Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 5, 2007, 3:03 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
Jumping back to flipped gazelle's question, about the Leica branded, though Pansonic produced lenses used on the Panasonic FZ-30 and FZ-50 cameras. The first thing that you will notice when looking at the lens installed on a FZ-30 or FZ-50 camera (and that was also mentioned in meanstreak's post) is that the actual physical size of the lens is much smaller than even a lens designed for a cropped imager based DSLR.
cameras.

I left my glasses home today and mistakenly sawflipped gazelle's FZ50 as an FZ30. LOL


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 6:28 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Another important consquence of using a smaller image sensor, besides having much smaller and simpler lenses, is that the images will have much greater depth of field. A shallower depth of field excludes foreground and/or background elements by rendering them out-of-focus. Digicams with smaller image sensors are less capable of rendering foreground and background elements out of focus than those with larger image sensors.

This is another creative advantage of using a dSLR instead of a P&S.

BTW, what happened to RGA?
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 8:48 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

My guess, TCav,is that RGA is looking for, at this very moment,the very best lens deal that he can find in South Korea, just as we should here in the USA!

In fact, that is why Nikon's two lens deal on the D-40/D-40X, where they offer the Nikon/Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens in conjunction with the Nikon/Nikkor 55-200mm is a much better dealthan the Nikon/Nikkor 18-200mm lens. Yes, you will have to change lenses, but you will not be having to deal with a high priced, high ratio zoom less efficient leneses such as the Nikon/Nikkor 18-200mm.

In short alow ratiozoom lens such as a 55-200mm is much more desireable, and truly a higher quality lensthan an 18-200mm lens, or what is currently referred to as an "all in one lens."So here is a case where a two lens solution beats rather easily the single lens, or 18-200mm lens solution, by a wide margin, we really should be asking questions.

As consumers, we should actually look rather closely and criticallyat the final cost of the two lens versus the single lens solution. The Nikon/Nikkor 18-200mm lens is selling for around $749, plus shipping with that particular lens now in short supply. In contrast, the kit lens(the Nikkor 18-55mm when added to the D-40X body costs around $(US) 80.00. Add to that the cost of the Nikon/Nikkor 55-200mmVR lens which can be purchased from lot of suppliers, but for our example let's just look at www.amazon.com where it sells for around $(US) 230.00. Thetotal cost of those two lenses together is $(US) 310.00 which ismuch less expensive than the $(US) 749.00+ shipping that is asked for the Nikon/Nikkor 18-200mmVR lens

So let's be clear here, as the imager get smaller (please read point and shoot and superzooms) there is a muchgreater depth of field. If indeed, you are interested in a blurred background, where the depth of field is greatly curtailed, then you should much more realistically be looking at a DSLR camera instead of a point and shoot or super zoom camera.

That being said, each one of us will at some point in time, have to make a serious choice with regards to the size of the imager that we desire to support. As I have previously posted, there are in truth 4 (please read four choices) choices. I am sure that each has their own choice, but please do keep in mind that there are still 4 choices. and at the end of the day you are probably going to only choose one, or at best two formats. That is why digital cameras are so confusing. However, I am challenging to make a choice. What will it be?

I, hopefully have opened more that a few different points of view. Might I suggest that each of you choose your format, and then please put forward your solid, well thought out argument in support of that format.

Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 9:16 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

It is really, and I honestly don't mean it to put each of you on the spot, but this is the time that each of you should choose a "desired format."

How about it TCav? Which formatare you going to make your special choice?

How about it, flipped gazzelle, which format will be your choice?

As for me, MtClimber, I very clearly choose the cropped image format!

Even RGA can have a specific choice. What will it be?

How about you Meanstreak? What will it be?

How about KenBalabri? which format is your choice?

Please also give us a substantial argument to support your choice for that particular format. This is your chance.

Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 9:47 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

APS-C, or 1.5 crop factor.

The full frame has the advantage because of the shallower depth of field, but the cameras are expensive. I like digital photography because I don't have to pay for processing, and I can do the kinds of things on a computer I couldn't do because I never had an enlarger. But I am not saving enough to pay for an EOS 5D.

But with an APS-C dSLR (a KM5D, in my case,) you have a broad choice of some outstanding lenses (like the Zeiss 16-80) and an even larger choice of lenses that have both good quality and a reasonable price (like the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.) And possibly a substantial choice of very good used lenses (like the Minolta 70-210 f/4 "Beercan".)

While the cameras themselves may be fine pieces of photographic equipment, I don't think the4/3 dSLRs have enough of a choice of lenses (and no used lenses)to warrant more than a passing glance. And also, there's the depth of field thing.

Now, I haven't tried any of the fixed lens dSLRs or the super zooms, but I still have my Nikon CoolPix 880, and I still use it ocassionally. It's small and simple to use, but it's for when I want to take snapshots. When I want to take photographs, I use the KM5D.

TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 5, 2007, 10:42 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Thus we have checked in with TCav on the issue. He is in favor of the cropped immage DSLR camera. A good choice, in my personal estimation, but none the less down the very middle of the road. Anyone else care to go for it?

