[Recovered Thread: 77231]

[audioedge]

I agree with Robb. It seems that "go dSLR" is shouted to virtually anyone who comes to this forum asking for 'best camera in low light'. Obviously it is, but its also very pricey and quite technical to the novice.

To the OP, is it not possible to set up posed shots with your subject, allowing you to use tripod/longer exposure times? That may allow you to lower your initial camera costs and get added things like extra memory/battery/carry bag.

To peripatetic - those are great shots, thanks for posting them

[gobucks]

Is the 1.5x factor consistent for all DSLR's or just for the KM 5D in this instance? Also, is the 1.5x effectively cropping the width of the viewable area only or does this act also as a focal length multiplier? Is my lingo correct? Basically buying a 300mm telephoto lens would become a 450mm allowing for a closer shot? (I may be way off?!)

[JimC]

gobucks wrote:

Is the 1.5x factor consistent for all DSLR's or just for the KM 5D in this instance? )

DSLR models from Nikon, Pentax and Konica-Minolta use the same size sensor. In order to see how the angle of view compares with a 35mm camera, you need to multiply the focal length of a lens by 1.5x with these models (it's actually 1.53x but it's usually rounded to 1.5x).

For some current Canon Models like the Digital Rebel XT and EOS-20D, you need to multiply the focal length of a lens by 1.6x to see how they compare from an angle of view perspective to the same lens on a 35mm camera.

But, for some other models, this multpilier is different (because of larger or smaller sensors). For example, the mutliplier is 1.3x on the Canon EOS-1D Mark II. For the Canon EOS-5D and EOS-1DS Mark II, there is no multiplier (their senssors are the same size as 35mm film).

Olympus DSLR models use a 2x multipler (their Kodak sensors are smaller than most sensors used in DSLR models).

Also, is the 1.5x effectively cropping the width of the viewable area only or does this act also as a focal length multiplier?

It's a bit more complex than that, since you're not really cropping some lenses designed for digital.

If you were using the samefocal length lens on a model with a larger sensor or film size, you'd have a wider angle of view.

If you were using the same focal length lens on a model with a smaller sensor or film size, you'd have a narrower angle of view.

That's what the so called "crop factor" (a.k.a., "focal length" multiplier is good for -- so that users familiar with using a 35mm camera have a better understanding of how the angle of view compares, for agivenfocal length lens,when it's used on a DSLR with a smaller sensor.

Is my lingo correct? Basically buying a 300mm telephoto lens would become a 450mm allowing for a closer shot? (I may be way off?!)

For all practical purposes, yes (if you are comparing the angle of view for a lens to see how it would compare to a lens used on a 35mm camera).

But, the actual focal length does not change (it's 300mm no matter what camera it's used on). The angle of view is what changes with sensor or film size for a given focal length lens.

[Robb]

(Superfluous post removed. By the time my answer to gobucks' question appeared, JimC has already answered it. And of course, his answer was more complete and more accurate than mine!)

[tmoreau]

Robb wrote:

peripatetic wrote:

I've got to ask, as you genuinely serious about this? The noise is, admittedly, detectable. And anyone who has an unlimited budget is certainly entitled to spend thousands of dollars on the equipment that would produce an equivalent image with no visible noise. But I'd like to urge everyone to take a good look at the image in question and decide for yourself whether the noise is "horrible... dreadful".

And please, bear this in mind as you read other recommendations.

Excelent point, but honestly I would delete ANY picture I took with that much noise. I also just bought a 5D (got it a couple hours ago).

About lenses, the kit lens is a good buy (its useful and very cheap) even if its less than good indoors under low-light. I picked up a 50mm f1.7 prime and used it at ISO-1600 to snap this picture moments ago, in quite dim light. Im THRILLED with the performance of this camera so far.

[gobucks]

tmoreau, thanks for the pick. This gives me a great idea of the 5D's capabilities with that particular lens. I was looking at the 28mm and 35mm f/2.0 lenses, but for now, may go with a 50mm f/1.7 and add a wider lens later.

[tmoreau]

Due to the bargain price of the 50mm 1.7, its just plain hard to pass up.

The 50mm give a fairly narrow view around the house, but I just fired off over 500 some pictures (holy crap! This thing works faster than I though!) tonight and find that I can work around it. A fast 28mm prime is definatly on my wish list, like the sigma 28mm f1.8 for $250 at adorama.

[peripatetic]

Yes, actually I really am serious. I don't think that photo would produce an acceptable 4"x6" print, never mind an 8"x12".

You are 100% correct that people should make up their own minds about whether that much noise is acceptable or not.

The thing is, that I would regard that much noise as something I could live with if I only very occasionally needed to use ISO1600. As it happens I don't think that the noise the f10 displays is acceptable over ISO400.

But for gobucks he will likely need to use ISO1600 reasonably frequently, as I do.

Would I encourage someone to spend more than they can afford? Certainly not. But recommending a $1000 DSLR solution is not really the same thing as having an unlimited budget. The top Canon stuff costs $8,000 for just the body, I wasn't recommending a $20,000 solution.

So if $1,000 is within financial reach then I don't think it's a waste of money to spend it on something that's going to give a great deal of joy. I bought my DSLR to take better pictures of my baby, though it also happened to re-vitalise my interest in photography in general.

I know a lot of people who spend a great deal more on absolutely useless ventures. Fancy cars for example, when they live in cities and never go more than 20mph anyway. Who really needs more than 3 pairs of shoes? (mostly aimed at the ladies that one ) Don't even get me started on Golf (mostly aimed at gentlemen)! Anyone ever been to a Casino? Cigarettes?

Not everyone needs a DSLR, but I genuinely believe that for gobucks' purposes the waste would be to spend $300 on something that would give disappointing results with great frequency.

Robb wrote:

peripatetic wrote:

I've got to ask, as you genuinely serious about this? The noise is, admittedly, detectable. And anyone who has an unlimited budget is certainly entitled to spend thousands of dollars on the equipment that would produce an equivalent image with no visible noise. But I'd like to urge everyone to take a good look at the image in question and decide for yourself whether the noise is "horrible... dreadful".

And please, bear this in mind as you read other recommendations.

[rjseeney]

Robb wrote:

peripatetic wrote:

But I'd like to urge everyone to take a good look at the image in question and decide for yourself whether the noise is "horrible... dreadful".

And please, bear this in mind as you read other recommendations.

I would agree with Peri here. THe number one complaint on these boards is poor low light performance without a flash. Whether its high noise or blurry pics, this topic is the number source of disappointment concerning digital photography. Factor in the shutter lag of many P&S cameras, (especially the lower end in the price range) and these cameras are often barely functional under lowlight, indoor situations. Of course this is not true of all cameras, and one can do things such as adding a slave flash to improve your chances, but this adds another piece to the puzzle and limits the one positive in favor of these cameras, portability. This hobby is like any other hobby...it costs money, and the best recommendation is to get the best you can afford. In many cases, the best bet is a DSLR. And at the price the 5D and the Nikon D50 are, they are truly values that are hard to beat.

[JimC]

Something has come up that those looking at KM DSLR models need to be aware of:

Konica Minolta is withdrawing from the camera business (I did not know this was going to happen). That's a darn shame, since I've seen vendor reports that the 5D is "selling like hotcakes". IMO, it's the best DSLR you can buy in it's market niche (I got one myself).

Some assets are being transferred to Sony, who will be selling DSLR models that can use Maxxum Mount Lenses (I knew about the Sony branded DSLR models).

See our breaking news page for more details:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html#km-out