Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Nikon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 9, 2002, 1:11 AM   #31
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 14
Default

Hey is that true

..."because the CCD is so physically small on point and shoot camera’s, you’re depth of field pretty much looks like you only have the one aperture settings (permanently in F22..."

I thought that Nikon digital cameras employed a 'real' diaphram for 'true depth of field'.
Lozlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 9, 2002, 5:55 AM   #32
PDC
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2
Default

"this stuff about free tele on the dSLRs is nonsense. If that is you belief, just crop your fil miages and voila ... a 50mm lens is a zoom tele.

Similarly, there is simply no way a low pixel count (6mp is very low) can rival film.''



Whether it's genuine tele or not, the fact is I don't have to crop and I still have a 6 megapixel image which would have taken a lens with 50% more magnification on a 135 sized CCD or FILM.

Buddy, how often do you look at your pictures with a microscope?

Most people couldn't care less how much better film is. Ask yourself simply 'Is it good enough' for what I need it for.

Hey, I also have an F5. By the time I take that shot on film, have it processed, have it scanned for publication etc, do we end up with a better image than would have come out of a DSLR? .......Possibly

But you'll need that microscope again.
PDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2002, 12:45 AM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

I do not see your point. If you think you are gtting a free tele, good luck! If you want even more tele effect, try a view camera lens on your SLR (LOL).

As for the microscope issue, I am certianly not pushing the need for ultr high resolution, I too ma imoressed what SW can do with low res (e.g. 6mp) images. OTOH, follwoing your reasoning ... your 35mm 100mm lens should be a 200mm tele ... juust crop and you will still have >6mpix grins.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 10, 2002, 10:32 AM   #34
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 71
Default

There is no "free tele". It is a crop factor, that has been improperly called a tele factor. It is just a way to equate the lens focal length to the actual CCD size (approx. 66% of a 35mm frame).

As for future value and obsolescence, anything you buy becomes obsolete once the next generation arrives. Its the nature of technology. Does that mean its stops working? No. Trade in value is ALWAYS low, unless the item is rare or exceptional. Its why I never trade in old equipment. It still works. I personally do not plan on buying a D200 when it comes out. Why? My D100 still works!

Is 6 mp low? If so, then what is 4 mp, 3 mp, and 2.1 mp? Lower, very low and super low? If this is true, then why did we bother buying any of them. I guess it comes down to what you are used to. I was used to 2.1 mp. I like 6 mp much better.

It comes down to this:
If you always wait for something better, you will always be waiting and never having.

[Edited on 9-10-2002 by JoeSlotz]
JoeSlotz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2002, 12:44 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

Joe,

I think you have missed a lot of the thread. Of course the dSLR chip size means cropping ... that is the point. The BS that one gets free tele is ...bs.

On obscolescence, I do not agree. My 20 yo Nikkormats are perfectly adequate cameras today. In contrast my 1mpix and 2mpix cams are not. There is an issue of minimla technology.

a less-than full frame dSLR is not yet at the minimum sweet spot where, it least for me, it amkes sense to buy one because I KNOW I will want the full frame machine once it is here. OTOH, I am happy at 5-6mp and really owuld not buy a new camera just to get more oixels.

I expect to keep and be happy with my CP5700 for at least three or four years because I see this as being close to the end of the rposumer design phase. Yeh the 5710 will have a focussing ring, an on center tripid slot, smaller f stops and a free pass to the movies, but.....
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 11, 2002, 9:23 AM   #36
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 71
Default

Not to argue, but the point of the thread is D100 vs 5700. On that point we are both off track. But...

The cropping factor can be considered a problem or a feature. It depends on your point of view. For tele fans, its good. For wide angle users, its not. Is it something to be considered when purchasing? Of course. Will there be an affordable, full frame DSLR? Yes. When? My guess is within a year if not sooner. Will I be buying one? No.

As for obsolescence, I can agree on minimal technology. 1 mp cameras are done. 2.1 mp is about the bottom now. But with that said, how long is it before film, your Nikkormats and my N70 are obsolete? IMHO, some time soon.

I too, will be happy with my DSLR (D100) for some time to come.

Which one to buy now? It depends on what you want and what you want to spend. Both are good choices.

Happy hunting,
JoeSlotz
JoeSlotz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2002, 9:11 AM   #37
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9
Default Some are saying the CP5700 IS a DSLR

So I'm here to ask, is it, or isn't it? I also want add that I've had a D1x for as long as they've been out, and primarily use it as a P&S camera, (w/6 lenses). That said, I'm looking forward to the arrival of my 5700, so I don't have to lug around all that heavy equipment just to take a few shots of my kid playing soccer, or an interesting bug in the garden. comments?
Shy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 12, 2002, 11:09 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 298
Default

The issue is semantic. The 5700 is a through the lens camera uisng an electronic viewfinder.

I agree with oyu on the all in one issue and the size issue.
Steves is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2002, 9:12 PM   #39
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9
Default Same shots taken w/5700 @280mm and D1x @200mm

First shot is w/5700. Will post pic taken wD1x right afterwords. These were taken from about 130ft away on my deck this afternoon. With the 1.5 multiplier, the D1x shot is only marginally bigger, but a TON heavier! Frankly, I'm amazed. Not selling off the D1x anytime soon though.
Shy1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2002, 9:16 PM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9
Default This is same shot from the D1x

It's only slightly larger, and I did have to adjust the color a little. It was a tad greenish.
Shy1 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pro's & Con's - D100 v's 5700 (went with the 5700) Mollyman General Discussion 7 Dec 25, 2003 9:12 PM
Nikon Coolpix 5700 vs. Minolta A1 III: Macro shene Nikon 1 Dec 9, 2003 10:38 AM
Minolta A1 vs. Nikon 5700 III: Macro shene Konica Minolta 0 Dec 8, 2003 12:59 PM
Nikon 5700 vs Minolta A1 II: Converter Lenses shene Nikon 0 Dec 4, 2003 10:31 AM
Minolta A1 vs Nikon 5700 II: Lens Converters shene Konica Minolta 0 Dec 4, 2003 10:29 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:43 AM.