Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   [Recovered Thread: 98986] (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/%5Brecovered-thread-98986%5D-96643/)

BenjaminXYZ Jul 30, 2006 2:10 AM

Hi, this is my first post in here,

I have completely edited my original message due to the change of plans, so no more Sigma or Tamron lenses anymore.

I have planned to get the Nikon D50 with the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D prime lens. Is that a great idea? I like the fast F1.4 of it to be used in low light situations and for the shallow dept of field! Is this the ultimate choice for my budget of US $900 currently? (Or should I wait until the end of this year where my budget will be US $1000 plus) with perhapes some other alternative if this isn't the best (Fast and shallow of dept of field) choice?

I am worried that the missing dept of field button on the D50 is a great minus??? Should I get the Nikon D70s with theAF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8Dinstead??? (For my budget).


Post EDIT:

How about the Canon EOS 350D? I am also interested in that camera but since it is more costly than the D50, I might consider getting it with a different lens...

Are Nikon lenses compatible with Canon dSLRs??? I am planning to get the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8Dwith the Canon EOS 350D. (If it is possible). Help and advices will be most welcomed.

http://www.nikon.com.my/products/106...0_18D_01_s.jpg


I am looking for a fast lens (F2.8 or faster) and for the shallow dept of field as well. Currently for my budget, It seems to methat the Nikon F1.4 and F1.8lenses are the best deals out there, but I would like to know if I had missed anything OR should I wait until end of this year where my budget will be US$500 more. (But if this is the best combination now, I don't need to wait).









stowaway7 Jul 30, 2006 6:31 AM

In general one brands lenses are not directly compatible with another (there are specific exceptions) but Nikon to Canon, no.The electronics are quite different. While there are adapters floating around that allow use of one brands lenses on another it is usually at the expense of 1) a loss in maximum aperture (which is exactly what you say you don't want), 2) autofocus or 3) both. Lenses designed specifically for the camera you have (whether from the original manufacturer or aftermarket) will be your best choice.

As for the D50-D70 dilemma, it's simply features vs. price. Yes, you give up some "goodies" on the D50 but it's really a matter of what's important to you (I like the 2 control wheels on the D70...IMO it makes changing settings faster and easier, but that's just me).

Finally, I applaud your decision on the prime lens. It's a great way to better learn shot composition, having to move around to get your perspective rather than just zooming in and out. The first lens I chose for my E-1 (Olympus) was not one of the zooms but the 35mm macro which was a great "normal prime" lens and allowed me to play with macro as well.

mtclimber Jul 30, 2006 7:02 AM

Excellent post, stowaway-

Years ago, in leaner times, we had to make do with lees and learned a good deal in the process. Our feet did the zooming.

MT

rjseeney Jul 30, 2006 7:12 AM

The D50 is a fine camera. DOF preview is a feature that I used to use alot with SLR cameras, but I never use it with my DSLR's (a D70 and D50). DSLR viewfinders are a bit darker than traditional SLR camera's which make it very difficult to use unless the lens is completely open. Stopping down even a few stops leaves the viewfinder so too dark to make this function useful. Also the fact that you can review your shot right away on the LCD makes DOF preview a lot less useful....you're not wasting film if you don't get the look you want right away.

In terms of your lens choice, the f/1.4 is good, but I believe the f/1.8 is a much better deal. For under $100, you get as good as if not better optical quality, (as the f/1.4) is soft wide open), and only use 1/2 stop of light. DOF is quite slim at f 1.4, which makes it impractical to use in many situations. You could save some money and either pick up a flash (the SB600 is great, the SB800 is better), or maybe a zoom lens to give you more flexibility, or a wider prime as your 50mm becomes a 75mm after the 1.5x crop factor. You may find that a bit long for indoor use. A 35mm or even a 28mm will approximate the view that the 50mm would give on a traditional slr.

BenjaminXYZ Jul 30, 2006 9:21 AM

Thanks for the enlightenments!

I am quite lost now since I really did planned to get the Canon 350D with the Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D. :(That prime was impressive after I read a professional review of it. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 IIjust doesn't give me the confidence to go and get itfor the EOS 350D. :?The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM on the other hand is ridiculously overpriced and I still have to get the dSLR body maxing out at 900 USDs or wait (Until the end of this year!)! :shock:

On the other hand, if the dept of field preview button is not important to affect my photography, then the D50 would be simply great! (But the EOS 350D is beginning to attract me more in design, image quality, and DOF button + DOF mode on dial). I just need decent "within budget" Canon optics for it (Is there's any?). On the other hand, I can always go for the Nikon D70s with the Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D if my budgetwill allow it.

EOS 350D+a decent affordable prime glasswith 900 USD or

Nikon D70s/D50 + Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.8 D with 900 USD. On the other hand, if I forego the plan to get the D50 with the F1.4 50 mm nikkor prime, I can use the$$$ for a D70s with the 50 mm F1.8 prime nikkor. What do you think?



BTW, I am just starting out, so multiple lenses are not yet. :) Now I just want a sharp prime that is affordable and decent.








rjseeney Jul 30, 2006 11:18 AM

One thing you haven't mentioned is what type of images you will be shooting. Your subject matter plays an important role in what lenses you should choose. You also haven't mentioned what your skill level is. Providing this info will help others provide the correct recommendations.

peripatetic Jul 30, 2006 5:26 PM

Yeah 50mm * 1.5 or 1.6 = 75 or 80mm equivalent. That's really a short telephoto.

As your only lens it sounds like a bad idea to me, you really don't know what kind of photography you're going to like as you're (no disrespect intended) a complete beginner.

