or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DLSR Camera investigations - Page 2

post #31 of 41
Quote:
Doesn't this depend on the size of the print, how much you want to crop the picture, and so on? For my own use, 12mp would be more than enough. For someone else? I have no idea - only they can make that call.
I'm not a 'pro', but IMO high resolution has sharply diminishing returns after ~8-10MP. More is always better, of course (unless it trades off other qualities, like noise at high ISO settings). But unless you want to use 'digital zoom'/extensive cropping all the time, or blow up poster-sized prints, it just doesn't make that much difference past a certain point.

I mean, a 40-50" HDTV at 1920x1080p (just over 2MP) can look very, very sharp if you're more than a few feet away. IIRC your visual 'resolution' over your whole field of vision is something like 4000x3000, which would be about 12MP.

You'll see a much, much bigger difference from high-end optics than getting a few more megapixels, all else being equal.
post #32 of 41
Thread Starter 
That's probably true Matthias99 - it really is the Big Picture () that matters in camera selection. By that I mean looking at all the features inherent (Body and Lens) in combinations as applied to all the uses planned for the camera that matters. No one Brand will meet all my needs and desires so it's a matter of scoping out the "best" set of attributes that most closely gets me to ideal. I've been looking into HDTV as well but the analogy breaks down quickly when we consider that viewing a TV at a set distance and size doesn't represent the range of image-capture techniques a camera might go through nor the potential for blowing up the resulting image, croping, etc.


BTW; I've no interest in Brand Wars. I know most modern gear is pretty good, each Brand with its own audience focus along with up & down sides. Warranty, repair, lens variety & quality, after-market components, even battery availability make a difference in the final assessment. I try not to look at price until I figure out what I need/want first. Then, when I do look at price for what I want, I generally cry.

Sometimes the Big Names in a product are known for their top of the line quality and service, but other times they're the Big Names because they do the most advertising and provide the best deals and rebates to 'Professionals' who they then point to as using their gear. Since most well-know camera Brands make both 'good' and 'bad' cameras (a price-point thing) I'm interested in the personal experience of others with specific models rather than generalizations based on Brand Loyalty or perception.

Having limited time for my investigations I'll be a bit slow in selecting something but do appreciate the feedback so far. Once caught up on current technology and having messed around with a few models I'm sure I'll have more specific questions. Right now I'm in Chunking Mode getting a feel for what's out there and the merits of individual technological attributes.

.ma
post #33 of 41
I can understand your arguments above, however, the lenses Im talking about buying are pretty common, not too expensive and top of the line. I would argue the best all around telephoto lens out there right now is the Canon 70-200mm 2.8 That glass is a tried and true lens owned by nearly all professional photographers that isn't completely out of the realm of affordable and certainly worth the money.
post #34 of 41

Olympus Fanboy here

Call me an Olympus Fanboy if you will, I'm happy to wear the title. Salvuccim mentioned the Canon 70-200 2.8. That's a hell of a beautiful lens and I'd love to have it. But keep this in mind, it's ~$1,600 with Image Stabilization and ~$1,200 without IS.

Then consider this. The Olympus 50-200 SWD is ~$950, just as fast optically, weighs a pound less and is probably just as solid and weatherproof or at least very close.

In addition, with the E-3 you don't need to keep buying IS lenses, if that mattered, since the IS is built into the camera itself and works very well.

The Canon lens on a full frame sensor body is a 70-200mm lens. On a 40D it is the 35mm equivalent of a 112 - 320mm lens due to the 1.6x crop factor of the smaller sensor.

The sensor on the E-3 is even smaller, hence some increased noise at high ISO, but has a 2x crop factor. The 50-200 lens becomes essentially a 100 - 400mm. That's a nice sports shooting combo in a considerably lighter package than the others and at a lower cost. If tele shooting is your thing, this could be a big benefit.

As mentioned before though, the downside is you need some pretty hefty glass to achieve ultra wide angle shots - i.e. the expensive Oly 7-14 is needed to get an ultra-wide 14mm - 28mm angle.

