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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 2, 2008, 7:21 AM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
What do these results really show? That Canon is better? I hardly think so. The tests were using different lenses for a start. Lenses matter to resolution and chromatic abberation. They are JPG results not RAW for another thing. You probably wouldn't see these differences at all in prints 8x12 or smaller. I really wouldn't let this result sway your choice one way or the other.
I don't think there's much difference in them either. You can find areas of the images that look better from either model in the same images. At typical print and viewing sizes, you'd be hard pressed to see any difference. As for Noise Reduction, it was set to Normal. You can also set it lower or higher if you want to shoot jpeg.

I think the XTi produces good images. If you want to shoot ISO 3200, that setting is missing though. So, you'd need to deliberately underexpose and push the shot in PP to get there if you wanted to use it.

As for the D40x, I personally wouldn't want to be locked into the lens choices, especially if I were on a tight budget (as most users buying an entry level model probably are), since you lose the ability to use many inexpensive lenses if you want Autofocus.

But, if someone is sure they could get by with the available lenses (and the available lenses with focus motors should continue to increase over time), it's a well liked camera.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2008, 7:32 AM   #12
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

girlizz wrote:
Quote:
Hi Jim, I own a Nikon D40x, wi the kit lens. I usually take indoor pictures of my son and I find it extremely frustrating because the pictures always turn out blurred (reason.. moving objects, low light) .
Your kit lens really isn't bright enough to take indoor photos without a flash. If light is real good, and your son is relatively still, you may be able to get away with it if you increase your ISO speed and stay on the wide end of the lens (if you zoom in, it will lose light).

But, your best bet is to use a flash.

Quote:
received suggestions to get a fast lens but Im not sure which one I should opt for. The 50mm f1/8 is good but it's manual focus which may not be handy especially Im taking spontaneous pictures which leaves me very little time to aim, m.focus & snap. Would you be able to advise something for me which comes with auto focus. Appreciate your advise. Cheers.
I'd start a new thread in our Nikon Lenses Forum asking for suggestions from our Nikon shooters.

If you want to take photos without a flash indoors, and don't want to use manual focus, one lens you may want to look at is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC (around $429 now). This lens has Sigma's HSM (Hypersonic Motor) feature and will Autofocus on a D40x

But, in some lighting, you may need to use a flash for best results. So, you may want to consider investing in a compatible flash model like the SB-600 or SB-800.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2008, 10:17 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
girlizz wrote:
Quote:
Hi Jim, I own a Nikon D40x, wi the kit lens. I usually take indoor pictures of my son and I find it extremely frustrating because the pictures always turn out blurred (reason.. moving objects, low light) .
Your kit lens really isn't bright enough to take indoor photos without a flash. If light is real good, and your son is relatively still, you may be able to get away with it if you increase your ISO speed and stay on the wide end of the lens (if you zoom in, it will lose light).

But, your best bet is to use a flash.

Quote:
received suggestions to get a fast lens but Im not sure which one I should opt for. The 50mm f1/8 is good but it's manual focus which may not be handy especially Im taking spontaneous pictures which leaves me very little time to aim, m.focus & snap. Would you be able to advise something for me which comes with auto focus. Appreciate your advise. Cheers.
I'd start a new thread in our Nikon Lenses Forum asking for suggestions from our Nikon shooters.

If you want to take photos without a flash indoors, and don't want to use manual focus, one lens you may want to look at is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC (around $429 now). This lens has Sigma's HSM (Hypersonic Motor) feature and will Autofocus on a D40x

But, in some lighting, you may need to use a flash for best results. So, you may want to consider investing in a compatible flash model like the SB-600 or SB-800.
Thanks for the tip Jim. Will look out for the new thread. Hopefully there's a more economical solution.


girlizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2008, 10:32 AM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Thanks for the tip Jim. Will look out for the new thread.
Maybe I should worded this differently:

"I'd start a new thread in our Nikon Lenses Forum asking for suggestions from our Nikon shooters."

Sorry about that. What I meant was that *you* should start a new thread asking about tips for lenses. ;-)

Quote:
Hopefully there's a more economical solution.
If you want Autofocus, your choices are going to be limited. Nikon hasn't added AF-S to most of it's brighter primes. If you don't mind Manual Focus, you could use a 50mm f/1.8 AF Lens (around $100).