If you've got your heart set on starting with a prime then a lens in the 24-35mm range would be much better for you.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is very highly regarded.

Either the Nikon or the Canon will be fine. The DOF preview button is pretty much useless on the small viewfinder of the Canon. You think you need it, but you don't. I bet you'd never use it if you had it.

BenjaminXYZ Jul 31, 2006 3:38 AM

Code:

One thing you haven't mentioned is what type of images you will be shooting. Your subject matter plays an important role in what lenses you should choose. You also haven't mentioned what your skill level is. Providing this info will help others provide the correct recommendations.
I mostly shoot in this few categories;

landscapes, sceneries, buildings. (Generally far away shots).

Long (night) exposure shots for landscapes, lighted buildings, and macros (of stationary objects) as well. (Long exposure category).

I shoot indoors without flash most of the time and I use high ISO a lot. (Besides that, my shots are still blurred outsometimes). I will also be shooting concert shots and action shots in the near future (When the end of the year events come).

Finally, Iphotograph people and portraits and this is my new category that I plan to build uponin the long run.

I also have one last special category;

In my country, the sun is always very bright and I will always be encountering it when I leave for outdoor activities. My Sony DSC-N1 compact cannot handle such a bright situation when it has been set to F2.8 aperture since the 1/1000 max shutter is often not fast enough. So, I also shoot a lot in bright sunshines. :) In fact, generally all my shots will be affected save the nightime ortwilight ones.

I am a beginner. :dude:

Hope all this helps.

Code:

Yeah 50mm * 1.5 or 1.6 = 75 or 80mm equivalent. That's really a short telephoto.

As your only lens it sounds like a bad idea to me, you really don't know what kind of photography you're going to like as you're (no disrespect intended) a complete beginner.

If you've got your heart set on starting with a prime then a lens in the 24-35mm range would be much better for you.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is very highly regarded.

Either the Nikon or the Canon will be fine. The DOF preview button is pretty much useless on the small viewfinder of the Canon. You think you need it, but you don't. I bet you'd never use it if you had it.





Thanks for your advice. :)

My budget is currently set at $900 US. How will I manage the Sigma 30mm f1.4 with anx dSLR body? 8)

Thanks for informing me about the DOF button's usefulness. I think I should be able to go without it if it is so unecessary. (I innitially thought is was important).

Thanks once again and more advices would be most appreciated from all of you! Btw, if you need more infos about my criteria, feel free to ask. 8)



Regards.



Sorry: (Thread EDIT);

I just read a review of the Sigma AF 30mm f/1.4 EX HSM DC>>>

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_14/index.htm

It isn't so good what do you think? Considering that is cost a hefty $425.00 for me!

Wouldn't it be a better idea for me to get the Nikon D70s with the F1.8 Nikkor (50mm prime)? (It has a fairly positive review and great image quality>>> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_18/index.htm). I can get another lens by this year end if I pass my exam! :-)

Btw, I forgot to mention that I also capture images in B & W...some black and white filter effects would be nice! I also capture macros. (I am using the Sony N1).

I don't expect macros in the dSLR world without more $$$$s. However, I don't mind compromisingtowards the potrait range because I like the soft background focus (Like macros). Anyway, the Nikon D50 and D70s doesn't have B & W mode I think...talk about filters...

The OLYMPUS EVOLT E-500 dSLR and the Canon EOS 350D has B&W + B&W filters andtones etc...! Nonetheless, I like theD50 and D70sa lot. :cool:(DSC-R1?)























rjseeney Jul 31, 2006 5:23 AM

Honestly, I think you should get the 50mm f1.8 and supplament it with either the 18-55 or 18-70 zoom. For landscape and indoor shots, I think you will find just the 50mm a bit long. You definetly need a wider angle lens to handle the outdoor photography you mention. Even the 30mm would be a bit wide.

peripatetic Jul 31, 2006 7:23 AM

50mm is the wrong focal length for yourONLY lens unless you are very unusual in your photographic habits.

I agree with rjseeney

A cheap 50mm prime plus a cheap 18-55 kit lens would be a good selection to start with. If you can't afford both then get the kit lens first and save up for the 50mm prime.





BenjaminXYZ Jul 31, 2006 7:35 AM

Okay, thanks for all the help so far.

I might even consider the A100 with the kit lens who knows...

The kit lens of the EOS 350D is not acceptable for me and probably same for the one with the D50. (I would rather consider an R1 if I have to go for those).

The kit lens of the D70s is great but is quite above my budget combined with the D70s body (The D70s kit promo).

So I guess I just need to find decent lens for the EOS 350D, D50or the D70s.



Regards + thanks for the 50 mm lens advice. (Great advice that is!), I also guessed that 50 mm will be rather limiting.

peripatetic Aug 1, 2006 6:34 AM

B&W

If you're going to be a serious digital photographer you will be shooting RAW anddo your B&W conversion in photoshop.

It makes no difference whether the camera offers it as an option or not.

Kit Lenses

None of them are as bad as you think. The cheapest ones are all quite sharp and easily the best value-for-money lenses their respective manufacturers make. It is very easy to get caught up in internet commentators' statements on loop e.g. "The Canon kit lens is rubbish." If repeated often enough (and that one sure has been) then people who don't know any better (like yourself) will believe it.

If you decide you like one of the cameras more than the others then don't let a poor reputation of the kit lens put you off.

The best place to compare the lens performance in detail is photozone.de they have Imatest published results. There is very little to choose between them in general.

Learning curve

You can drive yourself crazy comparing one camera to another, and you seem to be going a long way down that path.

