Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 29, 2006, 9:34 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

That's right NHL, no difference personally i think the all in ones is the best way to go, no carrying around a big suitcase filled with lenses...
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 1:33 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
:-)
-> Case in point the Sony DSC-R1 you mentioned is very contemporary indeed, and comes with a pretty fast Carl Zeiss 24-120 lens (just poor execution in the EVF department). This camera has a wider coverage than a cropped 17-40L on a 30D (and 10Mpixels to boot) for landscape - which might even fit In2Graphics shooting style better


There obviously aremany people who go out and buy DSLR's expecting an emmediate return in image quality compared to the digicam they were previously using. I say "obviously", becauseif you look long enough, there are many posts like this original message, and the one other example I linked to above. As I mentioned in my original reply, In2Graphics may just be better off shooting his digicam and savings the 30D and 17-40 money for his next computer.

Absolutely, in good light (and I've been on that same ledge on St. John a couple of times myself- hard to take a bad shot of Trunk Bay or Caneel Bay with much any camera, film or digital) and in situations where ISO 100 will do, digicams or DSLR's will be pretty much equals. Go on a trip though where you are shooting inside a cathedral, no flash allowed. and having to shoot at ISO 800 or 1600, or shooting something as common as your son's or daughter's band performance at a night footballgame where you need, at the minimum, ISO 400 or 800 and an f2.8 lens to come anywhere near stopping movement, just to mention a couple of examples,the results of the two types of cameras are not so equal.

Digital SLR users may be in the minority, heck, there maybe more camera phones out there than even point & shoot digicams, and there are times when digicams are more convenient to use, but that doesn't change the fact over a much wider set of conditions, the digital SLR will shoot rings around any digicam on the market today, which is why we see posts like this one- people recognize the shortcomings of digicams...what they don'tthink aboutis there is no free lunch with a digital SLR, either in the cost of the machine and lenses, or the time expense to learn how to use one right and then even more time in getting the images right afterwards. But then, I know you realize that, NHL. I doubt very seriously those fantastic images you post on this sitethat were shot with your Sigma 120-300/f2.8, a lens that may weigh more than my entire DSLR outfit,were straight from the camera with no post-processing.

http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/photos/33273790-L.jpg
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 1:53 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

All in one's are good, but they can't compete with DSLR period..
hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 2:32 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

One last comment, NHL, about the mention of Kodak digicams.....that's just one more example, along with cell phones,of what's going on with many people accepting convenience over any quality at all. Kodak digicams have horrible over compression ratios and their software assumes the user has not only no digital camera experience, but no computer experience either. Kodak may make and sella lot of digicams today, but they are hemorrhaging more money than most companies could ever afford to loseand stay in buisness, and even they won't be able to do that forever.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 5:51 AM   #15
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
... Go on a trip though where you are shooting inside a cathedral, no flash allowed. and having to shoot at ISO 800 or 1600, or shooting something as common as your son's or daughter's band performance at a night footballgame where you need, at the minimum, ISO 400 or 800 and an f2.8 lens to come anywhere near stopping movement, just to mention a couple of examples,the results of the two types of cameras are not so equal
I thought the Sony DSC-R1 has the larger APS-c sensor in the same family as the Nikon D200 -> So it's high ISO capabilty would be quite similar to any dSLR for this type of camera

-> Now add a Carl Zeiss 24-120 f/2.8-4.5 that's quite an all-in-one combo!
Actually I wouldn't mind buying one (the cost of any 1 good lens alone without the dSLR hassle). Now if Sony could use the Minolta expertise that they just acquired to transpose that A2's EVF over...
In fact the EVF help me see better in the dark, and it can even turn into a NVG in total darkness :idea:

: http://www.pbase.com/nhl/image/6095437/original
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 7:04 AM   #16
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
Kodak may make and sella lot of digicams today, but they are hemorrhaging more money than most companies could ever afford to loseand stay in buisness, and even they won't be able to do that forever.
True - But that will be a big lost for all of us, since they practically make the best camera sensors on the market... (and films)
-> Just check any medium format 'digital' back, theses are all true 16-bit capture devices with the full dynamic range of film that no other manufacturer can touch (including Canon's best)!!! :blah:

... and inventor of OLED which everyone will soon see behind all cameras
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 11:36 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

If forced to choose, I'm sure that most of us would choose our DSLR setups over a point n shoot, after all we've each spent thousands to get into the DSLR camp. NHL is rignt, so is Greg. The question is whether or not the original poster would be better served to continue using a digicamor by moving up to a DSLR. I think the biggest problem a lot of folks (those without a lot of SLR experience) is that they see a Nikon D50 on salefor $599 with lens verses an S3 or some other PS for $499. After reading and hearing about the quality of the photos taken with DSLRs, they decide that for a hundred bucks more, totake the better quality option, not realizing the cost in time and additional lenses it will take to make "better" pictures.

