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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 16, 2007, 10:31 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Bob Nichol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Ontario Canada
Posts: 822
Default

Most camera/lens combinations, such as super zoom/DSLR, bridge, or even point & shoot cameras, are capable of good results under ideal conditions such as a sunny midday scene. It's when you introduce tougher environments, such as available light shooting at a theatrical event, that the going gets tough and you need more expensive solutions. It all boils down to "fast, good, cheap, pick any two".

You have to balance off a lost theater shot against a dozen successful noontime photos of the family at Niagara Falls in the grand scheme of things.

There was never any intention to say any one lens is the perfect solution for all conditions. What we're trying to do is encourage more people to buy cameras and lenses so that they bring down the prices due to increased production!


Bob Nichol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2007, 11:17 AM   #22
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I've got mixed feelings on the issue.

From a brightness standpoint, we are starting to see higher available ISO speeds in some cameras now. So, that can help to offset the need for a brighter lens in some conditions.

Also, many users would never print at larger sizes anyway, and the difference in image quality may not be noticeable. We're also seeing more sophistication in image editing tools to correct potential problems with things like barrel distortion and vignetting.

These types of lenses are very attractive from a convenience perspective, and could help to avoid missed photo opportunities. For example, I sometimes take photos on the river banks early in the morning, and if an interesting wildlife photo opportunity presents itself, I may not have time to swap lenses.

So, a shot with a lens that may have optical compomises compared to a lens with less ambitious design goals for a given focal length, may be better than no shot at all (or trying to take it with a lens that doesn't let the subject occupy much of the frame).

I'd still be careful suggesting a single lens solution to camera shoppers. Many potential buyers seem to have read how much better a DSLR can be from a noise perspective. Yet, many don't seem to realize that the brightness of the lens has a huge impact when they are comparing some of the non-DSLR models to a DSLR using an Ultra zoom type lens solution. Ditto for the optical compromises made to get a lens with that kind of focal range from wide to long in a package small enough to be practical on a DSLR. The same thing applies to AF speed. Many have heard how a DSLR can focus much faster than a non-DSLR camera. But, if you put an ultrazoom type lens on one, that's not always going to be the case.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2007, 11:25 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,241
Default

Bob Nichol wrote:
Quote:
Most camera/lens combinations, such as super zoom/DSLR, bridge, or even point & shoot cameras, are capable of good results under ideal conditions such as a sunny midday scene. It's when you introduce tougher environments, such as available light shooting at a theatrical event, that the going gets tough and you need more expensive solutions. It all boils down to "fast, good, cheap, pick any two".

You have to balance off a lost theater shot against a dozen successful noontime photos of the family at Niagara Falls in the grand scheme of things.

There was never any intention to say any one lens is the perfect solution for all conditions. What we're trying to do is encourage more people to buy cameras and lenses so that they bring down the prices due to increased production!

Not to mention that the new DSLR owner doesn't necessarily know what his/her needs are. A superzoom may be an ideal first lens for some. As they use it, they will discover they always use the wide end, while others have the zoom at the extreme tele stop. They may have to haul the thing into the theater, HS basketball game, or other low light situation and discover their need of more light gathering.

Covering all bases with DSLR lenses is not a cheap and easy thing to do. Most start with a basic kit, discover their most needed/desired area, and find a solution. From there, they discover their next desire.

Tcav does a lot of existing, low light photography, fldspringer does a bunch of daylight telephoto. Another may choose ultrawide landscape, another finds a love for sports photography. The beauty of the DSLR is it allows each their own choice of lenses that fill their individual needs.

Is a one lens 10x zoom the best way to start. It depends I guess. I would try to push them toward a two lens solution if possible, based on what they think their photography will be. Might be two dim zooms that cover a good range, might be a bright prime with one of the for mentioned zooms, or it may be a specialty wide or telephoto lens combined with ....

As with everything in photography, there is no black and white. There is a million shades of gray. Then they introduce color.


fldspringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2007, 11:42 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Bob Nichol wrote:
Quote:
...What we're trying to do is encourage more people to buy cameras and lenses so that they bring down the prices due to increased production!
Hear! Hear!
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2007, 12:14 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
From a brightness standpoint, we are starting to see higher available ISO speeds in some cameras now. So, that can help to offset the need for a brighter lens in some conditions.

Also, many users would never print at larger sizes anyway, and the difference in image quality may not be noticeable. We're also seeing more sophistication in image editing tools to correct potential problems with things like barrel distortion and vignetting.
I'll go along with the higher ISO part, and even the image editing tools correcting vignetting. But software correction of pincushion or barrel distortion does so by playing with the pixels at the periphery of the frame, thereby reducing edge sharpness of an image whose edge sharpness might not have been great to start with.

At least tools for rotating an image at odd angles have the effect of degrading the image uniformly throughout; tools for correcting rectilinear distortion degrade the image where it can least afford to be degraded.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2007, 8:29 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 172
Default

mtclimber wrote:
Quote:
TCav-

I won't rat on you if you become human for just a few moments. VT and I were just sharing a bit of joint humor. Is that so difficult to understand?

Sarah Joyce
He used a smiley. This thread needs to die.
dequardo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2007, 9:21 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

I agree with you that the thread ought die. I was just an idea, anyway.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 16, 2007, 10:03 PM   #28
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Well.... since you started the thread, I'll comply with your wishes and close it. But, I was thinking the discussion could get interesting.

You tend to get a lot of different viewpoints on this kind of thing and we haven't had that many opinions yet.

You never know, I may even break down and go with an Ultra Zoom model at some point. I'm starting to come around a bit lately, as this Tamron does seem to be an improvement over the previous generation (at least as far as center sharpness is concerned). I've already seen more than one experienced shooter decide to buy this lens and leave it on their camera most of the time. There is something to be said for convenience.

Sony just announced it's 18-250mm lens (which is probably just a rebranded Tamron with minor cosmetic and lens coatings differences). So, I'm sure some buyers will go that route (especially since their camera bodies have stabilization built in).

Sigma is now shipping it's new 18-200mm with Optical Stabilization in Canon and Nikon mounts. So, that one could end up being an attractive alternative to some new camera buyers, too (although I don't know if it's image quailty improved over the older version without OS, and I haven't looked for any reviews of the new lens with OS yet). We've already seen the high demand for the Nikon 18-200mm VR.

So, I think this is a good discussion to have in order to bring out both pros and cons of this type of solution, and we've mostly heard the cons side of it.

Sarah, let me know if you want me to reopen it and I'll be happy to.

For now, it's closed.

JimC 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 4:36 PM.