Whichever one you choose YOU will be the limiting factor for a long time to come, not the equipment.

Of course that doesn't help you choose a camera, but the message is "lighten up" whichever one you choose will be fine. Choosing the one you think is "coolest" is as good a method as any for the cameras you are looking at.



BenjaminXYZ Aug 1, 2006 7:35 AM

Code:

B&W

If you're going to be a serious digital photographer you will be shooting RAW anddo your B&W conversion in photoshop.

It makes no difference whether the camera offers it as an option or not.

Don't you think it is more fun to shoot B&W directly (Perhapes with filters)? I find the trill in doing so. :-)I "hardly" PP my photos in all honesty...(Maybe in future...). But I just like to shoot B&W images.

Code:

Kit Lenses

None of them are as bad as you think. The cheapest ones are all quite sharp and easily the best value-for-money lenses their respective manufacturers make. It is very easy to get caught up in internet commentators' statements on loop e.g. "The Canon kit lens is rubbish." If repeated often enough (and that one sure has been) then people who don't know any better (like yourself) will believe it.

If you decide you like one of the cameras more than the others then don't let a poor reputation of the kit lens put you off.

The best place to compare the lens performance in detail is photozone.de they have Imatest published results. There is very little to choose between them in general.

Thanks for the encouragement. :)

Code:

Learning curve

You can drive yourself crazy comparing one camera to another, and you seem to be going a long way down that path.

Whichever one you choose YOU will be the limiting factor for a long time to come, not the equipment.

Of course that doesn't help you choose a camera, but the message is "lighten up" whichever one you choose will be fine. Choosing the one you think is "coolest" is as good a method as any for the cameras you are looking at.

Maybe I was into it! :shock:It has already been like that for sometime. Perhapes I thought too hard about the cameras? Anyway, only time will tell which one will I choose. :-)

Currently now it is between the Olympus EVOLTE-500, Nikon D70s, Sony Alpha A100 (not so keen), and the CanonEOS 350D (Not so keen as well). I don't wish to miss mirror lock up...unless it is not so important. (But I capture plenty of long exposures...). :yawn:





tmoreau Aug 1, 2006 8:58 AM

Nikon D50, canon, pentax, it dosent matter one bit. Someday you might understand that, they all do the same things. Honestly, your being rediculous, stop stressing out and buy a camera that you like, there is very little difference between current entry-level dslr's (unless you have very specific needs).

Now for lenses, 50mm is not so good on a dslr. I would NOT use that as my only, or even primary lens. The f/1.8 versions are so cheap though, and give such good results, it's kinda silly to pass them up for that reason alone. They work well for portraits, though.

What you really need is a 24mm, 28mm, or 35mm lens. The f/2 versions are generally affordable, but the cost of a f/1.4 wide angle is astronomical. Sigma makes a 30mm f/1.4 for dslr's which is affordable and known for very good quality. They let a few bad ones out here and there in typical sigma fashion, but its nothing to worry about (buy from a real dealer with a return policy, not the hairy guy in a trenchcoat on the corner). Canon 35mm f/2 is only $220 at b&h. There are so many poor zoom lenses its silly, but there arent too many bad primes. Find an affordable one of the proper focal length, check reviews to make sure its not a bad apple, then buy it and never look back.

Some ideas (B&H prices):
Pentax K1100D Body only $520 or Nikon D50 body only $550
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 $430
Total < $1000

Canon rebel XT $650
Canon 35mm f/2 $230
Total < $900

Mirror lockup is probably most important with shutter speeds between 1 second and 1/60. Longer exposures 'even out' momentary vibrations, shorted exposures wont be affected. In other words, whichever features you camera has/does-not-have you will simply work around them. You'll be doing this even with $10,000 worth of equipment, money cant buy you happiness because gear does not solve your problems.

BenjaminXYZ Aug 1, 2006 9:25 AM

Code:

Some ideas (B&H prices):
Pentax K1100D Body only $520 or Nikon D50 body only $550
Sigma 30mm f/1.4 $430
Total < $1000





Ehh, do you meant the Pentax K100 or K110D??

Btw, sounds great with that nice Sigma lens:)

I just read a not so detailed review of the K100D. Iwasn't so impressed. (I will prefer a more professional dpreview like review).

Nikon D50 + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 = Answer

EOS 350D withatleast a sharp affordable lens will be great.Maybe I should consideryour combination.>>>

Canon rebel XT $650
Canon 35mm f/2 $230
Total < $900



Thanks.

EDIT: I read a review of the Canon 35mm f/2;a superior sharp lens with two very positive user reviews and a equally positive professional review. I think my choice is at hand IF the prices are correct (US $900 + lens)! :-):-):-)I'm almost ready...








tmoreau Aug 1, 2006 7:20 PM

Please be careful about canon, not anything to do with thier products.. but the users can get a little odd. There are plenty of normal photographers using canon, but it seems like the largest portion of gear-fanatics flock to them specifically. This has the effect of creating an online frenzy that will try to convince you to invest in massively expensive gear (or at least covet it), such as well known "L-Fever".

Pentax has the oposite effect. Pentax photographers may often have to turn thier camera around and read the label to remember what brand thier equipment is.

