Home / What Camera Should I Buy?

Fast Jpeg Camera not my Sony ?

First

Last

Page 4 of 6

Go to Page

You're on Page 4 of 6

#31

Nov 5, 2006 12:08 PM by rjseeney

rodo wrote:
Quote:
rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
What do you mean by fast??? Do you need a fst burst rate?? What kind of subjects are you shooting?? Also, you've only had the camera two weeks. I would give it more of a chance. Get used to it, play around with it. Any camera you choose will have some compromises.
Thanks for your good advice your right to try it some more, What camera are you compromising on at the moment please, do you know of a low compromise camera out therei should look at? , Thinking my lady has offered to get me a DSLR + couple of lenses this christmas ifi like to compliment the R1, stillwondering ifthe R1 is good enough to keep as well ,your advice would help out many thanks indeed Rodo .:G
The R1 is by all accounts a great camera. The compromise that you encounter with this camera is lack of flexibility. You will never be able to go super wide, or more than moderate tele becasue of the fixed lens. It is also a bit slower in performance. A dslr will allow you to get lenses for specific purposes to exactly match your shooting style. The issue with DSLR's are cost and size. It's not always convenient to carry a large camera and a bag full of gear. Once you learn your camera, it is usually easy to work around some of the issues you may have. I own two dslr's, a Sony DSC-V3 prosumer, and a sony dsc-p93 pocket p&S, and have taken images with all that have earned money for me. They all have strengths and weaknesses but I know how to work around most of them.
It's hard to recommend a low compromise camera without knowing specific shooting habits, as some of the compromises may be deal breakers for some and not so big of a deal or others...each situation is unique. For someone with a passion with photography who demands the best in image quality coupled with flexibility and futre options, a DSLR is the way to go.

Reply
#32

Nov 5, 2006 12:23 PM by JimC

Quote:
... not used it much though yet only two weeks old
Use the camera and make up your own mind if it's a good fit for your needs. Get out and take some photos with it. :-)

There are many factors that determine if a model is going to be a good fit. Even ergonomics and how comfortable you are with the control layout and menu options for the features you use more often can be important.

Things like metering accuracy for the types of photos you take more often plays a big role. Chances are, you'll have more problems due to exposure from metering differences between many models versus any small differences you'll find in Dynamic Range.

No offense to Benjamin, but looking at how highlights are handled, pixel peeping at 100% viewing size on screen is not representative of how well a camera is going to perform in many "real world" conditions, since how a camera meters a given scene can play a big role, and you can adjust your shooting style and camera settings to better meet those conditions once you're accustomed to it's behavior..

How well you understand your camera's behavior and can make adjustments for the conditions you're shooting in (metering mode, exposure compensation, contrast and sharpening settings, etc.) will likely be more important than the differences in the cameras themselves.

Reply
#33

Nov 5, 2006 7:18 PM by rodo

kenbalbari wrote:
Quote:
My own opinion is that the best jpeg image quality of the entry level models belongs to the Canon 350D (Rebel XT). It probably wouldn't be my first choice though, except for shooting sports and action.

But, if you already have an R1, I don't think you would really see any difference with an entry level DSLR, unless you really need more zoom. I think from there, for the next step up, I might look to models like the Nikon D200 or Pentax K10D.

Just my opinion but that canon feels real cheap to me tried itin the store as it happens ,small viewfinder small grip cheap looking lens might work ok but its not a nice thing to own i feel thanks any how.

Reply

#34

Nov 5, 2006 7:25 PM by rodo

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
rodo wrote:
Quote:
rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
What do you mean by fast??? Do you need a fst burst rate?? What kind of subjects are you shooting?? Also, you've only had the camera two weeks. I would give it more of a chance. Get used to it, play around with it. Any camera you choose will have some compromises.
Thanks for your good advice your right to try it some more, What camera are you compromising on at the moment please, do you know of a low compromise camera out therei should look at? , Thinking my lady has offered to get me a DSLR + couple of lenses this christmas ifi like to compliment the R1, stillwondering ifthe R1 is good enough to keep as well ,your advice would help out many thanks indeed Rodo .:G
The R1 is by all accounts a great camera. The compromise that you encounter with this camera is lack of flexibility. You will never be able to go super wide, or more than moderate tele becasue of the fixed lens. It is also a bit slower in performance. A dslr will allow you to get lenses for specific purposes to exactly match your shooting style. The issue with DSLR's are cost and size. It's not always convenient to carry a large camera and a bag full of gear. Once you learn your camera, it is usually easy to work around some of the issues you may have. I own two dslr's, a Sony DSC-V3 prosumer, and a sony dsc-p93 pocket p&S, and have taken images with all that have earned money for me. They all have strengths and weaknesses but I know how to work around most of them.
It's hard to recommend a low compromise camera without knowing specific shooting habits, as some of the compromises may be deal breakers for some and not so big of a deal or others...each situation is unique. For someone with a passion with photography who demands the best in image quality coupled with flexibility and futre options, a DSLR is the way to go.
Thanks but ive looked at entry dslrs today apart from the new pentax i held the others seem so cheapo, so maybe the superb Sony and its wonderfull build is for me im thinking ,ill have to pay lots more £££ to get something so nice to ownand use its looking that way.The pentax is nice but the Sony feels a millionpounds rgrdsRodo.

Reply
#35

Nov 5, 2006 7:37 PM by rodo

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
... not used it much though yet only two weeks old
Use the camera and make up your own mind if it's a good fit for your needs. Get out and take some photos with it. :-)

There are many factors that determine if a model is going to be a good fit. Even ergonomics and how comfortable you are with the control layout and menu options for the features you use more often can be important.

Things like metering accuracy for the types of photos you take more often plays a big role. Chances are, you'll have more problems due to exposure from metering differences between many models versus any small differences you'll find in Dynamic Range.

