[Recovered Thread: 103882]

[BenjaminXYZ]

schatham,

If I would you, I wouldn't bother about the ISO 3200 feature. To me, it is just likeanother "digital zoom" feature to me. I would personally read reviews and find out the true high ISO performance of the individual cameras (Quality issue). I personally like to read reviews to judge high ISO performance because reviews have proper facilities to test the cameras out: (They also know how to be more accurate). If you are lucky, they will also perform a side by side comparison with cameras's of the same range. Generally it gives you an overview of what to expect from the cameras. I personally prefer such testing methods than "bring out a memory card and test it out at the store" kind of things; because your actions may vary, and the camera settings might vary...generally there just isn't enough time to carefully perform an accurate test. (Reviewers are probably paid to perform a professional job; and they have the time)

I can P.M. you some good review sites if you are interested.

In case if ISO 3200 isnecessaryfor you, I suggest you check out cameras like the EOS 20D or 30D as their ISO performance are very good in general. (Or else, there are some really great dSLRs out there with excellent ISO 1600 performance)

[BenjaminXYZ]

schatham, I would also like to advice you not to enter into the mega-pixel race. I think the companies have to come out with 10 MP cameras for the sake of catching up with the competitions when actually anything from 5 MP and above is already good enough (For the average user). The idea of cramming in more pixelson a image sensor with similer dimensions is a bad idea from what I know, that is why small sensor formats generally have worse high ISO performance or I.Q. in general. I personally find my 8 MP digicam overkill for what I am doing, bigger MP just takes up more storage spaces and also takes up memory card spaces in your camera. (Unless you budget for a really big capacity one)

Keep in mind that cameras with higher MP counts is going to be more expensive in general because they areoften thenewest and having the latest technologies. If you don't need the extra MP, I advice you not to spend on it. Some pros even state that there are little differences between 6 - 8 - 10 MP. You need to consider your print size.


In conclusion, youneed to ask yourself whether you really need the extraM.P. (Because theycome at a price)

[zygh]

schatham wrote:

However, I have heard that Sigmas and the Nikon Digitals don't get along well - something about them getting stuck and not released is what I have read.

Not true.I haveused 3 Sigma lenses on the Nikon D50 and they've all performed flawlessly. I, for one, heard that the Sigmas had a compatibility issue with the Canons. I think I read that somewhere at photozone.de.

schatham, I think that best bang for the buck (as they say in theWild West) right now are the D50, K100D, K10D and the 400D. If I was to choose for myself I would definetely go for the K10D. But, you should definetely take a look at the Nikons. They are well known for their excellent ergonomics. Specs aren't everything. It is also important to be able to have quick access to the camera's features. Regarding that, the D80, I think, is a wonderful choice if you look at ergonomy, autofocusing and flash technology (all three, best in the business).

[schatham]

BenjaminXYZ:

I am always interested in good review sites - please forward them if possible.

Thanks,

SC

[schatham]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

schatham, I would also like to advice you not to enter into the mega-pixel race. I think the companies have to come out with 10 MP cameras for the sake of catching up with the competitions when actually anything from 5 MP and above is already good enough (For the average user). The idea of cramming in more pixelson a image sensor with similer dimensions is a bad idea from what I know, that is why small sensor formats generally have worse high ISO performance or I.Q. in general. I personally find my 8 MP digicam overkill for what I am doing, bigger MP just takes up more storage spaces and also takes up memory card spaces in your camera. (Unless you budget for a really big capacity one)

Keep in mind that cameras with higher MP counts is going to be more expensive in general because they areoften thenewest and having the latest technologies. If you don't need the extra MP, I advice you not to spend on it. Some pros even state that there are little differences between 6 - 8 - 10 MP. You need to consider your print size.


In conclusion, youneed to ask yourself whether you really need the extraM.P. (Because theycome at a price)

I generally would use it to get 5x7 or 8x10 prints from. Occasionally, I would do poster-size prints (I have a poster of Baltimore's Camden Yards from a baseball game there in the 90's). I also have some poster-sized prints (22"x28") I've made at concerts and the like.

The picture below:

I had put into 5x7 prints. (These were Nikon FE with 70-210mm zoom and 800 ISO film).

In some of these venues, I can live with some grain in the print, but don't want a lot.
I had been planning to buy a 1 or 2 gig card with whatever I purchased.

I've been doing fine mostly with my 4 megapixel HP 850 Photosmart, but it's just a point-and-shoot battery eater. Fine for what it's good for, but ill suited to be the type of camera I would like.

The Pentax K100D and K110D are 6 megapixel cameras, the K10D and Nikon D80 are 10 megapixel cameras. Only the K10D has Image stabilization at that level. When moving from the K100D to the K10D, you gain 4MP but lose ISO3200. There's also a $300-$400 price jump between them, too.

Realistically, what size print can you get out of a 6MP camera vs an 8 or a 10MP, say at ISO 100, 400, 800, 1600 (and 3200)?

[BenjaminXYZ]

Realistically, what size print can you get out of a 6MP camera vs an 8 or a 10MP, say at ISO 100, 400, 800, 1600 (and 3200)?