Just be aware of the trap so you dont fall for it! The canon 35mm f/1.4 L is $1200!!!

rjseeney Aug 1, 2006 7:48 PM

On a seperate post you mentioned you had decided on the Nikon D50. In this post you have wavered between two other bodies. Don't get caught up in the hype. You really need to handle all the cameras to figure out which one feels the best and is easiest for you to use. I also feel you need to rethink you're choice of going with just a prime lens. You expressed a desire to shoot landscapes and architecture. Even a 30mm is not wide enough to do this. Kit lenses get a bad rap that is completely undeserved. Sure they are not pro level and have some shortcomings, but then all lenses have some issues. Any flaws are likely not noticeable unless viewing at high magnification or large print sizes. Plus they are virtually given away with a body purchase and offer lots of flexibility. Primes have their place, primarily and portrait and macro photography, neither of which you mention as a priority.

Basically, be careful of all the reviews from users that you hear. Many don't have experience with all the various bodies and systems, and people tend to be fanatical about the gear they use.

peripatetic Aug 2, 2006 12:49 AM

Quote:

Please be careful about canon, not anything to do with thier products.. but the users can get a little odd. There are plenty of normal photographers using canon, but it seems like the largest portion of gear-fanatics flock to them specifically.
Well I use Canon.

And I am also a little odd, but I'm fairly sure the two are not related. :blah:

Canon has the majority of the DSLR market (70% or so), so it's not too surprising that the majority of nutters use Canon. The majority of all the groups use Canon. ;)

I have come across a fair number of nutters using the other brands too.

Consider that photography is essentially two slightly separate hobbies, one is about taking pictures and the other is about equipment.

It is quite possible to be very good at one and quite rubbish at the other. I met someone recently who had a bag full of Canon L lenses (probably about £3000 worth in all and his pictures were pretty awful). I also know a young lass who is using a cheap 35mm film camera and hers are fantastic, and another artist friend who uses a P&S Canon S80 and her pictures are amazing. Neither of those two girls have the slightest interest in the equipment side of photography. (Though they DO need to know about aperture and shutter speed focal length, and so on, a little technical knowledge is always necessary.)

By all means get wrapped up in the technical stuff, it's fun if you're interested, especially if you have a lot of money to spend. But it won't make you a good photographer. A good photograph is made from a combination of a good photographer and good equipment, both are necessary.

Once you have your camera though don't fall into the trap of testing your lenses and pixel-peeping, put your effort into taking pictures not testing cameras.

tmoreau Aug 2, 2006 7:29 AM

Quote:

Once you have your camera though don't fall into the trap of testing your lenses and pixel-peeping, put your effort into taking pictures not testing cameras."
Well said

BenjaminXYZ Aug 2, 2006 9:10 AM

Alright, thanksa lotfor all the useful comments you have all provided. I really appreciate them.

I am currently not in a hurry to buy my new dSLR since I will be using my own money for it. I will only have one chance to make the right choice and go for it, after that I won't be able to turn back whatsoever.

One thing is for sure;

I plan to get a constant F2.8 aperture zoom/wide angle lens at the end of this year when I pass my exam. Currently for me, the body (dSLR) is the most important consideration since "as I said earlier" I will only have one go and that's it; I won't be able to turn back anymore.

I figured out that if I could afford a dSLR body currently with enough photographicfeatures for the long run, I will be looking closely at it.

Features like a white balance fine tuning functionis important because I usually find myself in confusing lighting situation and need to tweak the WB properly (When the preset fails). Also Auto WB just doesn't handleconfusing lightingsproperly and to match my WBpreference. Custom point and shoot WB is great, but sometimes it will be better to tweak that too to getbetter preferredresults.

Next, I also need usable ISO 800 and ISO 1600 at least since I have recently begun to start shooting in low light situations containing actions and people. I know that most dSLRs have usable ISO 800 and ISO 1600. However, I will definitely need "Fully" usable ones in the sense that; they are still pleasant to look at and most importantly: good detail retention at all cost. (And my good really means good as in the Canons or certain Nikon dSLRs).

Thirdly, I prefer a dSLR with lower pixel count. I don't need anything above 8 mega-pixels at max. In fact, my max is actually 7 mega-pixels where the rest will be redundant for me. The best is 6 mega-pixels or lower since I capture a lot of photos and space could be a factor in the long run. I also experiment a lot at lower resolutions and usually keep most of the nice experiment shots, so a camera with higher resolutions will only be more redundant. Sometimes I wish I could buy the Nikon D1Hwith 2.7 million sensor photo detectors on a23.7 x 15.5 mm APS-Csensor! (Making the camera have higher performance overall):shock:Look at how clean and noise free it's images look with fantastic per pixel sharpness at 30 second long exposures (Without noise reduction). When I zoomed in onto the D1H'simages, I could clearly see their superb qualities. This is to demonstrate how "Unimportant mega-pixels are to me". I prefer quality anytime.

Finally, the camera must have a great build quality and robust design. I have bad experiences shooting on trips with my refine Sony N1 compact where it will get soiled easily and sensitive to contacts. Makes the camera awful IMO when I see dSLR owners shooting away with robustness and efficiency on tight situations. (Always ready for the shot). Controls must be at my fingertips and performance must be swift since I don't want to be waiting for the camera to respond in the mist of an action. (It has mostly been the case with my DSC-N1 compact).

I know this thread have the D50 dSLR title, but it was a cooincidence that it started on my mind first and I personally started building up from there. This seems to be the effective way to make me decide since it brought other capable dSLRs into the comparisons as well. However, now that I had stated my main criterias above, it should be clear which direction I will be taking. I don't mind starting out with any lens as long as it provides me withsharp images and with minimal optical issues since I will be planning for a main lens by year end. (This starter lens will only be temporary and as far as I can see, a prime seems to be the best choice).

I might be getting a Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD or similer lens by year end (If I pass my test)>>> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

Thanks for your reading time and regards. (Hope you understand the situation I'm currently in and sorry for being such a difficult newbie).

