| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/5 |
| 2009/5/4-6 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52944 Activity:high |
5/4 Which Canon dSLR should I buy?
\_ The cheapest one you can get away with, and the most expensive
glass you can afford. Camera body depreciates 1/2 every 18-24
months. Plastic kit lenses depreciate at about 15-20% each
year till they're worthless in about 3-5 years. Good glass
(constant f/2.8 and below) hardly ever depreciate, and some
actually go up in value.
\_ This general rule is good for film SLR, where the film is not
a function of the body. But is it also true for dSLR, where the
image sensor is a function of the body? Cheap bodies might not
have high-enough image resolution, low-enough noise ratio, etc.,
to appreciate your premium lens. -- yuen
\_ I beg differ. This rule is still applys for most
people. Most beginners don't care about noise ratio and
for most people, high resolution is more of burden.
Most of cheapo body has sensor that is identical to the
mid range camera. kngharv
\_ When Nikon D300 ($1800 prosumer) came out, it blew away
all APS-C competition with the Sony sensor. Many Canon 40D
and 50D users weep because they lust for D300's amazing low
light capability (engineering trade-offs -- Canon opted for
resolution while Nikon opted for high ISO and low noise).
Over a year later, the D90 ($999 high end consumer) came out
using the exact same sensor and takes exactly the same image
qualities, though with only 11 point AF (vs. 51 on the 300D),
less FPS, and other pro features). This year, cheap D5000 came
and again, using the exact same sensor. It is a lot cheaper.
So as you can see, there is a trickle-down effect on sensors.
You don't have to spend a lot of money to get the best sensor
quality. Unless you need massive AF and FPS and other pro
features, a cheap body will do just fine. You can just wait
1-2 years before a pro-quality sensor trickles down into
consumer end bodies. P.S. Canon used to win the DSLR sensor
race, but for the past 2 years the Nikon D3, D3x, and D300
have been winning. I'm sure next few years, Canon will have
an upper hand. It's a rat race, and an exciting one it is.
Like I said, camera bodies get obsolete as fast as CPUs.
But innovations in lens is slow... huge optical innovations
ended since the 50s, and optically innovation-wise we're about
the same as the 70s and 80s. All that Nikon N (nanocoating) and
Canon flouride coating is just marketing BS. Optical
the same as the 70s and 80s. All that Nikon N (nanocoating)
and Canon flouride coating is just marketing BS. Optical
innovations are slow hence glass retain their values. The
only new things we have these days is just stuff built on
and around the lens, like silent ultrasonic focus, G-ring
electric aperture rings, VR/IS. P.S. Nikon D400 is coming out.
\_ The one that fits your needs.
\_ LOL it doesn't matter. When you are married, have a house and
a baby, your priority will change and photography will no longer
be part of your life. Most married men sell off their extensive
photographic equipments after they're on the marriage track.
\_ I mostly want this to take pictures of the kids.
\_ Why limit yourself to Canon?
\_ Are there other good choices? What else would you consider?
\_ I agree with the first followup. But would add "what problem
are you trying to solve" and "where are you starting from?".
If you are "getting into photography", which is what I assume
from your question, you should fix your budget for the whole kit.
A colleague of mine bought more body than he needs and has cheapo
lenses and then rents higher end lenses ... a decision I thought
was crazy. This will likely mean you are picking from 2-3 Canon
bodies ... if you are looking at $5k bodies, you are certainly
not going to be looking at $500 bodies. More practically you
not going to be looking at $500 bodoes. More practically you
might be looking a $600 body and wondering if the $1.4k body is
worth the difference. Also, you should mention whether there is
some special considerations ... like "my sister just moved to
mombasa and i am going to visit her and squeeze in a safari" vs.
"i want to take pictures of my new child" or "i want to take
pix of my band" or "i want to take pix of my award winning roses",
"i am an avid birdwatcher and want to start taking pix of what
i see on birding trips." "i want to take a photography class".
BTW, i would stick with canon if:
1. you dont come in with a large investment in fancy glass
2. you are not on a super-low budget.