You could try to get away with using an f/2.8 zoom. Sigma has some f/2.8 wide zooms available now with HSM:

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/news/news.asp?nID=3356

But, you may find that f/2.8 is not really bright enough for many home interiors unless your subjects are very still. Even f/1.8 may not be bright enough in some interiors and subjects. So, you'll need to practice waiting for pauses in subject movement to get a higher percentage of keepers if you don't want to use a flash.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2008, 11:11 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 26
Default

I don't think I will buy another camera with a CCD image sensor. That would make the Canon my choice with it's CMOS sensor.
leroyvanhee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2008, 11:35 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Owlpig

I'd do as I suggested earlier in the thread and give members more information for better responses.

There are pros and cons to any of them, depending on what you want to shoot and how much you want to spend (with desired image quality for a given viewing/print size coming into the equation, too).


Quote:
...So, I'd let members know what kind of budget you have and what you mean by low light at night (indoors, cityscapes, etc.). You may need a tripod or brighter prime, depending on what you're shooting.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2008, 7:43 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5
Default

WOW! Thanks for all the replies guys. Well, i've narrowed it down to the canon 400D and Sony a200 now.

Quote:
I'd do as I suggested earlier in the thread and give members more information for better responses.

There are pros and cons to any of them, depending on what you want to shoot and how much you want to spend (with desired image quality for a given viewing/print size coming into the equation, too).
JimC. im currently living in singapore, so the price range is a little different for us. But the deal i got was $980SGD for the Canon 400D with kit plus 2GB memory card and $1399SGD for the Sony a200, kit lens + SAL 75300 telephoto zoom lens, 4GB memorystick and a carrier. This is within my price range, although im thinking of getting another lens if i get the Canon. (Thats another $400 easily?)

As for the low lighting, it can range from landscapes to night races. A tripod is a must, but im wondering if either cameras are good handheld for spur of the moment low lighting shots (such as sunlight thru a church stained glass). As for printing, i have not really thought of that yet, although i was thinking A3? And i'll probably go down this weekend and do what mtngal suggested and try both side by side. So far i only managed to try them separately.
Owlpig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2008, 8:52 AM   #18
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Owlpig wrote:
Quote:
JimC. im currently living in singapore, so the price range is a little different for us. But the deal i got was $980SGD for the Canon 400D with kit plus 2GB memory card and $1399SGD for the Sony a200, kit lens + SAL 75300 telephoto zoom lens, 4GB memorystick and a carrier. This is within my price range, although im thinking of getting another lens if i get the Canon. (Thats another $400 easily?)
If you want a lower cost 70-300mm lens, I'd probably look at the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG Macro Autofocus Lens (and make sure it's an APO version) for both cameras. It's available in Sony/Minolta and Canon mount. It may work out to be less expensive than the Sony 75-300mm lens you're looking at.

What type of "4GB memorystick"? The A200 has a CompactFlash slot. You can only use Memory Stick Pro Duo with an adapter. But, if you go Memory Stick, make sure to get the new Pro-HG Duo. Non-HG memory stick pro duo media is very slow. For this Sony model, I'd suggest a fast CompactFlash card instead (Sandisk Extreme III, Transcend 133x, Lexar 133x).

Quote:
As for the low lighting, it can range from landscapes to night races. A tripod is a must, but im wondering if either cameras are good handheld for spur of the moment low lighting shots (such as sunlight thru a church stained glass).
Night races will be tough, and a brighter lens is a good idea. But, 70-200mm lenses with f/2.8 available throughout their focal range will cost significantly more than the lenses you're considering. Without knowing your budget, I don't know if a brighter lens is feasible or not. Of course, there are downsides to a brighter lens, too. They're larger and heavier.

With a dimmer lens, you'd have to practice panning with the cars for a higher percentage of keepers (since your shutter speeds will be slower). That's not always a bad thing (because it can enhance the feeling of motion). AF speed will be slower with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 type lenses.

As for shots in lower light without a tripod, the stabilization will help out to some extent, and may also allow you to use a lower ISO speed for stationary subjects. For moving subjects, a brighter lens is a good idea.

If you go with the 400D solution, you may want to consider the new Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS AF lens. The IS is for "image stabilization, and this new lens design has higher optical quality compared to Canon's standard 18-55mm lenses (it has better image quality, even if you don't use the stabilization).


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2008, 12:36 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 5
Default

Hey guys. I've already bought the camera. I decided to get the Canon 400D. Thanks for all your help in deciding! Really helped me in my decision.
Owlpig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 8, 2008, 1:23 PM   #20
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Great. Make sure to post some photos from it. ;-)


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 9:06 PM.