Perhaps I should leave this question for those who had the experience withthe 6 MP, 8 MP,and 10 MP cameras.

Anyway;

A camera with good high ISO performance willproduce images thatwill look great even at 100%. (However,this isusuallysubjective)

I personally think that the images captured by the 6 MP Nikon D70s at ISO 1600 looks great even at 100% due to the great definition and crispness (Per-pixel-sharpness).

The type of quality level that deems satisfactory is subjective for every individual. (As far as I can see)

The Pentax K100D and K110D are 6 megapixel cameras, the K10D and Nikon D80 are 10 megapixel cameras. Only the K10D has Image stabilization at that level. When moving from the K100D to the K10D, you gain 4MP but lose ISO3200. There's also a $300-$400 price jump between them, too.

Don't forget that the SONY A100 also have build in A.S., and it comes cheaper than the Nikon D80 and the "to be here" Pentax K10D.

The reason why the K10D lose the ISO 3200 is because natively, the high ISO performance of the 10 MP CCD is lower than the 6 MP CCD; which hasthelarger photo sites (pixels). Any form of ISO3200 on a 10 MP CCD is only ISO boost "Like digital zoom" (Get the idea? )

As an aside: Also remember that if any 10 MP CCD shoots images that looks cleaner at higher ISO than the 6 MP counterparts; itis "by the works of N.R. (noise reduction)" that usually destroy image details, create noise reduction artifacts, and soften the image.

Yeah, and still keep in mind that the higher MP cameras will tend to cost more; as they will be the hottest things out there the consumer will be looking out for.

I generally would use it to get 5x7 or 8x10 prints from. Occasionally, I would do poster-size prints (I have a poster of Baltimore's Camden Yards from a baseball game there in the 90's). I also have some poster-sized prints (22"x28") I've made at concerts and the like.

Maybe someone should suggest to you the optimal amount ofmega-pixels that you will need for your criteria.

Good luck.

[tmoreau]

Realistically, what size print can you get out of a 6MP camera vs an 8 or a 10MP, say at ISO 100, 400, 800, 1600 (and 3200)?

Well, I can say that I have made many 8x10 prints from my 6mp minolta DSLR's and they are great. Not much room at all for improvement in resolution. I printed one 11x14 from my old 5mp A1 and it looked pretty good, I've also seen some 24x36 prints from 6mp slr's that looked really good but I wasnt able to examine them up close.

Well exposed 6mp images made with a good camera and a good lens (all important points) enlarge pretty well, generally as good as 35mm film, but if your []imain[/i] intent is big enlargements you might want to dig a little deeper. As in, try it yourself by making a print from a sample image.

6mp is 3008x2000, 10mp is only a small step up at 3872x2592 (about 20% more pixels). At large print sizes I guess every bit helps, but the other 99% of the time... not so much.

300 pixels per inch is overkill for extremely good looking photos you can examine with a magnifying glass. 180ppi normally looks good at arms length, any less and you'll probably not want to get so close. Thats been my observations, though I have cropped and printed some 8x10's at 140ppi and they still looked good, but just lacked the 'pop' of the better images.

[PeterP]

Both the Canon EOS 20D and 30D offer ISO 3200 .
The expanded ISO feature has to be activated by a custom function setting.
Once activated it can be selected and displays as ISO:H
schatham wrote:

Of those Digitals listed above, only the Maxuum's and the Nikon D80 have ISO 3200 capability. What I don't like about the Maxuums is that they're 6 megapixel, and I have a 4 megapixel camera now - for the re-investment in a camera, I had wanted to get more of a "boost" in megapixel capability.

Of the cameras you are looking at quite a few are out of production or soon will be.

I am considering several, only one of which has the Image Stabliazation feature. The ones that I had considered were:
Canon EOS 350D Digital Rebel XT -- going out of production,replaced by 400D
Canon EOS 30D -- Replacement expectedsoon to keep pace/position with new 400D
Canon EOS 20D -- out of production, replaced by 30D
Pentax K10D *IS feature
Nikon D80

Those are just the ones I can find locally & get my hands on to see how I like the camera.

The others with IS
Sony DSLR A100
Panasonic Lumix DMCL1
Minolta Maxuum 5D -- No longer produced
Minolta Maxuum 7D -- No longer produced nowowned bySony

[rfortson]

PeterP wrote:

The others with IS
Sony DSLR A100
Panasonic Lumix DMCL1
Minolta Maxuum 5D -- No longer produced
Minolta Maxuum 7D -- No longer produced nowowned bySony

You forgot the K100D. It's a new model, and should be around for a little while (given the normal "lifespan" of a digital camera model).

[PeterP]

True, but the K100D is 6.1mp, I think it will have a hard time selling against the 10.2mp K10D. So IMHO I don't think it will last long, even though I personally think 6mp is more than enough for most peoples requirements.

rfortson wrote

You forgot the K100D. It's a new model, and should be around for a little while (given the normal "lifespan" of a digital camera model).