\_ I want to take pictures of my children. I currently have an SD750
which is okay, but I want something better.
\_ If you want to "take pictures of your children," you're
probably better off getting one of the Digital ELPH cameras
than an SLR. You'll save money and you'll have something
that you'll always carry with you, instead of a big
wad of equipment that sits at home. Pictures of the kids
are more about opportunity than quality.
If you want to do your own portraiture, the XSi with a
decent portrait lens (like the 35mm f/2.0) should be
fine. -tom
\- while it may be usable for protraits, that is not
a portrait lens, at least for headshot type
pix. you need big app and reasonably long focal
length to get parallel rays. probably want to
go at least 80mm ... 180mm is probably overkill for
home portraits. my 105 is a double purpose macro
and portrait. it's a little long on digital.
50 f1.4 will probably be better and is generally
a nice lens. 50 1.8 might be better and is
usually a cheap lens with decent optics [although
sometimes build quality isnt the best, but not
that big a deal on a forgiving lens].
\_ Assuming this isnt a troll: you probably arent going to get a
Canon 1-series [high end pro bodies]. So you are likely looking
at Canon 3digit, 2digit or 5x. So look at the price and
features of the Digital Rebel (<$800), the 50d ($1200) and
5D (+$2500) ... that should reduce this to a question
5D (+$2500) ... that should greatly reduce this to a question
about specific bodies ... at which point you can make trade off
within your budget and pushing your budget envelope outwards
by a little.
\_ I have a huge 70-200mm f/2.8L IS body on a Rebel XS. I know
people laugh at it, and it looks funny, but you know, I take
better pictures than a bunch of dumbasses with a 5Dmk2 with a
kit lens. Now, who is the dumbass here?
\_ I'm shooting with a Rebel XSi; it's a totally capable
camera. There's a pretty small range of shots that
would be easier to capture with a better body. But a
lot depends on your shooting; most of mine is landscapes
taken while riding/hiking, so light weight is a
significant consideration; if I were shooting concerts
a heavier body with better low-light performance would
be better. -tom
\_ If you're just taking daytime landscape while traveling,
a high quality P&S will do just fine. In fact you can't
really tell image difference under those conditions
(slower shutter, 100 ISO, f/8-11, bright light).
Let me dig up an article from a famous pro who carries
both a DSLR and a Canon G10 (Lumix LX3 does a good job
too). Seriously, can you tell the difference? If a pro
can't tell the difference, neither can 99.5% of the
people out there. A Canon XSi on a bike is just too
cumbersome. Go with the best point and shoot.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx3.shtml
\_ Well, actually I use a Canon PowerShot S5 if I'm
cycling without specific photography opportunities
in mind. -tom
\_ Oh ok, you're set then. Cool. -pp
\_ I took a G10 and a Nikon SLR on my last vacation
trip. I took maybe 50x as many pictures with the
G10 ... here are the main limitations:
1. for landscapes, I didnt have quite the field of
view i'd have liked ... compared to my 18mm.
2. i dont own a polarizer for the G10 ... i believe
it is a pretty expesnive addon
it is a pretty expensive addon
3. biggest problem: too much depth of field [LX3
is better in this regard, but still not as good
as a fast lens]
4. big, big win of the G10 was the really nice
image stabilization. there were a lot of pix
it took in a museum without a flash which
I took in a museum without a flash which
might be say 6.5/10, which i could have taken
might be say 6/10, which i could have taken
at 8/10 if i could control the lighting, but since
i could not control the lighting, the pix with
my SLR would have been 0-2/10.
