Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 26, 2006, 9:11 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Default

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
clarkaim is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 26, 2006, 9:28 PM   #2
Log
Senior Member
 
Log's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 394
Default

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
Log is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2006, 11:46 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Default

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.
clarkaim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2006, 2:47 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 267
Default



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.
Andrew Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2006, 9:10 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 9
Default

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.
clarkaim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2006, 10:37 PM   #6
Log
Senior Member
 
Log's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 394
Default

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
Log is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 1:01 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 267
Default



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. :-)


Andrew Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 5:25 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 183
Default

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.


stowaway7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 5:32 AM   #9
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

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?





peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 28, 2006, 6:11 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

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?

slipe 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 4:33 PM.