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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 11, 2006, 9:17 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 133
Default

I've only begun to play with the 28-300 Tamron on my 7D and I don't notice any focus issues. It focuses precisely to the same point as I would manually. A couple of times under certain conditions it overshot the focus point and to correct that I simply depressed the shutter a second time and it corrected that. That is not exclusive to the Tamron since it has happened to me with the Minolta kit lens as well. I do think the lens is a little soft at certain focal points, but overall it does a great job. The lens is certainly a great value.
Gozinta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2006, 7:53 PM   #22
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18
Default

Just thought I should mention that I did make an error on the info I provided on the KM 5D. The lens kit is 18-70 and alsocomes with theTonika 19-35mm lens price $1400. The D50 is $1450 with the Tamron 18-200mm. I have been on the verge of commiting to the D50. The KM 5Dis a new player in the gamefor me. These prices incidently are AU$.

Anyone there willing to give me a push here one way or the other??

Sometimes, I think to much choice can be a bad thing or at least a confusing thing.

Thanks

Stephen
mickellay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11, 2006, 8:50 PM   #23
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

It sounds like the dealer has a spare Tokina sitting around that he wants to get rid of.

It really doesn't buy you anything, since it's going to overlap with the 18-70mm kit lens.

See if you can get him to tell you how great it is. Then, after he's built it up, ask what he wants for the KM 5D kit without the Tokina. ;-) It's probably not a bad lens. I just don't see where you'd need both.

As a general rule, a lens with less focal range from wide to long is usually higher quality, since less design compromises are made.

But, at the same time, you have to look at the convenience part of the equation.

For example, I've got a Tamron 20-40mm lens that tests pretty darn sharp. It's one of the sharpest wide zooms ever tested by http://www.photodo.com (scientific MTF tests versus user opinons). But, I don't use it a lot.

For the most part, I use a Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 as my walk around lens on a 5D. It's got a decent focal range for how I use a camera (I don't use the long end of a lens much), and it's a relatively inexpensive lens (around $100 used here). It also tests quite well on MTF tests and is well liked by it's owners.

More recently, I started using an old Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8 as a walk around. But, it's a bit larger and heavier. So, I'll probably go back to the Minolta, unless I'm shooting in low light where I need a brighter zoom.

As I suggested before, try them out in a store. See what you're comfortable with.

The KM 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens is not known as a super high quality lens. But, it's small and light for it's focal range.

Ditto for something like the Tamron 18-200mm. User Performance Surveys rate it's quality as poor. But, there are always exceptions, and it is a relatively small and light lens for it's focal range.

In good light where the camera can use smaller apertures, the differences between lenses tends to diminish, and depending on print or viewing sizes needed, a high quality lens is not always necessary.

There are always tradeoffs with lenses (optical quality, size, weight, cost, focal range, brightness, resistance to flare, AF speed, etc.).

It's all subjective, and no one lens is going to be just right for everyone, in all conditions.

Some users may not be happy with anything other than primes (non zoom lenses). They don't have the compromises associated with zooms (especially one with a more complex design). So, as a general rule, they're going to be sharper for a given focal length and aperture.

Other users are going to insist on higher quality f/2.8 zooms. None of the lenses you're looking at are very bright. But, a higher quality lens with larger available apertures (smaller f/stop numbers) is going to be larger and heavier.

If you're doing a lot of low light work, you'll probably want to supplment your lenses with others.

You don't necessarily need to buy new lenses either. Shop the used market, after you get a better feel for your needs.

The KM would have the advantage of Anti-shake for any lens you use with it. What that means is that you'd need shutter speeds about 4 times as fast to prevent blur from camera shake using a camera without it in low light if you're not using a tripod or flash for any given ISO speed and aperture. That's a big difference.

The KM 5D also has an available ISO 3200 (allowing shutter speeds twice as fast as the Nikon for any given aperture and lighting). You don't want to use ISO 3200 unless you have to. But, it's there if you need it.