5. and of course eventhough the G10 is pushing the
outer limits of "pocket camera", i could and did
carry it almest everywhere, where as i only
took the "big gear" on a could of occasions where
i was doing "serious photography" [Monte Alban]. |
| 4/5 |
|
| www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml One-On-One workshop in Algonquin Park and the Muskoka region of north-central Ontario with a client from Ireland. George was shooting with a Sinar medium format digital system while I was shooting with my Hasselblad H2 and Phase One P45+ back. When I had a few free moments I was also testing the brand new Canon G10 and Nikon P6000 pocket digicams for an upcoming comparative review. I had become very impressed with the Canon G10 after just a few days of earlier light-duty testing. Each evening that week I would sit with my 15" Macbook Pro reviewing the day's files. At one point I found myself looking at raw files on-screen and not being sure if I was looking at Hasselblad P45+ files or Canon G10 files. After some 50 years in this industry I know what I'm looking at, be it a screen blow-up or a print, and I certainly don't confuse how something looks on a 15" laptop screen (though properly profiled and calibrated) with how it will turn out on a critically produced exhibition-quality print. But nevertheless, I was curious about what I was seeing. In The Field The next afternoon I hiked into the forest with my tripod, Hasselblad H2 and P45+ with the Hasselblad 55-110mm lens attached, and photographed a lovely deep forest fall scene. As I stood there wondering where to go next I put my hands in my vest pocket (it was a chilly fall morning), and there was the Canon G10. I wonder how the it would compare with the H2/P45+ combo in a critically controlled side-by-side comparison. But - nothing ventured, etc, and so without a tripod mount for the G10 I simply held it firmly braced on top of the Hassy and did an exposure, framing the shot as closely as I could to what I'd done on the Hasselblad. That evening I looked at the files on my laptop screen, along with several other people, and we were amazed to see that the differences between the 39 Megapixel medium format system and the 15 Megapixel pocket digicam didn't seem that dramatic - certainly not as big as one might have expected. In fact, with the files in Lightroom I usually couldn't tell which was which without pixel-peeping. Not having a printer on-hand, I decided to put any further evaluation on hold until I could do a critical processing of both images with my desktop system and 30" Cinemadisplay, and then make comparison prints at my studio. Shooting conditions: The H2 was on a large Enduro tripod with RRS head. Mirror lock-up was used, along with 3 second self timer and cable release. Shots taken were critically focused by eye as well as with autofocus. White balance was achieved through the use of a gray card, and prime focus was on the large knot in the foreground tree. The G10 was hand-held, carefully braced atop the Hassy on the tripod. I had no mounting plate for it, so couldn't use the tripod directly. Also, the G10 has Image stabilization, so I guess that evens things out a bit. Autofocus was used, as was autoexposure in Aperture priority mode. Overall if there was any technical bias in the test it was in favour of the medium format system. Both shots were taken at or close to each camera's optimum apertures to avoid quality loss due to diffraction. At The Studio Each file was processed from raw to the best of my ability. Neither file was processed in either Canon's or Phase One's software, but rather in either Lightroom 21 for the P45+ file or a beta version of another raw processor, which I prefer to Canon's software. I suppose it would have been more appropriate to use each maker's software, but I used what I prefer to work with, and in any event, the differences would likely have been a quibble. I tried to match colour as best I could, but I didn't really sweat it too much. Different sensors reproduce colours differently, and without producing custom profiles there's not much to be done about it - and the difference wouldn't have materially affected the results in any event. I simply tried to make each print look as good as I could. Figure 3 Doing any comparison such as this is fraught with potential pitfalls because of the inherent differences in the file size and resolutions of the two cameras. The screen grab immediately above, taken from my 30" Cinemadisplay, is intended to show you how these files compare in Photoshop when imported at the same screen resolution. In other words, what you're seeing is 15MP vs 39MP translated into image size rather than resolution. On The Viewing Stand Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box. This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience. In most cases I did not tell them what they were looking at, simply saying that I had been shooting with two cameras, and that they should divide the prints (about a dozen) into two piles - Camera A and Camera B They were asked to judge resolution, accutance, colour reproduction, highlight detail, dMax, and any other factors that they wished to consider. The Results