's intended meaning. Even when our photographic >argot assigns highly specific meanings to common English words, those words >don't necessarily lose their original, broader meanings. Actually the words "noise" and "distortion" are "terms of art" in this context, and have very specific meanings based on but not precisely the same as the common English definitions found in a dictionary. So, yes, they *do* lose their broader meanings. Pedantically, "noise" is as opposed to "distortion"; both being an undesired change to the original information, but noise is a change caused by an "external" source and distortion is a change that is intrinsic to the system carrying the information. Less pedantically, the term "noise" includes distortions as well as other noise, and that is the commonly heard definition. Of course the above is wonderful if you have an understanding of what it means, and sounds like gibberish otherwise! So perhaps an example of the two is in order. All electronic circuits suffer from induced electrical noises and from the random noise that changes with the tempurature of an object. The "read noise" in images taken by electronic sensors is an example of a true noise in the pedantic sense. If you shoot an image at the highest ISO that any given camera can manage, and underexpose the image, all of the image shadows will exhibit noise, and much of it will be read noise. On the other hand, when the analog signal from the electronic sensor is digitized, the actual voltage value is rounded off, and all values within a given range are assigned to the same digital value. The difference between the actual value and the assigned digital value is inherent to the system, hence can be precisely predicted before hand, and is properly called "quantization distortion" because pedantically it is not a noise but a distortion. JPEG image compression is another place where distortion is the proper description rather than noise.  SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Hello, > I am shopping for my first digital camera. I am inclined to get a > point-and-shoot, but would like to have the following two features which > most point-and-shoots do not have: > 1) The option to have a small depth of field (to blur the background of > portraits, for example). > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO. > Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform substantially > better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I would consider a > DSLR, but would prefer something more compact. Sensor size strongly influences camera size. So if you want something smaller than a typical DSLR but with better noise performance than a compact, you either want a DSLR with a smaller than typical sensor such as Olympus, or a not-so-compact with a bigger one than the typical compact such as the larger Ricohs or Panasonics. SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] Thanks Chris. Were there any particular models of Ricoh and Panasonic that you had in mind? >> Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > such as Olympus, or a not-so-compact with a bigger one than the typical > compact such as the larger Ricohs or Panasonics. >Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I would consider a >DSLR, but would prefer something more compact. Even with a DSLR those issues are significant points of difference between cameras, with only the top of the line DSLR's from Nikon and Canon matching your requirements. Item 1, short DOF, is significantly different between APC sized sensors on DSLRs and the few that have "full frame" sensors the size of a 35mm film frame. Item 2, assuming you meant low noise at high ISO values, is also something that gets progressively better with newer and more expensive DSLRs. Nikon and Canon top of the line DSLR bodies are significantly better than others, including their top models of just a few years ago. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Thanks Floyd. I don't think I can afford a top of the line model, so I may have to do some compromising. >>Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > others, including their top models of just a few years > ago. > > >>Hello, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Thanks Floyd. I don't think I can afford a top of the line model, so I > may have to do some compromising. Hello, Joe: Please, don't listen to Floyd, too carefully. <g> My own Pentax K100D is considered a "bottom-of-the-line" DSLR, but, it's still capable of some rather shallow DOF; noise isn't much of an issue, normally, either. Good luck! Cordially, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> >> >>Hello, >> >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >considered a "bottom-of-the-line" DSLR, but, it's still capable of some >rather shallow DOF; noise isn't much of an issue, normally, either. John, have you ever compared something like a Nikon D3 to your K100D? SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com <heavily edited for brevity> > >> Thanks Floyd. I don't think I can afford a top of the line model, so I > >> may have to do some compromising. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > John, have you ever compared something like a Nikon D3 to your K100D? Hello, Floyd: Shucks, no! D3 or not, Nikon is somewhat out of my league. Pentax is for peons (such as myself), luckily enough. <g> Cordially, John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > portraits, for example). > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO. Actually, both requirements go together, A camera with a small sensor has a greater DOF than one with a large sensor at the same f-number. But the trade-off is cost. When I want to blur the background, I do it is Paint Shop Pro. > Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform > substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? I > would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact. > > Thanks, > Joe Thanks Marvin. I'll have to look into PSP. That's an interesting idea. >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> Thanks, >> Joe > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of portraits, for example). > 2) A sensor large enough to have minimal distortion at high ISO. How high is high ISO. > Short of a DSLR, is there anything out there that will perform > substantially better than the typical point-and-shoot in these areas? > I would consider a DSLR, but would prefer something more compact. > > Thanks, > Joe Let's say 1600. >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> Thanks, >> Joe > Let's say 1600. I regularly use ISO 1600 on my Nikon D40 DSLR, and find the results quite acceptable (for the conditions where ISO 1600 is needed). A little noise reduction in software /may/ be required, and I would try not to use it for portraits of young ladies! By contrast, anything above ISO 100 or 200 is essentially unusable except for emergencies on the small-sensor cameras I have used. If you need ISO 1600 with anything like acceptable quality, a DSLR is mandatory. The newest (and more expensive) Nikon DSLRs will allow 3200 and even 6400 to produce good results. David In article <PxfQj.14856$yD2.12863@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote: > I regularly use ISO 1600 on my Nikon D40 DSLR, and find the results quite > acceptable (for the conditions where ISO 1600 is needed). Mmmm...bet that's pretty. > In article <PxfQj.14856$yD2.12863@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J > Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mmmm...bet that's pretty. When viewing on a 1600 x 1200 display, the noise from the unprocessed JPEG images is hardly discernable. A little noise reduction in software could remove that if required. The images are very much better than those from compact cameras working at ISO 400. As I said, I use that only when needed, and the camera was chosen because it has fewer, but large, sensor pixels, which helps lower-light-level performance. Cheers, David >> Let's say 1600. > >I regularly use ISO 1600 on my Nikon D40 DSLR, and find the results quite >acceptable (for the conditions where ISO 1600 is needed). A little noise >reduction in software /may/ be required, and I would try not to use it for >portraits of young ladies! What conditions do require ISO 1600? What, by the way, is "HI 1"? I've tried that setting on my Nikon D40, and it blows out everything. I've never shot anything higher than ISO 800 with my D40, and can't imagine what I'd want to shoot higher than that. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida [] > What conditions do require ISO 1600? Lower light levels, indoors, when using the lighter f/4 - f/5.6 lenses. Moving subjects. > What, by the way, is "HI 1"? I've tried that setting on my Nikon D40, > and it blows out everything. Never tried it, sorry. > I've never shot anything higher than ISO 800 with my D40, and can't > imagine what I'd want to shoot higher than that. I tend to use auto-ISO and sometimes it does creep up to 1600 (as that's the top limit I've allowed). I'm happy with the results, as they are fine for my viewing conditions. I would prefer a hint of grain to a blurred subject. Cheers, David >>> Let's say 1600. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >What conditions do require ISO 1600? I was quite amazed recently on a trip to China that I could take pretty good handheld night shots of the exciting new downtown shopping areas using the new Canon XSi with the 18-55mm IS lens. The ISO I used was mostly 1600. Back in my film days that would have required a tripod. While tripod shooting can add discipline to your shooting, it is for me mostly a supreme annoyance, and it takes away from spontaneity. Besides, this was a business trip and no room in luggage for a tripod or fast lenses. Archibald > I am shopping for my first digital camera. Sigma DP-1 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 They both have large (APS-C sized) sensors. And they both are point- and-shoot cameras (i.e., non-dSLR). And they both have large good optics. |
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
|
©2008 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.