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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 24, 2006, 7:29 AM   #51
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Did I slip? No, for your information, in fact I avoided what could seems to be a long term horror sequence if the Minolta just decides to stop breathing with no hospital to go to.
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24, 2006, 8:07 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
Did I slip? No, for your information, in fact I avoided what could seems to be a long term horror sequence if the Minolta just decides to stop breathing with no hospital to go to.
[align=center]:-?[/align]
[align=center]It's OK... I'm sure you will be happy with whatever you decide.[/align]
[align=center]:shock:[/align]
[align=center]As for avoiding a horror sequence, I am not concerned because I took some steps to minimize my risk factor. It pays to havea backup plan these daysand I got that part covered. Besides, my investmentthus far has beenminimal and DSLR technology is changing so fast that it makes sense to upgrade bodies everytwo to threeyears anyway. The days of buying a camera body and holding onto it forever mostly applies to film camerasand over the last few years that was becoming less and less true in the film market due totechnological advancements.[/align]
[align=center]:crazy:

I, as well as many current 7Downers will probably upgrade to the Sony Alpha equivalent of the 7D and that me come around sooner than I think. Unfortunately, it may notbe cheap, but I'm hoping I am wrong. [/align]
[align=center]:|[/align]
[align=center]The 7D, whenit was a current model went for about1500 dollars, maybe higher, but I forget.I speculate that a replacement will be in that range because it is not an entry level DSLR. The only reason the price dropped on the 7D and also the 5D was when it was announced that Sony would be running with the ball.Had that not happened, I would not have bought a 7D.Hopefully,a 7D replacement will be cheaper by then, but who knows where the market will be. Worst case scenario, if they never introduce a worthy replacement, I'll sell my KM lenses on EBay and jump ship to the next best camera with built in Image Stabilization. Like most people who buy a DSLR camera with IS, I would not buy a DSLRwithout it, because it really works. It really works so well, the last time I used my tripod was for a moon shot with a 400mm zoom.[/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center]aranoid:[/align]
[align=center]Good luck with whatever you decide
[/align]
[align=left][/align]
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 4:29 AM   #53
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Iforgot to replythis post>>>

Code:
I never make it a habit of telling people what to buy, but I have no problem telling people what not to buy. I do not recommend buying an R1, not because it is not a good camera. In fact, it is the best in its class. In its class, the major issue I have isthe lack of zoom. Out of it's class, comparing it to a DSLR, the real problem I haveis that it in the price category of a lower midrange DSLR. There is no real performance reason to choose it over a DSLR, since by categorical design, it has limitations. Despite its quality, you are locked in to what it offers as opposed to be able to expand and improve a DSLR system by surrounding it with good glass at different ranges. I agree with most of what most of Monza's advice,but I disagree with Monza that it covers 98% of all shooting situations. That is only as true as the shooting situations of the individual. Yes, you can put on one of those silly converters that will supposedlyexpandyourwide angleor telephoto capabilities, but at a cost of sacrificing light. 

Trust me,of theconsumersthat are on the fence about whether or not to get a DSLR over a PNS camera, the ones that chose a PNS for the most part regret the choice or made the switch to a DSLR within a short perod of time. I myself made the mistake and was fortunate to be able to return my camera and upgrade to a DSLR without incurring a monetary cost. Of course the R1 is not plagued by noise issues like most of the other PNS camaeras and is about as good as it gets in terms of PNS performance with regard to image noise, and a good choice if you can live with a max 120mm focal length. At the wide end 24mm is fairly adequate.

I have a close Friend at work who's husband asked me for advice on what to get when all along he wanted the R1. Despite my advice against it,he bought it and he is very happy for now, but I could sense that his main reason for buying it was the fear of dust entering the camera. His fears were valid in the sense that works in a high dust environment, so he would have to be selective about when to change lenses. He admitted it telephoto shortcomings, but feels he can just boost the lens with a 2X converter. I feel based on what his wife tells me about his character, that he will outgrown this camera, but it was his choice so I have a clear conscience.


I have done a research based on your post and discovered some very interesting facts;

1: I can never fit a one lens solution on a Nikon or Canon dSLR that covers the range of the R1's lens.

2: I saw some Nikon lens that could cover that range, but they start at F/3.5 instead of the F/2.8 of the R1's lens. The lens also all starts at 18 mm onwards and that gives you 27 mm wide angle on the 1.5 CCD compared to the 24 mm wide angle coverage of the R1's lens (On the R1).

