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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 21, 2008, 4:21 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
I agree to a point. BUT, the HUGE benefit of increased ISO performance is it opens the door to more opportunities to using a ZOOM lens in poor lighting. From my standpoint as a sports shooter, my ability to use my 70-200 2.8 and 120-300mm 2.8 lenses for indoor sports is a tremendous bonus. Those prime lenses get expensive. Take a look at what a Canon or Nikon 200mm 1.8/2.0 lens costs. Being able to use a higher ISO and use a $1100 (or even $800 Sigma) 70-200 lens has a LOT of appeal. Not optically as good as the primes but not many people can afford $4000 lenses.
Absolutly. Having a dSLR with good high ISO performance allows you to use lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8, zoom lenses included, but the ability to get good IQ at ISO 3200 is an incremental improvement over good IQ at ISO 1600. What it does is let you go from f/2.0 to f/2.8which is where zoom lenses start showing up.

But ISO 3200 in low light with the kit lens isn't going to work, whatever the camera.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 21, 2008, 4:57 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
...but if they don't come up with something by PMA '09, I'm switching to Canon.
... or maybe Pentax. They've got reasonably priced fast primes, and sensor shift image stabilization.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2008, 2:52 AM   #13
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The A900 is very interesting to me, but over at slrgear and photozone I looked into the sony/minolta 35 f1.4G and 50 f1.4 and they just don't compare at all to the Canons, slow focus and way way softer.

Nikon has just updated their 50.

Commercially it makes sense to concentrate first on the fast zooms. Nikon and Sony/Zeiss have both just released very nice new 24-70 f2.8 zooms. But at the moment the L primes are the only game in town if you want fast AF, good coatings, build quality, and sharpness.

I reckon that we can expect something fairly soon though.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2008, 9:46 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
...but over at slrgear and photozone I looked into the sony/minolta 35 f1.4G and 50 f1.4 and they just don't compare at all to the Canons, slow focus and way way softer.
SLRGear.com hasn't tested any of Sony's, or even Minolta'sprimes, and the tests at PhotoZone.de show the Sony 35/1.4 to be soft, especially at the edges. But by every objective measure, the Sony 50/1.4 is afine lens. To be sure, the Canon was tested on the 8MP XTi, while the Sony was tested on the 12MP A700, so no true comparison can be drawn, but from these tests there's no reason to beleive that the Canon 50/1.4is superior to the Sony. And PhotoDo.com gives the Canon and Minolta (Sony) lenses an Average Weighted MTF of 0.85 and 0.84 respecitively. I would call that an insignificant difference.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2008, 1:28 PM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
...the Canon was tested on the 8MP XTi...
I think you mean XT (EOS-350D) versus XTi (EOS-400D). The XTi is a 10MP model.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2008, 1:45 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
TCav wrote:
Quote:
...the Canon was tested on the 8MP XTi...
I think you mean XT (EOS-350D) versus XTi (EOS-400D). The XTi is a 10MP model.
Yes. Thank you.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2008, 2:18 PM   #17
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

But, peripatetic was probably referring to the Canon 50mm f/1.2L instead. ;-)

I dunno... If I were worried about things like corner sharpness at wider apertures, I'd probably just get the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX HSM. It looks like it tests nicely compared to the Nikon, Minolta/Sony or Canon 50mm f/1.4 lenses (although we'll have to wait and see how well Nikon's new 50mm f/1.4 AF-S lens performs whenever it starts shipping).

When I'm shooting at wider apertures, I usually don't care about the corners anyway, since depth of field is going to be very shallow and you're more likely capturing people. ;-)

It is a shame Sony didn't include more of the older Minolta AF primes in the lineup on the budget end (for example, the 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 100mm f/2). But, they have come out with some pretty good glass, including some interesting Zeiss glass like the the new 24-70mm f/2.8, 135mm f/1.8, upcoming 17-35mm f/2.8 and more. I think they'll continue to grow the lineup as time passes.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2008, 2:54 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
It is a shame Sony didn't include more of the older Minolta AF primes in the lineup on the budget end (for example, the 28mm f/2, 35mm f/2, 100mm f/2).
I think the 35/2.0 and 100/2.0 were gone before Sony showed up. But Sony's decision to drop the 28/2.0 and the 50/1.7 are regretable.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2008, 3:19 PM   #19
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
But Sony's decision to drop the 28/2.0 and the 50/1.7 are regretable
I've got both (so far, I've got the 28mm f/2, 50mm f/1.7, 100mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.8 in Minolta AF primes). But, for new users that don't want to go with used lenses, more lower priced choices in primes would be nice. It looks like they're focusing on premium glass first with new offerings in lineup. That makes sense because higher resolution sensors demand better glass for best results, and this megapixel race doesn't appear to be over yet. lol

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2008, 3:32 PM   #20
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Of course, we're a bit off topic, since the OP is looking for a camera to use at very high ISO speeds (and I'm assuming he's already aware of the advantages of faster glass in low light, so he's probably more concerned with noise levels at a given ISO speed and aperture).

At ISO 6400, I'd probably give Nikon's new D700 the advantage for models in the desired price range (although I'd still take a look at the Canon 5D and 5D Mark II and see how they compare).

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 11:28 AM.