Bye!

EDIT: I wonder what is the difference in WB color temperature and WB fine tuning? I always hear about Kelvin WB and etc...just curious to know how useful it actually is.


Log Aug 2, 2006 9:54 AM

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:

Features like a white balance fine tuning functionis important because I usually find myself in confusing lighting situation and need to tweak the WB properly (When the preset fails). Also Auto WB just doesn't handleconfusing lightingsproperly and to match my WBpreference. Custom point and shoot WB is great, but sometimes it will be better to tweak that too to getbetter preferredresults.
Quote:

If you shoot in raw then there is no need to worry about white balance
Quote:

Next, I also need usable ISO 800 and ISO 1600 at least since I have recently begun to start shooting in low light situations containing actions and people. I know that most dSLRs have usable ISO 800 and ISO 1600. However, I will definitely need "Fully" usable ones in the sense that; they are still pleasant to look at and most importantly: good detail retention at all cost. (And my good really means good as in the Canons or certain Nikon dSLRs).
Quote:

I have a nikon d50 and even at ISO 1600 noise is not much of an issue... besides... noise isnt really an issue unless you have a crappy exposure
Quote:


Thirdly, I prefer a dSLR with lower pixel count. I don't need anything above 8 mega-pixels at max. In fact, my max is actually 7 mega-pixels where the rest will be redundant for me. The best is 6 mega-pixels or lower since I capture a lot of photos and space could be a factor in the long run. I also experiment a lot at lower resolutions and usually keep most of the nice experiment shots, so a camera with higher resolutions will only be more redundant. Sometimes I wish I could buy the Nikon D1Hwith 2.7 million sensor photo detectors on a23.7 x 15.5 mm APS-Csensor! (Making the camera have higher performance overall):shock:Look at how clean and noise free it's images look with fantastic per pixel sharpness at 30 second long exposures (Without noise reduction). When I zoomed in onto the D1H'simages, I could clearly see their superb qualities. This is to demonstrate how "Unimportant mega-pixels are to me". I prefer quality anytime.
Quote:

How large do you plan on printing these pictures?
Quote:


Finally, the camera must have a great build quality and robust design. I have bad experiences shooting on trips with my refine Sony N1 compact where it will get soiled easily and sensitive to contacts. Makes the camera awful IMO when I see dSLR owners shooting away with robustness and efficiency on tight situations. (Always ready for the shot). Controls must be at my fingertips and performance must be swift since I don't want to be waiting for the camera to respond in the mist of an action. (It has mostly been the case with my DSC-N1 compact).
Quote:

all DLSRs have great startup time and shutterlag... they are different amounts but so miniscule that you wont notice
Quote:


I know this thread have the D50 dSLR title, but it was a cooincidence that it started on my mind first and I personally started building up from there. This seems to be the effective way to make me decide since it brought other capable dSLRs into the comparisons as well. However, now that I had stated my main criterias above, it should be clear which direction I will be taking. I don't mind starting out with any lens as long as it provides me withsharp images and with minimal optical issues since I will be planning for a main lens by year end. (This starter lens will only be temporary and as far as I can see, a prime seems to be the best choice).
Quote:

but with a prime there is no flexibility... your wither not long enough or not wide enough... and as you said... your kind of a newbie... so you wont notice a big difference in glass wheter it be color rendition or contrast or sharpness... the kit lens (18-55 or the 18-70) would still be your best bet as said.
Quote:


I might be getting a Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD or similer lens by year end (If I pass my test)>>> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

Thanks for your reading time and regards. (Hope you understand the situation I'm currently in and sorry for being such a difficult newbie).

Bye!

EDIT: I wonder what is the difference in WB color temperature and WB fine tuning? I always hear about Kelvin WB and etc...just curious to know how useful it actually is.


tmoreau Aug 2, 2006 10:56 AM

I started using primes, and like it so much I sold all my zooms. My pictures got much better, and not because of the better glass. I dont understand zooms, I think they are a waste. Popular opinion these days seems to be that you HAVE to have a zoom, it bugs me. OTOH, you probably need two or three primes rather than just one, but there is no rule that says you need to start with everything or every focal length.

Just a dissenting opinion. (besides, he said he plans to buy a 17-50 zoom later)

BTW: I shoot raw and deal with white balance later. I'll set the camera to the nearest setting usually (tungsten, shade, daylight) just to have good habits in case I ever shoot jpg only. You'd have to work pretty hard to get it dialed in 'just right' in the field the way you can easily with raw.

BenjaminXYZ Aug 3, 2006 4:04 AM

Hello Log, the Nikon D50 is a great camera and I am not putting it down at all. In fact, it has the best dynamic range and noise free image in here and this is no kidding at all. Initially I selected it for a very good reason. Just see what the Nikon D50 canproduce with a good glass>>> http://img2.dpreview.com/gallery/nikond50_samples/originals/dsc_0273-raw-nc.jpg

Then you all might say "Why don'tyou go for it since it is so good???"

Alright, it isn't so easy here since I will be developing my skills over time and the camera will be the determining prime factor;

For example, if I get a camera without WB fine tuning, I will never learn how to usethat featureand when Iuse a camera that has it later on, I could never beefficient at using it if I need to. (This could degrade my overall performance). I noticed that a lot of skills have to start early and to developed over time (As you experience it), you cannot just suddenly learn it in a moment and then say "Okayyy, I've learned it"...Ittakesmuch more than that to be proficient at it. (Experience). So what does this say? If I need to sharpen up my photographic skills and knowledge today,it better start out with a camera that offers me a complete set of features for me to learn them over time.