The 50-200 is very high quality. Here's a brief review but keep in mind this was for the pre-SWD version. The new model focuses faster and the optics are the same: http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses...-35-ed-af.html

Here are a few shots I took with the 50-200. Maybe a little over-sharpened because I quickly rendered them from raw files just now, but the point is, its a damn sharp lens: http://s89.photobucket.com/albums/k2...eister/50-200/

Some of those were also taken with my measly old 5 megapixel E-1. And none are obviously full sized shots. In fact one shot was taken with a 1.4x extender on the 50-200. You'll never see it because the optics of the Oly 1.4x extender is also superb. The exif data will reveal which was shot with the extender, if anyone cares.

So, you throw the little 1.4x in your pocket and now you have a IS 100-400mm and an IS 140-560mm super tele-zoom for less money and much less weight than the 70-200 IS Canon lens. Great combo? Well it very well could be, depending on your needs.

That being said, as an Olympus fanboy, I will add that I had a real hard time deciding between the E-3 and the Nikon D-300. In the end I went E-3 mainly due to it's reputation for being weatherproof and for quality construction in that price range.

Finally, the new Canon 50D looks real sweet too. Haven't read much about it but I'd love to take a good look at some point.

Happy hunting.
~~Fanboy
post #35 of 41
Thread Starter 
Gee, If I could get a Grant from someone I'd be happy to buy them all and do some serious comparative testing... Any takers?

.ma
post #36 of 41
hahaha have to get back to you on that one .ma haha! As a semiprofessional photographer I shoot canon because they in my opinion have not just the best cameras or the best glass but they have the best variety.

For the every day shooter I can totally see getting an olympus. Fantastic cameras with good low price lenses. However when I need to shoot anything from a wedding to basketball to football to nature (All requiring a variety of lens lengths use of flash and shutter speed) I think going Canon is the best bet.
post #37 of 41
i just got a 450D for my birthday just the other day, not really played with it much but it has more features than i will ever use

WTFH i need a lesson on the 21st

besides friends don't let friends shoot nikon
post #38 of 41
i thought I would jump into this thread because I have some experience. I've owned three canon DSLR's and now have a 1D MIII and will be picking up a 5D MII for work. The Canon 1D series is weatherproofed (not waterproof) against mild rain and dust, whereas the prosumer series 40D, 50D and I believe the 5D is not.

My copy of the 1D MIII has amazingly fast and accurate auto-focus and I can't wait to try it out on the hill. The only problem is the weight. It's far superior to the 40D for autofocus speed. For skiing, fast autofucus and accurate tracking would be a must.

I also have a variety of lenses, including a 70-20 f2.8, Sigma 120-300 f2.8, 85mm 1.8 and some wide zooms. Again, weight is a problem.

For action sports shots (skiing) the autofocus button should be selected independent of the exposure lock. This is done by programming the star button on the Canon body (for 20D, 40D etc.). The 1D MIII has a separate autofocus button.

The 1D MIII has amazingly fast focus and low noise in poor light conditions, such as hockey rinks, where I take most of my shots. The noise issue will be less of a concern on the ski hill.
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by CEM View Post
i just got a 450D for my birthday just the other day, not really played with it much but it has more features than i will ever use

WTFH i need a lesson on the 21st
Lesson from me? Those are pretty expensive. They retail at around £220, excluding footbeds...

(no problem, bring it round to mine and I'll give you a run through)
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by actionshots View Post
I've owned three canon DSLR's and now have a 1D MIII and will be picking up a 5D MII for work. The Canon 1D series is weatherproofed (not waterproof) against mild rain and dust, whereas the prosumer series 40D, 50D and I believe the 5D is not.
You're right about the 5D not being sealed.
Oh, and I hate you for getting a 5DII.
Read a review of it on a link on Flickr - looks great! ( http://digitalprotalk.blogspot.com/2...ours-with.html )
post #41 of 41
Hi-

Do not have any specific ideas re: cameras but wanted to pass along what I think is a wonderful, easy to understand website about DSLR cameras- it is put out by a person named Chris and it is able to be accessed if you type in Digital SLR Guide. Hope it helps-

Jan
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: