Steve'sDigicams

clarkaim · Jul 26, 2006, 9:11 PM

New to dSLR's, was into film stuff back in college (still got my old FE-2's, not worth much anymore I recently discovered, blaaaahhh!) Anyway, what I have is one of those "is it too good to be true questions", specifically about an online vendor BEST PRICE CAMERAS.COM. On this site is an unbelievable price on a Nikon D200 that makes it more attractive to me financially and is tending to supersede my initial choice of a D70s. But like they say, if its too good to be true, it isn't true, generally anyway.

So, does anyone have any knowledge of these guys and if I buy a D200 w/ the 18-70mm dx lens for x price, what will I experience? Your advice is appreciated and am looking forward to participating in this forum community. Thanks, Clark

Log · Jul 26, 2006, 9:28 PM

dont be fooled by low prices... they might be enticing and make you want to chance it but have a t look at this... http://www.resellerratings.com/seller8754.html

-Logan

clarkaim · Jul 26, 2006, 11:46 PM

thanks. Checked it out, man it's a scam for sure. I guess you it's true about too good to be true. Back to the hunt.

Andrew Waters · Jul 27, 2006, 2:47 AM

If a 30D and D200 have similar production at higher ISOs what makes an Olympus 330 not have the same performance at those higher ISOs? Is the sensor in the 330 inferior or are there other things to look for, i.e., lens, firmware(?) Any help will be appreciated.

clarkaim · Jul 27, 2006, 9:10 PM

Got the D70s today, sort of. Well, I bought the kit today, got home and found no camera in the box. Turns out the girl gave me the box for the display on thet shelf. My wife was shopping in the area and stopped and picked this camera up. Would ya'll keep this one (paid full price, no display discount) and try to get something out of mgr. when he comes in or take it back in the a.m. and exchange for an untouched one. I haven't seen it yet other than playing with it the other day, and my wife will be home any minute. If there is even a tiny scuff, back it goes, but if it's in mint shape, being that it is a display model, should I try and wiggle a tripod or a camera back or soemthing? Please advise.

Log · Jul 27, 2006, 10:37 PM

Andrew Waters wrote:

Quote:

If a 30D and D200 have similar production at higher ISOs what makes an Olympus 330 not have the same performance at those higher ISOs? Is the sensor in the 330 inferior or are there other things to look for, i.e., lens, firmware(?) Any help will be appreciated.

smaller censor which means more pixels crammed in a smaller space

Andrew Waters · Jul 28, 2006, 1:01 AM

Log said, ''smaller censor which means more pixels crammed in a smaller space.''

The reason I asked is as a first time buyer of a digital slr (not yet)I was looking at the L1 more so than anything else because of the appearance and ''oldtime feel,'' i.e. shutter speeds, aperture ring, etc.

So what I'm getting from your comment is there is nothing Panasonic engineers can do to make the image quality on a level with the 30D or D200 at all ISO levelsbecause of the L1's smaller sensor? Because if Panasonic can't do the image quality thing then I may well look at something else.

Thank you. :-)

stowaway7 · Jul 28, 2006, 5:25 AM

To Andrew...don't fall into the megapixil trap. If more pixils crammed into a smaller space always meant less quality would camera makers like Nikon, Canon, etc. continue to use the APS-C size sensor and keep introducing models with 4, then 6, than 8, than 10 MP? The Nilon D-70 and D-200 both usean APS-C size sensor but the D70 has 6.1 MP while the D200 has 10.2 MP. Is the D200 less quality? Not so according to the rewiews. Lots of other factors at work here.

peripatetic · Jul 28, 2006, 5:32 AM

Yes, exactly...

At a given level of technology the bigger the pixel the better, but the technology keeps changing.

There are of course things that can't change - like the wavelength of visible light, and we are in those realms with the smaller pixel sites. Also diffraction limitations and their effect on minimum usable f-stops and so on.

But basically the performance from current 6-micron sites is as good as the 9-micron sites of3 years ago. Some observers think this will keep going till around the 4-5 micron level. It's very difficult to predict. It will be very interesting for example to see whether Fuji could perhaps put their wonderful technology into a 4/3 sensor for their future SLR systems. They are doing impressive stuff at ISO3200 with 2.5 micron pixels so how good could they be at 4 or 5??

The only way to tell is to wait for the detailed reviews and tests of particular products, thinkabout the resolution you need and adjust accordingly. There are a LOT of variables. TheOlympus and coming Leica lenses are very good - so what's better?A Leica lens with a 5 micron camera or a cheaper lens on a 6micron camera because you spent more on the body? Do you want 6 Mp or 10Mp? How much do you crop? How big do you print? Where do you get your bragging rights from?

The 4/3 system and APS-C are both very much in the realm of giving the quality that 35mm film used to give. Is that good enough or do you want medium-format quality?

slipe · Jul 28, 2006, 6:11 AM

Other than economics of scale has anyone heard a reason why full 35mm sized sensors are so expensive? The cost of the materials can't be that large a factor and it seems they would be easier to manufacture with less miniaturization. The way to go up in pixels would be to go to the 35mm sized sensor. Most lenses seem to be made for them anyway.

10Mp isn't really enough to adequately support a relatively inexpensive consumer wide format photo printer. I've been considering a larger pro unit, but it would be a waste of money without more pixels. A Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II would be about right but 7 grand is a little over my budget. Which brings me back to my question – why is the larger sensor so expensive?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Jul 26, 2006, 9:11 PM	#1
clarkaim Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 9	New to dSLR's, was into film stuff back in college (still got my old FE-2's, not worth much anymore I recently discovered, blaaaahhh!) Anyway, what I have is one of those "is it too good to be true questions", specifically about an online vendor BEST PRICE CAMERAS.COM. On this site is an unbelievable price on a Nikon D200 that makes it more attractive to me financially and is tending to supersede my initial choice of a D70s. But like they say, if its too good to be true, it isn't true, generally anyway. So, does anyone have any knowledge of these guys and if I buy a D200 w/ the 18-70mm dx lens for x price, what will I experience? Your advice is appreciated and am looking forward to participating in this forum community. Thanks, Clark

Jul 26, 2006, 9:28 PM	#2
Log Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 394	dont be fooled by low prices... they might be enticing and make you want to chance it but have a t look at this... http://www.resellerratings.com/seller8754.html -Logan

Jul 26, 2006, 11:46 PM	#3
clarkaim Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 9	thanks. Checked it out, man it's a scam for sure. I guess you it's true about too good to be true. Back to the hunt.

Jul 27, 2006, 2:47 AM	#4
Andrew Waters Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 267	If a 30D and D200 have similar production at higher ISOs what makes an Olympus 330 not have the same performance at those higher ISOs? Is the sensor in the 330 inferior or are there other things to look for, i.e., lens, firmware(?) Any help will be appreciated.

Jul 27, 2006, 9:10 PM	#5
clarkaim Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 9	Got the D70s today, sort of. Well, I bought the kit today, got home and found no camera in the box. Turns out the girl gave me the box for the display on thet shelf. My wife was shopping in the area and stopped and picked this camera up. Would ya'll keep this one (paid full price, no display discount) and try to get something out of mgr. when he comes in or take it back in the a.m. and exchange for an untouched one. I haven't seen it yet other than playing with it the other day, and my wife will be home any minute. If there is even a tiny scuff, back it goes, but if it's in mint shape, being that it is a display model, should I try and wiggle a tripod or a camera back or soemthing? Please advise.

Jul 28, 2006, 1:01 AM	#7
Andrew Waters Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 267	Log said, ''smaller censor which means more pixels crammed in a smaller space.'' The reason I asked is as a first time buyer of a digital slr (not yet)I was looking at the L1 more so than anything else because of the appearance and ''oldtime feel,'' i.e. shutter speeds, aperture ring, etc. So what I'm getting from your comment is there is nothing Panasonic engineers can do to make the image quality on a level with the 30D or D200 at all ISO levelsbecause of the L1's smaller sensor? Because if Panasonic can't do the image quality thing then I may well look at something else. Thank you. :-)

Jul 28, 2006, 5:25 AM	#8
stowaway7 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 183	To Andrew...don't fall into the megapixil trap. If more pixils crammed into a smaller space always meant less quality would camera makers like Nikon, Canon, etc. continue to use the APS-C size sensor and keep introducing models with 4, then 6, than 8, than 10 MP? The Nilon D-70 and D-200 both usean APS-C size sensor but the D70 has 6.1 MP while the D200 has 10.2 MP. Is the D200 less quality? Not so according to the rewiews. Lots of other factors at work here.

Jul 28, 2006, 5:32 AM	#9
peripatetic Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,599	Yes, exactly... At a given level of technology the bigger the pixel the better, but the technology keeps changing. There are of course things that can't change - like the wavelength of visible light, and we are in those realms with the smaller pixel sites. Also diffraction limitations and their effect on minimum usable f-stops and so on. But basically the performance from current 6-micron sites is as good as the 9-micron sites of3 years ago. Some observers think this will keep going till around the 4-5 micron level. It's very difficult to predict. It will be very interesting for example to see whether Fuji could perhaps put their wonderful technology into a 4/3 sensor for their future SLR systems. They are doing impressive stuff at ISO3200 with 2.5 micron pixels so how good could they be at 4 or 5?? The only way to tell is to wait for the detailed reviews and tests of particular products, thinkabout the resolution you need and adjust accordingly. There are a LOT of variables. TheOlympus and coming Leica lenses are very good - so what's better?A Leica lens with a 5 micron camera or a cheaper lens on a 6micron camera because you spent more on the body? Do you want 6 Mp or 10Mp? How much do you crop? How big do you print? Where do you get your bragging rights from? The 4/3 system and APS-C are both very much in the realm of giving the quality that 35mm film used to give. Is that good enough or do you want medium-format quality?

Jul 28, 2006, 6:11 AM	#10
slipe Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL Posts: 4,036	Other than economics of scale has anyone heard a reason why full 35mm sized sensors are so expensive? The cost of the materials can't be that large a factor and it seems they would be easier to manufacture with less miniaturization. The way to go up in pixels would be to go to the 35mm sized sensor. Most lenses seem to be made for them anyway. 10Mp isn't really enough to adequately support a relatively inexpensive consumer wide format photo printer. I've been considering a larger pro unit, but it would be a waste of money without more pixels. A Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II would be about right but 7 grand is a little over my budget. Which brings me back to my question – why is the larger sensor so expensive?