Imagine in future whenI go to college andthe course teach me about WB fine tuning; if I had never used it before (Because I didn't have the feature), I might be saying "Nahh, I've neverused that feature before and I don't think I even need it" I will probably be close mindedtothat featureand thusmay end uplearning less since I won't be bothering to improve my skills on it. (Since there isn't even one). This is toindicate that; I will probably not know how useful a featurecan beuntil I can have one to experiment with. So it seems ratherrisky for me to get a camera today with cut features if my main intention is not to get a camera for retirement or relax period, but rather to get one for education purpose and to start out as a photo student. Thus, I still got much to learn wherebout you knowledgable ones are already capable to be dependent on any dSLRs. You have probably pass through the whole sequence and can afford to loosen up. I can predict that in the future when I had passed everything, I will also probably not be taking features like white balance fine tuning or ISO increments etc...seriously, not something I can't find my way round with my experience. ;)But for now with only a handful of experience, it will be better off for me to start properly with features that I will learn how to use (As I grow). I believe it will all pay off in the long run.

:-)

Code:

but with a prime there is no flexibility... your wither not long enough or not wide enough... and as you said... your kind of a newbie... so you wont notice a big difference in glass wheter it be color rendition or contrast or sharpness... the kit lens (18-55 or the 18-70) would still be your best bet as said.
Don't worry, I will be getting a proper zoom by year end. Currently a prime will do just fine ona new dSLR. It might even be a beneficial experience for me duringthe prime lens period of composing images. (I might even call myself a portrait photographer during the time I have the prime mounted on).Something I might take for granted if I have a zoom with me.

Code:

If you shoot in raw then there is no need to worry about white balance

I don't always PP my images and to be more honest; I haven't even started PP (Post processing) myimages yet and up to now, I still take the fullest advantage of the settings in my N1 digital camera. I don't plan to shoot RAW all the time with a dSLR becauseI will usually want to get everything correct out at the field and that is what I am currently learning to do. I will alsotry to depend as little on the PC as possible althoughI know I will still need to depend on it sometimes. (I will try to keep it at the minimal because I believe that my camera should be the primary image composer and its end results determiner), (Softwares are secondary to me). I will only shoot RAW for it's fullest quality potential on important occations.

BTW, I don't believe in using softwares to compensatefor the camera's shortcomings, the camera should be capable in the first place (For my case) e.g. depending on software for WB fine tuning orfor correcting noisy images etc...That's why for me, the camera should be having a less noisy image sensor and orWB fine tuning featurein the first place to depend less on the softwares. (There might be more examples).

All this are my 2 cents, thank you.

:D


















peripatetic Aug 3, 2006 4:19 AM

Quote:

And I don't plan to shoot RAW all the time with a dSLR. I will usually want to get everything correct out at the field and that is what I am currently learning to do. I will try to depend as little on the PC as possible. I know I will need to depend on it, but I will try to keep it at the minimal. (I believe that my camera should be the primary image composer and its end results). (Softwares secondary).

BTW, I don't believe in using software to compensatefor the camera's shortcomings. The camera should be capable in the first place (For my case) e.g. depending on software for WB fine tuning orfor correcting noisy images etc...That's why for me, the camera should be having a less noisy image sensor and orWB fine tuning featurein the first place to depend less on the softwares. (There might be more examples).

That's a lot like a film photographer saying:

"I will only ever use consumer-grade film and I will only ever use high-street labs. No "pro" film or darkroom for me. I plan on getting everything right out in the field."

You've really got the wrong end of the stick here. What do you think your camera is doing when it creates a JPG file? It's doing exactly what your PC will be doing - starting with a RAW capture and producing an output file; but it's being forced to do it in 0.2 seconds with a processor 1/100 as powerful.

Shouldn't need BW conversion? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

Shouldn't need WB setting? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

Shouldn't need Noise reduction? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

All you are doing by insisting it happens in-camera is taking creative control with and extremely powerful set of tools out of your hands and entrusting it to the camera to perform ina fraction of a second - if your camera can do 3fps then probably 90% of that time is required for writing to CF, so maybe the processing engine has to do its work in 1/20s - compared to a powerful PC processor having as much time as you're willing to let it.

By refusing to use the appropriate tools for digital image creation, of which the camera is only the first part you will be condemning yourself to far lower quality photographs.

If you're really set onyour approach I suggest you seriously consider using film.



BenjaminXYZ Aug 3, 2006 5:01 AM

Quote:

That's a lot like a film photographer saying:

"I will only ever use consumer-grade film and I will only ever use high-street labs. No "pro" film or darkroom for me. I plan on getting everything right out in the field."

You've really got the wrong end of the stick here. What do you think your camera is doing when it creates a JPG file? It's doing exactly what your PC will be doing - starting with a RAW capture and producing an output file; but it's being forced to do it in 0.2 seconds with a processor 1/100 as powerful.

Shouldn't need BW conversion? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

Shouldn't need WB setting? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

Shouldn't need Noise reduction? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

All you are doing by insisting it happens in-camera is taking creative control with and extremely powerful set of tools out of your hands and entrusting it to the camera to perform ina fraction of a second - if your camera can do 3fps then probably 90% of that time is required for writing to CF, so maybe the processing engine has to do its work in 1/20s - compared to a powerful PC processor having as much time as you're willing to let it.

By refusing to use the appropriate tools for digital image creation, of which the camera is only the first part you will be condemning yourself to far lower quality photographs.

If you're really set onyour approach I suggest you seriously consider using film.
Hi there, so what do you suggest me to do?