In one local restaurant with a guitar player I visited recently, I was shooting wide open at f/2 with a Minolta 100mm f/2, deliberately underexposing 1/3 stop with the ISO speed set to ISO 3200, giving me an effective ISO speed of around ISO 4000, just to get any usable images (and most were not due to blur from subject movement, even though the AS worked terrific).

By taking lots of photos, I did manage to get some keepers when the musician wasn't moving as much. Without Anti-shake, it wouldn't have happened at all

Even with those settings, shutter speeds were only running around 1/8 to 1/10 second. What I really need is ISO 19,200 or better, with Anti-shake. :-)

I like to take photos in low ligh. We have some local clubs and restaurants that have live music nearby. Unfortunately, they like to keep the musicians in shadows. I keep telling myself I should ask them to put a candle or two closer to them. lol

The KM 5D gives me anti-shake and ISO 3200. In the clubs nearby me, I need both (light is just too low), even with a bright prime (I use a 28mm f/2 more often than not, but I also use a 50mm f/1.7 and 100mm f/2 from time to time). These lenses are MUCH brighter than the lenses you're looking at.

I wouldn't have a chance getting usable images with a Nikon D50 in the same conditions, even with equivalent lenses (and the KM is borderline in them, even shooting at ISO 3200 with anti-shake).

So, I personally wouldn't consider a D50. For others, it may be a good choice.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 7:17 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

While JimC is a very good friend of mine, this time I am going to disagree with him.

IMHO, clearly the Nikon D-50 with the Tamron 18-200mm lens is the best way to get started. That single lens can cover most of your needs, and the D-50 is easy to learn. You have seen the sample photos that I posted, they spesak for themselves.

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 2:26 PM   #25
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Yea.. We can all disagree on what works best. ;-)

Each user has their preferences, and no user is going to be exactly alike.

I just like taking photos in conditions you can't with other models.

For example, you couldn't get the photo below with a Nikon D50. :-)

It's handheld at ISO 3200, 1/10 second, using a 100mm f/2, wide open at f/2.

That's a 35mm equivalent focal length of 150mm. The rule of thumb for a hand held photo is the reciprocal of the focal length.

That means shutter speeds should have been 1/150 second to get rid of blur from camera shake with a lens with an equivalent angle of view to a 150mm lens on a 35mm camera.

That's 15 times as fast as I used with my Konica Minolta 5D for this photo (1/10 second exposure at f/2).

I've got a pretty steady trigger finger. So, yea, I'm probably a little bit better at it compared to some camera owners. But, that's Anti-shake working with a bright prime.

The Nikon doesn't even have an ISO 3200 setting. It would also have needed shutter speeds twice as long (30 times as long as the rule of thumb for a hand held camera at this focal length) with an equivalent lens, not to mention the increased chance of more motion blur (this is a moving subject).

I'm not even sure the D50 will focus in light this low.

The last test I saw with AF speeds in different light tested with these models (using 50mm f/1.4 lenses), showed that only the KM 5D was capable of focusing down to -1 EV between the entry level bodies like the D50 and Rebel XT.

This lens is a stop dimmer at f/2 and still focuses in -1 EV light on this body (as you can see below).

With depth of field as shallow as f/2 is with a head and shoulders shot using a 100mm lens wide open at f/2, your AF system has to be pretty darn good in this light low to work.

I don't even use the center focus point (I target an eye selecting the closest focust point to it to minimize reframing).

Hand Held at 1/10 second, ISO 3200, deliberately underexposing 1/3 stop for an equivalent ISO speed of over ISO 4200 if you brighten it. Wide open at f/2 with a Minolta 100mm f/2.

Straight from the camera JPEG except for downsizing for posting here. I've also got a brightened, straightened and tweaked version.


Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 3:02 PM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Here's another shot taken with a hand heldKonica Minolta Maxxum 5D.

This one was taken at ISO 3200, 1/8 second using a 100mm f/2 wide open at f/2.

It's a straight from the camera jpeg except for downsizing with Irfanview.

P.S.

To put how low this light is into perspective, for this photo, you would needto use a2 second shutter speed for the same exposure shooting atISO 1600 (max ISO speed of a D50), using f/5.6 (about where one of these kitzooms we're discussing would be at for the largest available aperture by around 100mm). :-)


Attached Images
 
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 4:18 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

JimC-

All I have to do is to mount my Sigma 30mm F 1.4 lens and I am beautifully set for pictures like yours. Take a look at this photo, naturally taken with the D-50 and the Sigma F 1.4 lens. Notice the difference in sharpness. This would really be a gangbusters lens on your KM 5D. It is also available in a KM mount, Jim.

MT
Attached Images
 
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 4:41 PM   #28
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

That was taken at f/9,1/320 second. It should be sharp stopped down for more sharpness and greater depth of field!

That'sextremely bright lighting (or you had assistance from a flash). lol

If you were shooting wide open with your 30mm f/1.4at f/1.4 andISO 1600 (max ISO speed of a D50) in the same conditions I was shooting in at f/2 (one stop dimmer than your f/1.4) and ISO 3200 (one stop brighter than the D50's max ISO 1600), your shutter speeds would be identical at 1/8 second for that last photo, only the 5D has the benefit of anti-shake.

You would not get faster shutter speeds with a D50, even with an f/1.4 lens for the same conditions and exposure (and I could put a brighter lens on the 5D and get shutter speeds twice as fast).

So, you'd be well below the rule of thumb for shutter speeds needed for ahand held camera in the same conditions, even with your 30mm f/1.4 (much less if you wanted to use a longer lens on it where camera shake is magnified like the 100mm f/2 I was using).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 6:23 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

JimC-

I was just trying to encourage you to seriously look at the Sigma 30mm F1.4. I knew you have been gazing at it lately. You are so correct, I had all kinds of really nice lighting, I had great DOF, and a nice high shutter speed to stop all that action, but no flash. The Sigma 30mm is a great lens, and I know you would really enjoy it, Jim!

MT
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 6:26 PM   #30
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

MT:

I might get a 30mm f/1.4. Sometimes a 28mm f/2 I use isn't bright enough.

But, I do not believe I could get those photos I posted (or many others I've got) using a D50 in the same conditions. The restaurants I shoot in around me have *extremely* low light. The light in your photos is dramatically brighter, and you're using apertures that give you more depth of field.

I'd be surprised if a D50 couild even focus in the same conditions, much less accurately enough to have one eye in focus and the other not at the focal lengths and apertures I'm shooting at using an outer focus point.

I'd send your 5D in and let them calibrate it

You should be able to get photos that would be impossible with a D50 usiing equivalent lenses in the same conditions without a tripod or flash (and they've asked me not to use a flash there).

If you shoot in raw, you can even process the images the same way.

You're only the second person I've ever seen that's used both a Nikon D50 and KM 5D for any length of time that didn't prefer the KM 5D (and the other person I know that went with the D50 was because of the flash system differences). I know of more than one D50 owner that stuck with a 5D after using both cameras.

So, I'm thinking there might be something wrong with your camera or lenses (unless you just prefer the D50 ergonomics).

IMO, Anti-shake combined with ISO 3200 is allowing me to get keepers that I could not get with any other camera. You don't get usable photos with a hand held camera at 1/8 second, ISO 3200 and f/2 with other models at the focal lengths I'm shooting at (and the D50 doesn't even have ISO 3200). lol

I have not used a D50, except for some quick snapshots in a store. But, I have used a Nikon D70 and D100 (and most of my 35mm gear is Nikon). They're good cameras. But, you can't get photos like you can get with a 5D in low light with a hand held camera and no flash at equivalent focal lengths with bright primes. The AS makes too much difference.

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 12:24 PM.