I can say with some certainity that TCav, just like your Iam trulypretty much stuck on the mid range crop cameras as well. Yep, I really did like to play with the Olympus E-300 and the E-500, but I came to see them as formats that were in reality a bit too small or piched. Yep, I loved my Zukio 14-54mm images and found joy in the Olympus 40-150mm images, but in truth, just my opinion, they were n ot the final answer. The reality was this:if you accept their very small size, in reality, they were already hard pressed and strained in terms of IQ. When you see image quality falling off rather rapidly, you have to sound the alarm and think seriously about changing sides.

I truly realized that the crop image DSLRS had a much better and more viable future. Does that mean that the small size DSLRS like the Olympus and the Panasonicare "goners?" probably not, but they are also NOT the future either. It is sad to say but they are something of a crippled format as well. In the long term, it is most probably the cropped format that will survive in the long term. Or to say it another way, perhaps the cropped image is the most survivable image format.

Well, each of you posters, must have your selective choice and your supporting argument. We really do look forward to your posts. Go for it, Guys!

Sarah
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2007, 9:24 AM   #27
RGA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16
Default

Hi again

Okay I went out today to try and get another handle on the camera prices here in Korea as well as factoring in the lens. Reading the Ken Rockwell review of the Nikkor 18mm-200mm lens he pretty much thinks it's the best one lens solution on the market and the one to get from Nikon. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/182...s-55-200mm.htm

This guy really loves this lens http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

But the kicker seems to be this Nikon D40 camera which for the body is about $350.00 versus the $750 for the Nikon D80, $770 for a Canon EOS 20D and $1000.00 for the Canon EOS30d. Body only prices. Now this is all tax in as there is no tax in Korea.

They want $800.00 for the 18-200mm lens and I have a budget of around $1k.

So I'm tempted by the Nikon 40 with the 18-200mm VR lens.

The people here selling the cameras seem to always mention the lack of lens choices for the 40 (no autofocus) but the reviews don't seem to think it's a big deal. The Ken Rockwell fellow suggests that the 40 is the better bet over the D80 and he owns em both.

I think I am going to go with the Nikon 40 despite the 6.1 megapixel - I just don't think I'll print bigger than an 8.5 X 11 print - and it seems like megapixels alone seem to be a bit of a marketing gimmick. I have a cheapie 10megapixel all in one camera/video player/web cam/ audio recorder / mp3 player/ 8X zoom / Image stabalizer all for $150.00 (this is a Korean brand called Wakian). It is pretty pathetic for picture quality - but it touts 10megapixels. It works nicely for video and web camera though so for the money it's pretty good -- plus it's nearly as small as a Canon digital elph.

The Nikon 40x is $450.00 body only but some suggest the 40 is better than the 40x which seems strange to me.
RGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 6, 2007, 10:11 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

It seems to me that an important consideration should also be this: Do they have the Nikkor 18-200 VR in stock?

Some people here have been talking aboutwaiting as much as 10 months for theirs.

I have no doubt that the Nikkor is a better super zoom than the Minolta (Tamron) I have. Good luck with it.

As to the D40 vs. the D40x, I think I'd try to squeeze a little bit more out of my budget and get the D40x.

As to the limited availability of lenses for the D40/D40x, Nikon has 23 lenses for them and Sigma has another 17. That's 40 total. Other Nikon models have a much broader selection: 49 from Nikon, 45 from Sigma, 18 from Tamron, and 6 from Tokina. And this doesn't include all the older lenses available on the used market. If you can survive with the lenses available for the D40/D40x, then go for it. The Nikkor lenses are pretty good and reasonably priced; the Sigma lenses are expensive (but worth it.)
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2007, 8:21 AM   #29
RGA
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16
Default

The Nikon 18-200mm lens is very much in stock - in the two big camera districts they have hundreds of stores and all of them had this lens - they do not seem to be dropping the prices at all though so I am sure they are well aware that they are in demand.

The 40x is $450.00 while the 40 is $350 - $400. So for about $1150 - $1250.00 I could get both the camera and the super do it all lens. (I have a feeling I can find the 40 even cheaper than the $350 - perhaps $250 - $300.

This will be my first DSLR and perhaps the 40 is a way to learn on the cheap. It is apparently very simple to operate and intuitive for beginners and still has a point and shoot simplicity just in case I really oops at photography. Since I am travelling for the next few years the one lens solution is more practical since space is a premium. Then in a few years if I find I like photography then I can spend on the more serious units which will be cheaper and better than a D80.


Ken Rockwell suggests that the D40 is the better camera - has no worse picture quality and that the 40X has "a much slower maximum flash shutter speed" than the D40. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40x.htm

I think this is my best bet for the budget and travelling factor.
RGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2007, 10:03 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Good Morning, RGA-

There is no dout that the D-40 with the Nikkor 18-200mmVR makes an attractive package. I own that combination myself and Have gotten excellent photos with it. My only objection is that the Nikon 18-200mmVR lens is rather large.

As my husband and I do travel a great deal, I have come to prefer the NIkkor 18-55mm and the Nikkor 55-200mmVR lens combination. It is a bit smaller and easier to carry with you.

The D-40 camera is preferable to the D-40X except when you need the extra four megapixels for cropping or large enlargements. The IQ of the D-40 is great and it controls and in-camera processing are ideal for somebody new to the camera, especially if coming from a point and shoot background.

The Nikon D-40 and the Nikkor 18-200mmVR lens is potentially a great combination that can work quite well for you. I think you will enjoy it very much.

Sarah
mtclimber 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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:01 PM.