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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 15, 2010, 7:38 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,093
Default

50mm on an APS-C sensor is a kind of awkward distance. 50mm is the traditional "standard" focal length on 35mm film cameras. With the APS-C crop factor, 35mm focal length gives you essentially the same field of view. So 50mm is too long for general-purpose use on an APS-C body. For things like portrait photography, 50mm is too short on an APS-C body -- you would want something closer to 80mm to get that nice OOF background look with a head-and-shoulders shot. By my lights, 50mm is just not that interesting a focal length on an APS-C body. I have two primes for my D5000 (also an APS-C sensor), and they are 35mm and 90mm. That works for me, but YMMV.
tclune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2010, 9:25 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Belize & UK
Posts: 463
Default

One or two observations. Nikon lenses are generally very expensive, and in my experience not always well put together. Canon after-sales service is in my experience absolutely superb, and to me their lenses are beautifully built. Sony after-sales service totally stinks, though their design is often class-leading. Don't be misled by the weight of a camera - weight in itself is no indicator of body integrity. I doubt you'll have problems related to quality of build with any of these cameras.

I agree that 50mm isn't an obvious choice on an APS-C sensor, though it is on a FF sensor. But many people with Canon APS-C cameras do use the cheapo 50mm f1.8 very successfully.

For me I'd have any of these brands except Sony. I'd look very closely at Pentax, the ugly duckling of the DSLR world, as they have always made interesting cameras. I currently have Canon.
peterbj7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2010, 10:00 AM   #33
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 43
Default

today i met one of my dads work mates who is a photographer on the weekends. he's offered to sell me a bunch of used AF-S lenses (for a fraction of the cost) he used to have with his older Nikon since he's moved on to a D3X and a bunch of Tamron lenses as well. So, that's the lens issue solved I guess.

Anyway, I know I'm splitting hairs again, but I noticed today that the Nikon uses a CCD sensor and the Canon uses a CMOS sensor. I know CMOS comes in the high end cameras, but if i were to go with the nikon/CCD combination, would I be missing out on anything big here?

I still have a soft spot for the Nikon since it's more comfortable to hold ergonomically and feels more rugged, like how I want an SLR to be.
stevo1210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2010, 10:22 AM   #34
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo1210 View Post
Anyway, I know I'm splitting hairs again, but I noticed today that the Nikon uses a CCD sensor and the Canon uses a CMOS sensor. I know CMOS comes in the high end cameras, but if i were to go with the nikon/CCD combination, would I be missing out on anything big here?
If you're talking about the D3000, it uses a Sony 10MP CCD Sensor. I wouldn't worry so much about CCD versus CMOS, and take each sensor on a case by case basis instead. Even then, you have to take each camera on a case by case basis, as each manufacturer will use a bit different approach to things like Noise Reduction and Image Processing. Ditto for the anti-aliasing filters and more.

But, that particular 10MP Sensor is not as good for higher ISO speed use as some of the newer sensors (like the Sony 12MP CMOS Sensors used in a variety of camera models from Nikon, Sony and Pentax), as noise levels are a bit higher from it compared to the newer sensor designs.

If low light shooting without a flash at higher ISO speeds is a big consideration, I'd probably skip the D3000 and move to one of the other Nikon models instead. If not (you're using it mostly in good light and/or with a flash), then it would make a good budget choice.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2010, 10:46 AM   #35
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 43
Default

Based on my use of a bridge camera i currently use, in terms of ISO, i never ever go past 400. even in the darkest situations... i sometimes try to get away with 200 or lower .
i will definitely be using an external bounce flash, as i have been with my bridge camera since i want that beautiful and natural bounce lighting i specified earlier.
stevo1210 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 9:46 AM.