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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 22, 2009, 9:54 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
The Nikon D5000 does have a LCD screen that does articulate. In fact I think that it articulates in more planes than the Alphas do.
Thank you for the correction.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2009, 10:27 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattyb View Post
The Nikon D5000 does have a LCD screen that does articulate. In fact I think that it articulates in more planes than the Alphas do.

Dunno about your neck of the woods, but an E-620 with two kits lenses is nearly 400 cheaper than the D5000 for the same focal length lenses.

Matt
Nah, it's just about 100 euro difference. The D5000 with two lenses is about 840 euro /1160 USD, while E-620 with two lenses is 760 euro / 1012 USD (at current zloty /usd / euro ratio :P)

And I've finally decided on D5000, maybe it won't have in body motor, but as I don't have old lenses, so won't have the problem. Also it's much more user friendly then D90, and I like it shape in my hand, actually suits me better then Canon/Pentax. So my new camera will be with me in like 4 days.

Thanks to everyone who helped me make the choice.
AndyPl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2009, 7:40 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 2
Default

The lenses are more important then the camera. Most Dslr's right now are pretty good at handling noise. The reviews are made by pros in labs looking at things you will never see or notice. Go with what feels right and get good lenses
MagicCat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2009, 7:50 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MagicCat View Post
The lenses are more important then the camera. Most Dslr's right now are pretty good at handling noise. The reviews are made by pros in labs looking at things you will never see or notice.
I guess that depends at what ISOs you're using. At ISO 400 and below I would absolutely agree. If you're shooting at ISO 3200 or 6400 then differences are VERY, VERY noticable - even in small prints. But there is no perfect camera. If you buy camera X to get better noise performance, you give up a positive that camera B has.

The key is to find the camera / system / lenses that best fit your individual requirements.

But I disagree with the notion that all dslrs produce indistinguisible results in all circumstances.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2009, 2:28 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
dlpin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 143
Default

I don't think dslrs produce indistinguishable results, but I do think that at the same price range, differences in test results are largely overblown, that lenses matter a lot more than the body, and that often reviewers fail to account for differences in programing that lead to false conclusions. Noise is one of those areas, as manufacturers have been either severely underrating or overrating the actual iso setting of the camera depending on their marketing purposes. Often a manufacturer's iso 800 is actually iso 600 when measured directly.
dlpin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2009, 2:53 PM   #16
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dlpin View Post
I don't think dslrs produce indistinguishable results, but I do think that at the same price range, differences in test results are largely overblown, that lenses matter a lot more than the body,
For most things I think this is true. But two areas where I think there is still a difference is Noise performance and AF tracking performance.

Take noise - compare the Nikon D5000 at ISO 3200 to the Sony and Oly entry levels and there's a very noticable difference.

AF performance is another area - The tracking ability of the Canon T1i is going to be noticably better than most off the Pentax and Oly lineups - even at higher price points.

But if you're not tracking moving subjects, that point doesn't matter. And if you're not shooting at ISO 3200 it doesn't matter.

NOw, I would agree that in many cases the differences are small. Comparing ISO performance Canon to Nikon is very small as will be focus tracking. Comparing noise and focus performance of Sony's A700 to the mid-level Nikon's and Canons and the differences were small. But the differences were great at the entry level price point. The new entry level Sony's appear to have improved both categories but it's too early to tell whether they've closed the gap. So while I agree in several instances differences can be so small as to not make a difference, in other comparisons the differences are still quite large - especially at the extremes of high ISO and tracking moving subjects. If you're not at those extremes then these things don't factor in.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2009, 9:56 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
dlpin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
For most things I think this is true. But two areas where I think there is still a difference is Noise performance and AF tracking performance.

Take noise - compare the Nikon D5000 at ISO 3200 to the Sony and Oly entry levels and there's a very noticable difference.

AF performance is another area - The tracking ability of the Canon T1i is going to be noticably better than most off the Pentax and Oly lineups - even at higher price points.

But if you're not tracking moving subjects, that point doesn't matter. And if you're not shooting at ISO 3200 it doesn't matter.

NOw, I would agree that in many cases the differences are small. Comparing ISO performance Canon to Nikon is very small as will be focus tracking. Comparing noise and focus performance of Sony's A700 to the mid-level Nikon's and Canons and the differences were small. But the differences were great at the entry level price point. The new entry level Sony's appear to have improved both categories but it's too early to tell whether they've closed the gap. So while I agree in several instances differences can be so small as to not make a difference, in other comparisons the differences are still quite large - especially at the extremes of high ISO and tracking moving subjects. If you're not at those extremes then these things don't factor in.
As I said, I don't think cameras are indistinguishable, just that differences are overblown when compared to difference in lenses. A one stop gain in a lens generally more than makes up for any difference in noise at the same price range.

And while the d5000 clearly stands out (but is also a bit pricier than other entry levels), if you look at dxomark's series of tests, for example, the graph lines for the signal to noise ratio for the canon 450, the olympus e520, the sony a350 and the pentax k200d are virtually identical. Most "real life" differences can be explained by things like canon's iso 800 actually being close to 600 (understandable as a marketing strategy given how low noise is one of the marketing points for canon), while the other 3 are closer to the manufacturer stated sensibility, if not over it (olympus 100 is actually closer to 150) (which is also understandable, given how they market speed gains based on the in body IS).
dlpin 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 7:18 AM.