BTW, I have edited my message that is located in your quote. I will still shoot in RAW, but I won't be doing it very often since it takes up more space. And besides that, I don't planned to PPevery image. (One reason for capturing in RAW)

I heard that theRAW files needs the software to apply the settings, the files are generally neutral. (Thefilm negative equivalent)

But believe me, I will be mostly shooting in HQ JPEGs. After all, it will be a dSLR and results will be at the level. Most sites also compares the imagesat JPEG formats and cameras such as the EOS 350D has almost similar quality JPEGs as it's RAW equivalents.

Code:

You've really got the wrong end of the stick here. What do you think your camera is doing when it creates a JPG file? It's doing exactly what your PC will be doing - starting with a RAW capture and producing an output file; but it's being forced to do it in 0.2 seconds with a processor 1/100 as powerful.

Shouldn't need BW conversion? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

Shouldn't need WB setting? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

Shouldn't need Noise reduction? The camera is doing that anyway, with built-in "best guess" rules.

All you are doing by insisting it happens in-camera is taking creative control with and extremely powerful set of tools out of your hands and entrusting it to the camera to perform ina fraction of a second - if your camera can do 3fps then probably 90% of that time is required for writing to CF, so maybe the processing engine has to do its work in 1/20s - compared to a powerful PC processor having as much time as you're willing to let it.

But so far I see the cameras let alone the dSLRs doing itfine? (Exceptional for the Pentax IST seriesthat does JPEGs badly according to reviews). However, Most of the dSLRs produce superb JPEGs straightout of the camera? Examples: the EOS 350D, Nikon D70s, EOS 20D, Alpha A100 etc. At this current stage, I will be depending more on the camera than photo shop or other softwares. (I think it will be hard for me to suddenly change my current photographic lifestyle today). It all has to happen over time and I can start shooting right away with a capable dSLR and then slowly go towards that direction. (But it must all start somewhere.)





rjseeney Aug 3, 2006 5:20 AM

Nearly all DSLR images benefit from post work. DSLR's (even the entry level ones) tend to produce softer images which require sharpening. It seems strange that you're interested in having complete control of the camera in terms of features (ie white balance tuning), but will depend on the camera's engine on rendering most of the final image, as you're not interested in doing a lot of post work. Photoshop (or any other editor) is a powerful tool. By not using it, you're giving up alot of control. In fact by using it, you can do away with some equipment and features (wb tuning that you so desire, and many filters).

I can appreciate wanting to "get it right" in camera, but editing software is just a necessary part of serious digital photography. There isn't a pro out there who isn't using it on all of his/her images.

You're worried about being close minded in the future if you get a camera that's stripped down a bit or missing a feature or two, and that's understandable. But don't be close minded now, and listen to some of the advice you've been given.

BenjaminXYZ Aug 3, 2006 5:42 AM

Quote:

Code:

Nearly all DSLR images benefit from post work. DSLR's (even the entry level ones) tend to produce softer images which require sharpening. It seems strange that you're interested in having complete control of the camera in terms of features (ie white balance tuning), but will depend on the camera's engine on rendering most of the final image, as you're not interested in doing a lot of post work. Photoshop (or any other editor) is a powerful tool. By not using it, you're giving up alot of control. In fact by using it, you can do away with some equipment and features (wb tuning that you so desire, and many filters).

I can appreciate wanting to "get it right" in camera, but editing software is just a necessary part of serious digital photography. There isn't a pro out there who isn't using it on all of his/her images.

You're worried about being close minded in the future if you get a camera that's stripped down a bit or missing a feature or two, and that's understandable. But don't be close minded now, and listen to some of the advice you've been given.


Thanks for your advice rjseeney, I really appreciate them. Further advice will be welcome.

tmoreau Aug 3, 2006 8:27 AM

"I will be developing my skills over time and the camera will be the determining prime factor"

Absolutely, Positively, DEAD WRONG!

You want a basic camera. Manual exposure, Spot meter, and a lcd to review your histogram. Thats all.

Your really fooling yourself if you think you can learn anything about exposure using a matrix meter on program mode, shoving it around blindly with exposure compensation, setting continuous drive and predictive super-intelligence 96-point auto-focus. You need to do things for yourself if you have any hope of learning anything. It dosent take long to learn about focus, so then you can flip on autofocus and let the camera handle it. You know what its doing and how to spot when its been fooled. So on and so forth for all the fancy automation that comes in even the entry level DSLR's.

"because I will usually want to get everything correct out at the field and that is what I am
currently learning to do."

"BTW, I don't believe in using softwares to compensate for the camera's shortcomings"


Good luck. Glad you have the knowledge and expirience to advise us all on the right way to do things.

There are PLENTY of anecdotes of guys in corvettes and such having ther a** handed to them on a racetrack by someone in a slow 4-cylinder car. Why?

(Hint: they have no idea how to drive thier corvettes) The corvette is only a better tool if you know how to use it. But please, dont let us get in your way, you've obviously got it sorted out.


peripatetic Aug 3, 2006 9:06 AM

Quote:

Hi there, so what do you suggest me to do?
You need to learn about digital workflow.

Here's a starter workflow for you.

1. Set your camera in RAW mode.

2. Shoot. (say you do 250 photos in a day)

3. When you get home copy your photos onto your hard disk.

4. View the RAW files & select those you want to work on. (prob between 5-25 images)

5.Do RAWprocessing on those files: Convert, Sharpen, Crop, Clean, Noise, Levels, Colour, Sharpen, etc. Save.

6.Output - print or to web.

Now #5 is a big topic butautomation can be applied from almost total to almost none.