3: I do not know whether those lens can even come near the quality of the R1's superior C.Z. Vario Sonnar T* glass that is alsoremarkably close to it's image sensor. They are F/3.5 lenses with aless wide angle capability anyway.

4: To assure myselfabout alens quality that can match the R1's 24-120 mm F/2.8 C.Z. glass, I believe I have to spend on a 15 mm wide F/2.8 L glass zoom for the 1.6 crop factorCanon with a longer high quality zoom that can reach the 120 mm of the R1. That is two lenses.

5: For Nikon, I also have to spend on a F/2.8 16 mm wide zoom for the 1.5 crop factor CCD and also on a longer zoom to reach 120 mm. That is two lenses as well.

6: The price factor for the above will be way too much and makes me have to carry two lenses all the time and change them often. (How about dust problems?)

With my maximum budget of 900 USD today, my only best bet would be the Nikon D50 or EOS 350D dSLRs. Even with that, I don't think I could afford lenses with such specifications (Above).

Furthermore, the Nikon D50 does not have mirror lock up vibration reduction for long exposures. I take plenty of long exposures and twilight shots (I can't have vibrations). The EOS 350D does indeed have a rather plasticky design and small grip. Compared to the R1's large deep grip and superior purposefulbuild quality, I can think twice. The R1 also does not havemirror lock up or vibration/dust problems.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________

I am looking for an all in one solution; a camera that can carry everything with it. Even a dSLRcan be considered an all in one for me if only it can have a lens like that of the R1's reach and quality. I don't want to carry more than one lens, Iwant to have one good lens that offers all purpose. I definitely don't want to expose the image sensor if I can help it unless it has dust reductions. I check with Olympus (The one that has dust reductions)but they offer nothing like the R1's lens. Obviously the new EOS 400D or Sony A100 will be too costly for me to even consider a good lens, so they have to be out of the equation.

Finally, I cannot seems to build an all in one solution with a dSLR camera (Without anextra lens). If I want to bring my budget into account, then all the more extreme it gets. It is because the F/2.8 R1 lens is so good to offer me 24-120 mm reach (In one lens) that I think it's value cannot be underestimated at all. Furthermore, the CMOS sensor of the R1 is a large APS-C one so it is different from smaller formats. (The lens of the R1 have to be so much bigger to offer that kind of reach)

I can afford to have extra 500 USDs to spend at the end of this year, but for a dSLR, it would only mean a seperate lens once again. Or even if I wait until that time to buy a Nikon D50 or EOS 350D in the hope to build the ultimate all in one machine (With just one BIG F/2.8zoom lens), the R1 will still always have those advantages>>> (And I might still not be able to afford such a big glass even with the extra 500 USD in the first place; making my total budget just 1400 USDs for dSLR and lens)

The R1 will still have a far superior build quality and grip over the EOS 350D.

No mirror lock up and vibration problems in the D50 for long exposures.

No dust problems. (The Nikon D50 and EOS 350D does not have any dust busting image sensors).

Finally the most important: Looking at the current lens offerings, I still cannot find a one lens solution for both dSLRs that can offer me with the specification of the R1's lens. Even those really good F/2.8 wide zooms that hardly even reach90 mm on their respective dSLRs can come for more than the cameras they are to be fitted on. If I add another longer good quality zoom to reach the 120 mm of the R1, what will become of my budget mann.

The bottom line is; it was impossible for me to find a one lens solution for a dSLR that can offer me with F/2.8 at the wide end that also extends to 120 mm in quality! If I want the 24 mm wide angle, it will be even harder if not impossible considering most of the quality zoomofferings offers 17 mm or 18 mm's at widest. With the 1.5/1.6 crop factors of the APS-C dSLRs, I will need 15 mm to 16 mm wide zooms and F/2.8 ones that can extend to 120 mm! Even if price wasn't a factor, could I find such a lens? (Or one that comes close?)

Regards.

Lets have some fun trying to get an R1's lens on a dSLR>>> (Remember: only one big quality lens is allowed.)

The R1's lens: 24-120 mm F2.8 - F4.8 / F16 (High quality lens).

So I will only choose high quality glasses here>>>

For Nikon dSLRs;

Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S= 25.5-52.5 mm on 1.5 crop factor CCD.

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX = 25.5-82.5 mm on 1.5 crop factor CCD.

For Canon dSLRs;

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM = 25.6-56 mm on 1.6 crop factor CMOS.