In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness. Needless to say there was much shaking of heads and muttering. Could a $500 digicam equal a $40,000 medium format digital system in image quality, at least in prints up to 13X19" (Super A3)? The top end of the industry has achieved very high image quality for some time. The improvements that we've seen over the past several years from medium format backs have slowed, though each new generation has given us not just more megapixels but also wide dynamic range, better high ISO performance, and other advantages. But, the high end has now gotten so good, that the incremental improvements achieved with each new generation are smaller each year. On the other hand low-end cameras have had a long way to go. In the past they have been noisy, the lenses on digicams have not been the best, and resolution as well as other aspects of image quality have often left a lot to be desired. Each new generation of cameras though gets better than the last, and with the Canon G10 that company appears to have taken a significant step forward from its predecessor the G9, and for that matter in my experience to any other comparable camera on the market. The sensor and lens used in the G10 offer a marked improvement over anything comparable that's come before, and it shows. To Be Clear Let me be clear though, this comparison is not by any means definitive. It was done for my own edification because I was having a hard time believing what I was seeing. Now that I have had my observations confirmed by several industry pros, I am more confident in what I'm seeing, and that those funny cigarettes that I smoked back in the '60's haven't totally befuddled my judgment. Please note that what I'm describing here is really not new when it comes to comparing high-end 35mm DSLRs to medium format systems. We've all done such comparisons for years, and know that the advantages of large sensors and MF systems are best seen in large prints and in critical applications. The only thing that's different now is that instead of comparing an MF system with a DSLR I'm comparing it to a digicam, though a 15 megapixel one to be sure. Be aware as well that these comparisons fall down when prints over about 13X19" are made. Once the outpu... |
| www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx3.shtml There aren't many truly pocket-sized digicams that offer raw mode. There aren't very many that currently offer decent HD video capability as well. There are even less that feature a truly wide angle lens (24mm), and pocket-sized camera's with fast f/2 optics are even fewer and farther between. Panasonic Lumix DCS LX-3, which just started to ship in Q4, 2008. A wide and fast fast lens is something highly desirable in a "street camera", which is what I look for in a digicam, and raw mode is a must for the image quality that I need when shooting in difficult conditions. I also feel that the ability to shoot decent HD video has now become a highly desirable feature in any new camera that I use. The Panasonic LX-3 bundles all of these capabilities into a pocketable camera that really delivers the goods. LX-1 with me on a shoot in China and I was pleased with the results. I skipped the LX-2 model, and recently decided to acquaint myself with the Panasonic's latest version, the LX-3. Sony W300 (though neither of these later two have raw mode). I am currently working on a hands-on comparative review of the new Canon G10 and Nikon P6000, and this will appear here before the end of October. The Basics The Panasonic LX3 uniquely offers three shooting formats 16:9, 3:2, and 4:3. These are quickly and easily set via a switch on the lens barrel. This alone sets the LX3 apart from its competitors, and may be considered a real plus by many photographers. And, unlike its predecessor the LX1, the change in aspect ratios is not achieved by simply masking the sensor, but indeed focal length coverage is maintained. This differentiates the LX3 from other cameras which simply do format masking, something that one can always emulate when cropping during post processing. The advantage of this approach is shown in the image resolution resulting from each format's selection - 3968X2232 pixels with 16:9, 3648X2736 with 4:3, and 3776X2520 with 3:2. Choice of format therefore becomes an esthetic decision, with 16:9 being suitable for landscape work, 3:2 for those that are comfortable with 35mm aspect ratio. and 4:3 for folks who like something a bit less extreme, such as the popular 645 medium format format. The LCD screen is a now requisite 30-inch with 460K dot resolution. This is the equivalent to 24-60mm in 35mm full-frame terms There is also optical image stabilization and an available ISO range of 80-3200, though as we'll see you likely won't want to use anything beyond ISO 400 for serious shooting. Oh yes, and the LX3 shoots video in 720P HD format at a data rate of 25 mbp/s. Features - Pro and Con Build quality on the LX3 is exemplary, with the body made from a metal casting rather than plastic shell, and it consequent feels solid and rugged. The only part that seems to be lighter duty than the rest is the obviously thin plastic hinged door on the battery and SD compartment. Given the diminutive size