Sounds like a lot of work, and it can be, but it's only a small fraction of the equivalent you need to do with film.

Here are a couple of links to get you thinking, and google can find you a bunch of others..

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/te.../process.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...orkflow1.shtml



Software required:

1. A decent RAW converter. (Bibble light (free)will do or Photoshop Elements.)

2. A decent editing package. (Photoshop Elements will do, or I suppose GIMP if you have no money.)

3. A decent noise reduction program. (NeatImage has a free version.)

BenjaminXYZ Aug 3, 2006 10:01 AM

I have decided to go for the Nikon D70s >>> More or less confirmed.

I havedone a comparison with the DSC-R1, EVOLT E-500, EOS 20D (EOS 350D equivalent), D50, and the D70s at this very site itself. I compared the RAW files of the brick wall like building (With the chimney)and decided thatboth the D50 and D70swins off the list.

I decided to go for the D70s because it is better for me for the long term. I will plan to get it with the Nikon 50 mm F1.8 prime lens for the time being and then get a capable zoom lens later on (Probably at the end of this year).



In conclusion, I couldn't find another camera out there now (Including the Alpha A100) that is as balanced as the D70s in all areas (Including fully usable ISO range). I remember reading here somewhere>>> "Try to get all the cameras you mentionedinto one camera" Obviously that sounds impossible. However, it is actually possible if you take all the goodness of the selected cameras and try to see if you couldfit them allinto one particular model>>> E.G. (Example below):

Taking from the EOS 350D the superior image quality.

Taking from the Nikon D50, D70sand EOS 350Dthe great ISO performance (Fully usable ISO range).

Taking from the EVOLT E-500 the fantastic range of features. (Just need tocome close to).

Taking from the AlphaA100 and EVOLT E-500the superb LCD monitor. (Just need to come close).

Taking from the Nikon D50 the 2nd best dynamic range (Finepix S3 Pro is first with S & R pixels). (Just need to come close only).

Taking from the Nikon D70s and D50 the comfortable design. (Important for long term). (Will be researched).

Taking from the Nikon D70s and the DSC- R1 the great build quality. (As good as possible).

Taking the superior TTL viewfinder from the GX-1S. (Need to come close only)

Taking from the DSC-R1 the superb lens. (Sounds ridiculous, but dSLRs permits changeable lenses;) ).

Finally, taking the high ISO "Film like grain" (colorless) noise characteristic of the D70s at higher ISO. (Important for high ISO shooting). (Idislike chroma noises and chroma blotches or chroma molted appearance; especially noises from the red channel).

The Nikon D70s seems to fit this demanding list in quite a satisfactory manner >>>

It's images quality is around the EOS 350D's range since it is better than the EOS 300D's. The EOS 300D already win the Nikon D50 at IQ. (The rest comes close). I dislike the fact that the Alpha A100 need to use 10 MP just to "Slightly tip the competition". (No MP buster here allowed:D )

The D70s also have fully usable ISO range (With increments to select between the "00" values).

Though it doesn't have the EVOLT E-500's feature set, it is the one that comes the closest to it with the Alpha A100 trailing right behind.

The LCD monitor of the D70s isn't bad although it doesn't win. (But acceptable and sufficient enough). At least it is levels better than the one on the EOS 350D.

Regarding dynamic range, it must be as good as the Nikon D50. I believe that the imatest test focus too highly on noise levels that the D50 got to the top above the rest of the dSLRs. Perhaps it uses NR to remove all the noises when the D70s choose to maintain them to preserve image detail???Seems very likely to me. (The D70s chooses the purer approach according to dpreview).

It definitely have themost comfortable design in here.

Similar to comfort, it also has the best build quality in here as far as I can observe.

Regarding the TTL viewfinder, it doesn't win here. However, at least it has grid lines that the others (except the R1's electronic one) missed. (At least not so ridiculously small as the one on the EVOLT E-500).

As for the superb lens of the R1...Well the Nikon D70s certainly have the chance(Potential) to add on an equivalent one in future. Primes are easily better in their respective focal lengths.

It is the clear winner in the high ISO noise characteristic department. It has the lowest measured chroma noise levelsof all; (Really low red and blue channel noises compared to the rest: Even when compared to the EOS 20D). Noises on the Nikon D70s' images at ISO 1600 are mono chromic.

Now I can rest in peace. :bye:































BenjaminXYZ Aug 3, 2006 10:10 AM

Code:

You need to learn about digital workflow.

Here's a starter workflow for you.

1. Set your camera in RAW mode.

2. Shoot. (say you do 250 photos in a day)

3. When you get home copy your photos onto your hard disk.

4. View the RAW files & select those you want to work on. (prob between 5-25 images)

5.Do RAWprocessing on those files: Convert, Sharpen, Crop, Clean, Noise, Levels, Colour, Sharpen, etc. Save.

6.Output - print or to web.

Now #5 is a big topic butautomation can be applied from almost total to almost none.

Sounds like a lot of work, and it can be, but it's only a small fraction of the equivalent you need to do with film.

Here are a couple of links to get you thinking, and google can find you a bunch of others..

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/te.../process.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...orkflow1.shtml



Software required:

1. A decent RAW converter. (Bibble light (free)will do or Photoshop Elements.)

2. A decent editing package. (Photoshop Elements will do, or I suppose GIMP if you have no money.)

3. A decent noise reduction program. (NeatImage has a free version.)

Thanks a lot for your suggestion peripatetic. I will try to fulfill them once I get my dSLR.

Regards. :idea:(Now I am still using a P & S). (DSC-N1).


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:20 PM.