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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 7, 2006, 1:59 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 112
Default

A question about slr lenses becoming obsolete.

Are any of the major slr manufactures planning any lens mount changes in the near future? I would hate to invest in an slr and then have them change the mount.


stevem1928 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 2:03 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

You can get a wider angle with the Raynox DCR6600 on a Panasonic FZ20 than with the KM5D 18-70 kit lens (23 mm instead of 27 mm in35mm film equivalent terms), and they come out very crisp. And the FZ20 is cheap now. I loved that setup for wide angle shots when I had it.

However, the low light/noise factor alone would make me go with the KM5D if I were you. Get your hands on the $649 before they are gone.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 2:06 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

I think you are still confusing things. If your primary goal is to take architecture type pictures, then you probably shooting at small apertures (f8, f11 or smaller) with a tripod. So you don't need fast glass and even cheap zoom lens should give you nice performace at those apertures. And you don't need IS, OS, Anti Shake etc.

If you were taking ation shots in low light, then my recommendations would be totally different.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 2:41 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
I think you are still confusing things. If your primary goal is to take architecture type pictures, then you probably shooting at small apertures (f8, f11 or smaller) with a tripod. So you don't need fast glass and even cheap zoom lens should give you nice performace at those apertures. And you don't need IS, OS, Anti Shake etc.

If you were taking ation shots in low light, then my recommendations would be totally different.


I concur. It's just that the DSLR has a lot more flexibility and might be the overall better choice because he might also want to shoot his kids basketballl game after shooting architectural church pictures. Or at least have the possibility to do so.

PS: Who is confusing things?

rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 2:44 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

stevem1928 wrote:
Quote:
A question about slr lenses becoming obsolete.

Are any of the major slr manufactures planning any lens mount changes in the near future? I would hate to invest in an slr and then have them change the mount.


Not that I am aware of, and it would be marketing suicide for any company to announce such a move far in advance. Sony has pledged to continue to produce its SLR line with the KM mount which has been in existence for 20 years, so I don't participate any major interruption there.
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 2:56 PM   #26
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

stevem1928 wrote:
Quote:
I think I can rule out the ultra zooms due to their inability to take close range type of pictures such as groups of people in a small room (lack of wide angle ability).* Is this correct?* Do I get this info from the zoom's small (first) number?* The larger the number, the narrower the field of view?
That's right.
The longer the focal length is the more it "magnifies" distant targets and the narrower is field of fiew.
So that's why focal lengths are more important.
28mm would be definitely minimum wide angle you would want.

As example here's shot taken at 28mm with 0.8x ACW-100 converter which means ~22.5mm (very wide angle) effective focal length:

For getting field of view for "wide" angles of ultrazooms (36-38mm) crop away 1/3 from images height and width meaning you're croppping away half of images area.
For 28mm FOV required cropping would be slightly over 1/6th.
Now kodak P880 would have 24mm wide angle but that camera doesn't have stabilization so you would need to use tripod propably always.
Sure there's wide converters for those ultrazooms but you might want to keep them on for most of time which would limit ability to use zoom quite much, wide converters give best quality only when camera's zoom is in wide end so that's why you would be better with camera which would have wide angle at default without converters.
(and prefer using converters just in special occasions)


And like it has been said if you go to dSLR you'll have to remember to take "cropping factor" (~1.5-1.6 depending on camera, except 2x with Olys) into account when buying lens because focal lengths told for lenses are true focal lengths, but which only work with full frame sensor.
Non-SLRs have still smaller sensor, this different FOV with different size sensor is reason for term "35mm equivalent focal length" when talking about digicams.
(for dSLR lenses marking 35mm eq focal lenght wouldn't work because lens can be put to cameras with different sized sensor)

That bigger sized sensor is also reason for better low light abilities of dSLRs, physically bigger pixels of sensor just simply collect more light than smaller ones. (in direct relation to area of pixel)

But still with tripod this kind shots are possible with small sensor non-SLRs... taken around 01:00.

This is very close to what it looked to dark adapted eye at that time.




bobbyz wrote:
Quote:
I think you are still confusing things. If your primary goal is to take architecture type pictures, then you probably shooting at small apertures (f8, f11 or smaller) with a tripod.
Actually small aperture would be very sensible with DSLRs because that gives longer depth of field... I think shots where only few things are in focus while rest is blurred aren't practical at all in this use.
That's also one of the bigger differences between dSLR and non-SLR digicams, smaller sensor (actually shorter real focal length) digicams have magnitudes longer depth of field.
Even A2 whose 2/3" sized sensor is big for non-SLR has seven times longer depth of field.


Quote:
If you were taking ation shots in low light, then my recommendations would be totally different.
Now in that case recommendations list would be very short, dSLR and either fast prime or some of those fast (+more expensive) zoom lenses.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 3:14 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 112
Default

I will be using the camera for other things in the future. We do a lot of traveling. The next major function of the camera will be for travel. That is where size is a concern. I don't want to have to lug around a bunch of lenses. If I go with the slr, I will want a decent all around lens, like the A200 has. I currently use the Micro sized Minolta (X ?), that I love. It fits in my pocket without being noticed, and takes decent outdoor pictures. Inside it has much to be desired.


stevem1928 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 3:50 PM   #28
E.T
Senior Member
 
E.T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 921
Default

That's definitely good thing to consider, because travelling and extra space to carry things are quite much mutually exclusive. Also you never have too light load to carry.
Of course there are lenses for dSLRs covering similar range but affordable price longer zoom lenses for them are again quite dim which would somewhat even advantage from high ISO capability. (faster lenses are also bigger/heavier)

Then again for travel video can be very useful, some things just can't be captured to still photos... normal digicams take higher resolution videos than real resolution of VHS.

Isn't it nice that we can't have even half perfect camera?


So it's up to you, both sides can give well acceptable results because requirements doesn't include low light moving targets.
E.T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 4:58 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
PS: Who is confusing things?

The original poster. I should have been more clear.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2006, 5:18 PM   #30
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

E.T wrote:
Quote:
As example here's shot taken at 28mm with 0.8x ACW-100...

[snip]
OK.... I'm game...... here's one taken hand held, 20 Minutes *After* Sunset with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D with a 28mm f/2 at f/3.5, ISO 1600. Shot in raw and converted using Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 Beta defaults with no further post processing:






Or how about most of the light coming from candles on a Dinner Cruise?

Hand Held with a Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D, ISO 3200, 1/25 Second, f/2.5 with a 28mm f/2, converted from raw using Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 Beta Defaults with No other Post Processing





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 1:30 AM.