of the LX3, controls are of a decent size and are well placed and accessible. The only exception to this is the nubby joystick control, which is used for quite a few menu settings and which sometimes seems a bit recalcitrant in its movement. I also found that the top-mounted mode dial was far too easy to accidentally move to an unwanted setting. Given that the camera will usually be coming in and out of a pocket, and handled at that point without one seeing its controls, its all too easy to find oneself shooting in the wrong mode. Focusing Panasonic has paid good attention to the focusing needs of users. Like all other non-SLR digicams the LX3 uses contrast detection autofocus, which is far slower than the virtually instantaneous autofocus one gets from an SLR type camera. Nevertheless, I found the LX3 to have among the fastest AF of any camera of its type. There are three AF modes, selectable with a control ring located on the left side of the lens: AF, Macro AF and Manual Focus. The only difference in the Macro mode is that the camera can focus down to 1cm, and therefore AF is faster when set to regular AF mode since the system has to travel through a shorter range when seeking the proper point of focus. Macro Focusing In manual focus mode the joystick becomes a focusing control - Up for closer and Down for further away. Optionally, the LCD can be set to show a magnified center point for more accurate focus determination, or the whole screen can be magnified. There is a focus scale indication on the right side of the screen, and it shows available depth of field via a moving yellow bar that changes in size as the aperture is changed. Finally, on the top right of the body, next to the shutter release, is a FOCUS button. When in manual focus mode this allows the camera to autofocus. This is the mode that I use almost all of the time because this is the way that I shoot with a DSLR, only focusing when and where "I" want it to. There is a built in manual pop-up flash with all of the requisite modes, and also a hot shoe so that accessory Panasonic flash units can also be attached. The camera can record 5 seconds of audio in association with each JPEG, but alas, not when shooting in raw mode. Unfortunately, and unlike some larger competitors like the Nikon P6000 and Canon G10 there is no optical viewfinder. Fortunately the quality of the screen is very high, and is bright enough in all except the brightest direct sunlight. Panasonic makes an accessory optical viewfinder that slips onto the accessory shoe, (or one can use one of the fine and moderately priced ones made by Voigtlander). But since the lens is a 24-60mm equivalent zoom, one will have to select one focus length from this range. I have a 28mm Voigtlander viewfinder and I found it to be just the ticket for when one wants or needs to shoot with the camera to ones eye. Panasonic even thoughtfully provides a manual viewfinder mode so that the rear LCD is turned off except for image review. Manual Controls Frankly, I use a camera like this in aperture priority mode almost all of the time, simply because that's the way that I also usually work with my DSLRs. But full manual control of exposure as well as focusing is available, and like just about everything else on this Panasonic it's well conceived and presented. Unlike with some cameras, one gets the sense that real photographers had input into the camera's design, rather than a committee of engineers and marketing people. Optical Performance I'm not terribly interested in garage door / test chart lens evaluations. A day shooting with a given lens under varying conditions tells me all I need to know. In the case of the LX3's Vario-Summicron the results are to my eye all positive. The 24mm equivalent wide end is very welcome, and when combined with the 16:9 aspect ratio makes for some really interesting wide angle capabilities. I saw only a bit of vignetting wide open at 24mm, and what was there mostly disappears when the lens is stopped down to f/28 By f/4 the lens is at its "sweet spot" and leaves little to be desired in terms of overall image quality. I felt that it softened up a bit at 60mm equivalent, but then only a bit. While performance wide open is quite good, stopping down one or two stops really increases apparent resolution. October, 2008 Panasonic LX-3 at ISO 80 The Lens Cap One doesn't have to read too many web reviews and comments on the LX3 to learn that few people seem happy with the fact that instead of being self-capping the camera's lens uses a good old fashioned lens cap. Those coming from the world of DSLRs will wonder what the fuss is about. Hell - Panasonic even gives you a cute little cord so that the lens cap doesn't get lost when removed. On the other hand, those coming from using other pocket cameras will wonder what the silly piece of plastic is for, and why its necessary. Having to have a lens cap dangling at the end of a tether from such a small camera is annoying, and it not tethered it's bound to get lost. Raw Vs JPEG Of course one of the most attractive features of the LX3 is the fact that it shoots raw. Other than for throw-away snapshots I always shoot raw, simply because a JPEG, though more convenient, removes ones abili... |