For Olympus dSLRs;

Olympus 11-22mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital = 22-44 mm on 2 crop factor CCD.

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital = 28-108 mm on 2 crop factor CCD.

As you can see, howdistance are those combinations stillfrom the R1's 24-120 mm C.Z. zoom.

How about the price of those lens? :-)

US$1,500

US$1,250

US$1400

US$799

US$499 (Olympus EVOLT E-500 with this lens??) The E-500 cost around US$600 without a lens, but still above my US$900 budget + the 14-54 unless I can wait until end of the year.

All respectively in line from above.










































BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 5:01 AM   #54
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I think you have missed that the maximum aperture of the R1's lens is not a constant f2.8.

It's f2.8 at the wide end, and f4.8 at full telephoto. It's very difficult to compare that to any of the high-end lenses for the DSLRs.

The R1 is an excellent camera. The most sensible review I have seen of it is over at LL.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re.../sony-r1.shtml

Read that if you haven't already. It hasdifferent strengths and weaknesses compared to a SLR. Might suit you or it might not.



As for a single lens that is equivalent on a crop camera, how about the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4.5? 17-70 is about 25-105 on a Nikon body.

The MTF is very good.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...mp;navigator=6



If you are never going to change lenses why buy an SLR? Seems perverse.


Dust? Big yawn. I change lenses all the time and I hardly ever have dust problems. Use a blower once every 4-8 weeks and pec pads once every 3-6 months. Total time spent cleaning my sensor in the last 2 years - about 30 minutes.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 5:30 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Yes, I have read that review and yes; I know the lens of the R1 is a variable aperture F/2.8lens. However, the only wide zoom F/2.8 lenses I could find for thoseNikon or CanondSLRs are those F/2.8 ones above as you can see. (It is either those or the F/3.5 ones already)

The closest dSLR to me would be the OLYMPUS EVOLT E-500 with the excellent Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digitallens. But that would only effectively bring my budget up to US$1100 (The best regardless)! :shock:Anyway, I will have to wait until the end of this year if I want to get that combination! :-)

It is either now with the DSC-R1 or the EVOLT E-500 with the 14-54 mmend of the year. I don't plan to get lenses later on due to financial reasons. (I just want a complete camera at one go) Complete in the sense; I won't need to buy further lenses in future for it.

I wonder what you people will suggest...

EDIT: Reply to edited post>>>

Code:
As for a single lens that is equivalent on a crop camera, how about the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4.5? 17-70 is about 25-105 on a Nikon body.

The MTF is very good. 

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...mp;navigator=6



If you are never going to change lenses why buy an SLR? Seems perverse.


Dust? Big yawn. I change lenses all the time and I hardly ever have dust problems. Use a blower once every 4-8 weeks and pec pads once every 3-6 months. Total time spent cleaning my sensor in the last 2 years - about 30 minutes.

I actually don't plan to get a third party lens because if anything goes wrong...finish.

I plan to get a dSLR or dSLR like camera for the image quality, full photographic controls, high ISO performance, responsiveness, and bokeh.

I definitely prefer a dust reduction system over none at all or camera like the R1 fix lens.

BTW, I think to save all the troublefor you guys; I have decided to go for the Sony DSC-R1 or the Olympus E-500 dSLR later on (with the 14-54 mm lens). Which ever I choose, I know I will be very satisfied.

Regards.


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 6:50 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

I see you've changed your mind again:?. In an earlier post you were concerned about upgradability and about having a camera that would possibly limit you in the future. The R1 despite being a very good camera is quite limited as well. Its EVF makes action photography difficult, and just does not compare to a real optical viewfinder. The wide angle is great, but you can never get any wider, and the tele is limiting to begin with. Buying and using the converters is less convenient than changing lenses (they require an adapter and screw into place and aren't as high quality as the Zeiss lens you are putting them in front of). As far as dust, peripatetic is right....it is not an issue. Even fixed lens cameras get dust on the sensor...at least with a DSLR you can get to it to clean it.

With the Oly, you'll run into the poorer high ISO performance that you've said is an important feature for you. The "dust busting" system slows up start time, and will not eliminate dust...you will still need to clean your sensor occasionally (saving you about 15 minutes a year). You'll also be dealing with lack of inexpensive glass and 3rd party support when you want to add to your lens collection. Mirror lock-up is nice, but there is a reason it is not included on many entry level DSLR's...it is not commonly used. A cable/remote release/self timer and a good tripod will work 90% of the time. IS lenses/body systems also minimize the need for mirror lockup. Mirror lockup is inconvenient to use (forget looking through the viewfinder at subject that requires constant viewing,and it's usually buried in a menu setting and not easy to access).

