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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 24, 2010, 9:41 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Track View Post
So, how can you be telling me that a camera where the LENS itself costs more than the entire last camera I had, would have "flaws"?
All lenses have flaws. Zoom lenses tend to have more
flaws than prime lenses because of the compromises
that are involved in covering a wide range of focal
lengths.

Although more expensive lenses usually tend to
have less flaws, the cost of the lens is not always
an accurate indicator of optical quality.
The Canon 18-200mm is one of the most expensive
lenses in this class, but it also has higher levels of
distortion and chromatic aberration than most of
it's peers.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but that is simply ridiculous.
Not as ridiculous as it seems. Cheap point-&-shoot cameras
have a huge advantage over DSLRs in this area. Because
these cameras have a fixed lens, it is relatively easy to
correct geometric and chromatic imperfections using
software (the camera's firmware). Panasonic seem to be
better than everyone else at doing this. I have a DMC-FZ28
with an 18x zoom lens that appears to be completely
free from any geometric distortion and shows very little
sign of chromatic aberration. I'm sure the 'Leica'
branded lens is not really as good as or better than
the more expensive lenses on my DSLR. The
Panasonic just does a better job of disguising them.


Quote:
I have 300$ budget -- what's the best lens for that price? I prefer zoom, but as long as the image quality isn't bad.. where "bad" is what you apparently consider a 1400$ camera/lens combo.
"Best" is not always easy to define. Best for low distortion?
Best for CA? lowest price? Best in terms of compatibility
with future cameras? Best build quality, best weather
resistance, closest minimum focusing distance........

If you need wide zoom range, the Sigma 18-200mm
models are pretty good. The Canon 18-135mm can be
a good and cost effective option. I don't think the 18-135mm
is worth the full list price, but they are readily available at
reduced prices because they are bundled with the 7D.
This is a clear case of a camera/lens combo that costs
considerably more than $1400 having a relatively "bad"
lens. I bought my Canon 18-135mm for Eur200 from a
local camera shop. This is about $258 at current exchange
rates. This lens is brand new with a full 12 month warranty,
but it ended up on the SH shelf because it was removed
from a 7D bundle.
corkpix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2010, 10:57 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Track View Post
Look, I love my TZ5. It cost me 250$, has great image quality, and doesn't have any distortion or whatnot when I zoom in, no matter how zoomed-in I am.
The TZ5, in fact, all P&S digicams benefit from having very small image sensors. That means the focal plane is smaller, so the image tends to be sharper from edge to edge. And distortion occurs when you zoom out, not in, and your TZ5 doesn't have as wide an angle of view as an 18-2xx lens on your T2i, so distortion isn't as likely to occur with your TZ5 as it is with your T2i. dSLRs have larger image sensors, which makes the lens elements larger, which makes them harder to make perfectly, or even very good and still make them inexpensive. Making lenses for P&S cameras is simple; making lenses for dSLRs is a lot tougher.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2010, 1:10 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Posts: 1,381
Default

Hi Track, On dSLRs the interchangeable lenses are essentially made to be used. So, lenses are segregated - especially zooms in to focal lengths that tend to perform well. The zoom ratio (the ratio of the high end divided by the low end, i.e., 55/18 = 3.05) tends to not be over 4x for good zoom lenses (and around 2x for wide angle). Obviously, there are exceptions like Sigmas Big Mama (50-500) but they are few and far between (and are expensive - the Big Mama is over $1,000).

That is why you see standard focal lengths of 18-55 and 50-200 or 50 to 300, in that these lenses perform quite well.

So, all in ones or superzooms, tend to be a collection of compromises in lens design in order to get the zoom ratios up, and they are not the cheapest lenses around - although not as expensive as the primes and high end zooms, but none the less seem to be around the $400 to $500 mark.

In order to get the wide range in focal lengths, the optical design needs to be stretched in places. You may not be getting the finest optical glass, but ok (to keep the cost reasonable). Size and weight are usually kept down, so the construction and mechanical design are compromised a bit.

Also, if you really just want one lens, then you should look for the best superzoom lens, and then use the lens to specify the body type. Rather than decide on a body and then try to find a lens to do the job. Or split you needs in half and go with the standard range - kit 18-55 and 5- to 200 and your costs will drop (although you have a second lens).

hope that helps....
interested_observer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2010, 1:15 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

There is the argument that if the kit is to large, people will not carry it. There is a time and place for each school of thought. And the megazoom though not as good as a 2 lens solution. Has it's place. And still will give you better results then a point and shoot.

If someone is willing to live with the compromise, then it might be the right lens for them.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Jul 24, 2010 at 1:45 PM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2010, 1:29 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,749
Default

what do you use your camera for it will help to know then advice is based on your use
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2010, 1:44 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

I have for my T1i

ef 28 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 100 2.8 macro, 28-135 and 70-300mm
ef-s 18-55 and 55-250

I have used the tamron 18-270 VC on a number of times, and have like the connivence of the 1 lens, and the quality is not bad. Not as good as my multi lenses, but not bad for what it is.

If I did not get the epl-1 for my travel camera kit with the 14-42, panny 45-200, panny 20 1.7 and only 35mm 3.5 macro. I most likely would have getten the tamron 18-270mm for my travel setup.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2010, 2:04 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
... And still will give you better results then a point and shoot. ...
Not by much. And if convenience is an issue, why carry around a dSLR and a superzoom lens when an FZ35 will do as well? maybe better!
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2010, 2:07 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

A dslr with a megazoom imho in not just a bit better then say a fz35 or hs10, which are great camera, but they are allot better. Especially if you do have to shot at 1600-6400iso. There are allot of things that a dslr with a megazoom lens can do that those camera can not.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle 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 1:17 AM.