No offense to Benjamin, but looking at how highlights are handled, pixel peeping at 100% viewing size on screen is not representative of how well a camera is going to perform in many "real world" conditions, since how a camera meters a given scene can play a big role, and you can adjust your shooting style and camera settings to better meet those conditions once you're accustomed to it's behavior..

How well you understand your camera's behavior and can make adjustments for the conditions you're shooting in (metering mode, exposure compensation, contrast and sharpening settings, etc.) will likely be more important than the differences in the cameras themselv
Yes Jim i looked today again at the entry DSLR cameras in town and apart from the newhansomePentax (but then i need a £300 nice lensi suppose to matchthe Sony said thestoreguy) they allseem a bit cheap imo . I should take your advice i think and suck it and see for a while The R1 is so well built for the money i think it is going to stay , DSLR for the future maybe ? But it will have to be a step up from the entry DSLR cameras even my Panasonic FZ 20 fees better made than say canon or nikon entry DSLR cameras rgrds Rodo.:-D

Reply
#36

Nov 5, 2006 7:46 PM by rodo

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
You can get the PENTAX K100D with it's good quality kit lens. The K100D has the best TTL viewfinder in here. (But I find the D70s one good)

The Pentax K100D have a build in S.R. (Shake Reduction) as well. [It is like a build in I.S. (Image stabilizer)]

The Nikon D70salsocomes witha very good quality kit lens using E.D. (Extra Low Dispersion Glass). In addition, the D70s also have better high ISO performance, and detailed ISO controlover the K100D. (ISO selection[s] steps at 1/3 E.V. increments)

Did you use the "My camera adviser"? If so, what was the top five cameras in your recommended list?

Regards.

Thanks it spat out Pentax k100 Nikon 70S Canon 350Samsung GX!S Nikon50 But im thinking ill go with the Sony more and more so nice so well built , rgrds Rodo.:bye::bye:

Reply

#37

Nov 6, 2006 12:44 AM by kenbalbari

Quote:
Just my opinion but that canon feels real cheap to me tried itin the store as it happens , small viewfinder small grip cheap looking lens might work ok but its not a nice thing to own i feel thanks any how.
That's part of why it wouldn't be my first choice.

I think I like the Pentax and Olympus entry level models best right now. Build quality is one reason. Good design and ergonomics is another. Good kit lenses is another (esp. for Olympus). I'd probably lean towards the K100D myself though mainly because of the shake reduction.

One thing I noticed on that advisor was that there wasn't anything for build quality, which would play a role in my rankings.

Reply
#38

Nov 6, 2006 7:45 AM by rodo

kenbalbari wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just my opinion but that canon feels real cheap to me tried itin the store as it happens , small viewfinder small grip cheap looking lens might work ok but its not a nice thing to own i feel thanks any how.
That's part of why it wouldn't be my first choice.

I think I like the Pentax and Olympus entry level models best right now. Build quality is one reason. Good design and ergonomics is another. Good kit lenses is another (esp. for Olympus). I'd probably lean towards the K100D myself though mainly because of the shake reduction.

One thing I noticed on that advisor was that there wasn't anything for build quality, which would play a role in my rankings.

Yes Pentax nice indeed, Only my point of view but it is part of the pleasure of using a nice tool that makes taking photos a better experiance.:-D

Reply
#39

Nov 6, 2006 11:16 AM by BenjaminXYZ

I didn't look at the Canon(s)...

Now it is also true that the EOS 350D, and the EOS 400D both have the best JPEG engines/quality as well. (Even by just using their respective kit lenses)

One thing that I liked about the image quality of the Canon dSLR(s), is that they were silky smooth and perfectly defined; their images were also very natural.

I might consider buying myself a Canon...The EOS 400D looks pretty interesting to me; I saw one in real recently, and it looked much nicer to me than itwason the INTERNET.

Next year I will be starting my photography course in college, and I think I might want to go with a Canon dSLR body and lens forthe start.

The EOS 400D also havethe best image perimeter setting(s)among thenewten mega-pixeldSLR(s); the SONY ALPHAdSLR-A100 andthe NIKON D80.

I think for me, theaspect that matters the most for a camera is it's image quality, and I think that the Canon dSLR camera(s) have one of the best image quality(s)I have ever seen!

I think I am sounding bias, but I also have to add the I have always been very particular about the high ISO performance and image details of the dSLR(s)...The Sony Alpha dSLR-A100 maintains a lot of image details at high ISO levels, but it's noise levels are rather high I got to admit.The Nikon D80 on the other hand, does not maintain as much image details as the Sony A100 at high ISO levels, but it's high ISO images are more noise freeas a result. What about the Canon EOS-400D?

Well, the Canon seems to have the best of both worlds from what I have observed;

It's high ISO images are not as noisy or as noise free as the Sony A100'sor theNikon D80's; however, it's images at high ISO levels are as detailed as the Sony A100's. (That is a very great thing!)

Canon tried to make the high ISO performance of the EOS 400D as good as the ground-breaking EOS 350D's high ISO performance; theyused amore efficient micro-lens array for the new EOS 400D's10 mega-pixel CMOSimage sensor. However, I don't think that they quite made it...although they were indeed close!

Reply
#40

Nov 6, 2006 2:41 PM by Lesbs

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
I didn't look at the Canon(s)...

.................................................. .................................................. ........................

I might consider buying myself a Canon...The EOS 400D looks pretty interesting to me; I saw one in real recently, and it looked much nicer to me than itwason the INTERNET.

I'm confused or missing something..... you didn't look at the Canons but are considering buying one because you saw one recently and it looked much nicer than on the internet.

Reply

First

Last

Page 4 of 6

Go to Page

You're on Page 4 of 6