You also mention bokeh...remember bokeh is a function of the lens (not the camera) and is purely subjective...ask 10 different people and you'll get 10 different answers (assuming they really know what bokeh is).

I don't hate any of the two cameras you've chosen (disclaimer: I shoot Nikon), but you're choices seem to contradict some of the things you claim were most important to you.

rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 7:11 AM   #57
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 61
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
I see you've changed your mind again:?. In an earlier post you were concerned about upgradability and about having a camera that would possibly limit you in the future. The R1 despite being a very good camera is quite limited as well. Its EVF makes action photography difficult, and just does not compare to a real optical viewfinder. The wide angle is great, but you can never get any wider, and the tele is limiting to begin with. Buying and using the converters is less convenient than changing lenses (they require an adapter and screw into place and aren't as high quality as the Zeiss lens you are putting them in front of). As far as dust, peripatetic is right....it is not an issue. Even fixed lens cameras get dust on the sensor...at least with a DSLR you can get to it to clean it.

With the Oly, you'll run into the poorer high ISO performance that you've said is an important feature for you. The "dust busting" system slows up start time, and will not eliminate dust...you will still need to clean your sensor occasionally (saving you about 15 minutes a year). You'll also be dealing with lack of inexpensive glass and 3rd party support when you want to add to your lens collection. Mirror lock-up is nice, but there is a reason it is not included on many entry level DSLR's...it is not commonly used. A cable/remote release/self timer and a good tripod will work 90% of the time. IS lenses/body systems also minimize the need for mirror lockup. Mirror lockup is inconvenient to use (forget looking through the viewfinder at subject that requires constant viewing,and it's usually buried in a menu setting and not easy to access).

You also mention bokeh...remember bokeh is a function of the lens (not the camera) and is purely subjective...ask 10 different people and you'll get 10 different answers (assuming they really know what bokeh is).

I don't hate any of the two cameras you've chosen (disclaimer: I shoot Nikon), but you're choices seem to contradict some of the things you claim were most important to you.

I would hate to be the salesman he buys from... I would rather have three consecutive root canals withoutthe anestheticthen sell him a camera.

Can you imagine the pain the lucky guy will go through???? Now I understand the meaning of mushugana. Oy Vey!
Meatwhistle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 1:04 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Forget it all guys, I shall be going for the Nikon D50 with the 85 mm F/1.8 Nikkor prime lens!


My main objective??? Is to isolate objects from their surroundings in exceptional quality, to have some serious bokeh, to have some serious speed in shooting, to have some serious low light performance, to have some serious fast telephoto reach, and to have some serious image quality in general!

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_18/index.htm

To havethe serious dynamic range and high ISO quality of the Nikon D50'slarge 6 MP CCD! >>>

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...D50IMATEST.HTM

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page24.asp

Large CCDimage sensor, low mega-pixel counts, big photosites! Law of physics!

Oh, camera of light!

The Nikon D50 also have a nice good grip for me to hold it fast in low light! :|

:-)

















BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 3:21 PM   #59
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Do you hear voices in your head?

You seem to have about 20 different people in there.

I'm passed being bored by this I think it's really funny again.

Read the article linked to on this page...

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/con...id=7-7897-8537

I bet you'll change your mind again after you read it.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2006, 4:08 PM   #60
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Default

I read the white paper. It's basic arguement for FF sensors are, that bigger pixels = lower noise and better dynamic range, and of course the D50 has 7.8 micron pixels vs 6.4 for the 350XT, plus a 12.5% larger sensor, while the A100 only has 6.05 micron pixels, while every tests of the D50 always remarks on the low noise and high DR of the D50. Incidently, the paper also admits that CMOS is inherently noisier than CCD, but Canon claims to have overcome this problem. The paper also admits that FF sensors will never be be as affordable as APS sized sensors.

The White paper also claims lower power consumption for CMOS, yet Nikon DSLRs have the best battery life by far, while Canons really eat up battery power.

The D50 is the best choice amongst these cameras, although I do prefer the viewfinder and ergonomics of the K100D, but it just can't match the SNR of the D50, but it would be my 2nd choice.

Duncan
DuncanM 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 7:36 AM.