NHL, the 35 mm format is a quality compromise compared to larger format equipment. Our DSLR are too, whencompared tomedium bodies with digital backs. Unfortunately Canon is the only major old school camera maker showing a decent profit. Mayama(sp) is no longer making cameras.It would be a tremendous loss if Kodakwent under or stop making large format sensors.

No matter what the medium or equipment, the photgrapher is usually the primary reason for the quality or lack of quality in a particular photo. MHO Bill
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 11:47 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

NHL wrote:
Quote:
-> Just check any medium format 'digital' back, theses are all true 16-bit capture devices with the full dynamic range of film that no other manufacturer can touch (including Canon's best)!!! :blah:


Oh, I've checked them out. Problem is, for the money I need a new car more than one of those!

ThatKodak canproduce a product like thatand yet notdo any better than what they have for the regular consumer, you know, the people who in the pasthave boughtmost oftheir products- the ones that really made the Kodak name,speaks volumes for the quality of management and decision making at the head of Kodak. I am sure if Canon felt the need to or saw a decent market in it, they would produce a product like that and I haveno doubt it would best Kodak- problem is, Canon obviously knows better than Kodak where the profitable markets are-the percentage of people out there who can affordthose great digitalbacksare exponentially less than even the number of people who can afford a 1Ds-II.

Kodak has it all backwards- they need to make a quality product that can sell well at a decent profit marginso they can make enough money to afford to build things like those great sensors. Instead they flood the market withtons ofmediocre digicams that sell to first-time buyersbecause of the Kodak name, but not well enough to make the company any profit. I don't know if it's because theyhave no profit marginin any of their digicams or because theyhave way too much money sunk into development of too many new models all the time, but someone's got it all wrong at Kodak. The oneand only thing Kodak still has going for it is there are still so many people who simply eitherdon't know better than to buywhatKodak ispeddling or are happy with theconvenience and mediocre products of their consumer lines.IfKodak were to shut their doorstomorrow, the only people who would beout the legitimate opportunity to buy a new digital backwould be Michael Reichmann and 10-12 others.

Who wouldn't want a back like this:


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../valeo22.shtml

Problem is, $30,000 isalmost10times what I spent topurchase my entire DSLR outfit, and that only gets you the BACK. Now onto the body, lenses and accessories..... Just to keep this in line with the original discussion, I'm sure In2Graphics probably isn't interested in exploring this option, either.





Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 10:05 PM   #19
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
Problem is, $30,000 isalmost10times what I spent topurchase my entire DSLR outfit, and that only gets you the BACK. Now onto the body, lenses and accessories.....
Actually that article is quite old - For the same price it now comes as a kit with, but with the new Kodak's 39Mpixels instead!
http://www.pictureline.com/product.php?id=12900


This one is now priced very competitively to a 1Ds: http://www.hasselblad.com/products/l...mp;itemId=4103
So is the Mamiya: http://www.digitaldingus.com/preview...d/mamiyazd.php

-> This Sinar can even share existing Nikon 35mm lenses: :idea:
http://www.sinarbron.com/sinar/digital/mp1.php
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 30, 2006, 11:28 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,518
Default

It would be fun someday to be able to pick up a used 500CM outfit and be able to afford a digital back- that's probably the best chance I'll ever have to own such a beast, assuming the prices continue to fall. Unfortunately for Mamiya fans, now that they've decided to pull a Konica-Minolta on everyone, who knows if that outfit will ever actually hit the stores.

The H2 thing is still way above ever being an affordable outfit for someone like myself. Even at $30,000 for an outfit consisting of the body and a normal lens. It was a stretch when I bought the Olympus 7-14 zoom for $1,700.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:33 AM.