I have narrowed the field to Nikon D70,Canon Rebel XT, Pentax*ist, and
Olympus E-1. I would like some help. Which of the above would be the
best bang for the buck?
Ron
--
And it really doesn't matter if
I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong.
Lennon & McCartney
might be worth sending to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems also.
For my two penneth (cents) worth, choose between the Nikon and the Canon on
the handling and features you like, unless you already have some lenses to
bias you. Quailty wise etc they are pretty similar. The Olympus and Pentax
don't get as good comments.
You've probably looked at http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ but I
thought I'd mention the site just in case. . .
Paul B.
www.scienceteacher.biz
Be careful that with a DSLR you make one step forward, but also a step
backward into the dark ages of photography, when no live preview
existed. A good option is the new Sony DSLR with 10MP and live preview.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
BS. Optical viewfinders have no sensor readout delay and have an effectively
infinitie frame rate.
It's the P&S camera that don't have live preview, only a poor imitations
thereof.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Some people might argue that reality in the viewfinder is better than a
digital approximation.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Crap.
Optical viewfinders are MILES ahead of electronic viewfinders in terms of
clarity and immediacy.
If you want through-the-lens viewing with the greatest level of accuracy and
responsiveness, the DSLRs optical VF is *THE* way to go.
Stephen R.
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:hC4Xe.23941$sx2.9411@fed1read02...
> Have had a Finepix 1300 and a Canon A95 (both P&S cameras), I feel that
> the time is right to graduate to a DSLR but there are so many choices
> out there.
>
> I have narrowed the field to Nikon D70,Canon Rebel XT, Pentax*ist, and
> Olympus E-1. I would like some help. Which of the above would be the
> best bang for the buck?
>
Money wise the E300 2 lens kit is hard to beat for "bang for the buck". You
hear lots of people who have never used one bitch about the image quality,
the people using them don't!
You really have to think about what you plan to use the camera for, how
"deep" a system -you- need, which lenses you may or may not need in the
future, what is your planned output size etc etc. Basically you didn't
supply enough info. Also you need to go handle them and see which one feel
comfortable to you and which type of controls you like etc. Check out the
different viewfinders and focus screens, try doing some manual focusing
with each and see which ones allow you to see the focus point easily. Do
you need good low light handheld without flash ability? The canon is really
good at that. Lots of thing only YOU can answer..
--
Stacey
Optical is simply...optical...in that you are looking through a prism and
mirror...which means you are looking directly at the light in the scene.
With an electronic viewfinder...though you look into a little lens, you're
really looking at a video representation of the scene--much in the same way
you would see when looking at a scene with a video camera. You don't see
the actual light of the scene...you see a video of it.
Electronic viewfinders are limited to the pixels of the screen, and also the
slow response time that is always present. No matter how "fast" they some
may claim them to be, they simply cannot give you the immediacy of reaction,
nor the true colors of the scene as a simple optic can.
-Mark
> Electronic viewfinders are limited to the pixels of the screen, and also the
> slow response time that is always present. No matter how "fast" they
> some may claim them to be, they simply cannot give you the immediacy
> of reaction, nor the true colors of the scene as a simple optic can.
Nonsense. Early EVFs were slow, but great strides have been made,
and sooner than you wish, EVF's response time will be fast enough to
satisfy everyone, with the possible exception of a few, such as you.
Affordable LCD monitors have 8ms response times, which is faster
than a TV's 30/60 fps (interlaced) refresh rate. If that kind of
speed isn't enough for you (and that's not the limit) then you'll
have a hard time convincing anyone that you're not a DSLR snob with
an agenda. With better sensors and amplifiers, an EVF can let you
see what you're shooting in conditions too dark for many optical
viewfinders. Each type of viewfinder has advantages and
disadvantages that elude those limited by tunnel vision.
> For my two penneth (cents) worth, choose between the Nikon and the Canon
> on the handling and features you like, unless you already have some lenses
> to bias you.
Personally I prefer anything to the 350D's handling, and the Pentac and Oly
handle just as well or better than the D70 anyway.
Quailty wise etc they are pretty similar. The Olympus and Pentax
> don't get as good comments.
And no one can work out why, feature for feature they are at least as good
and some things are better, mind you the Oly has limited support from second
party lenses so you can only buy the Oly lenses, not a problem for some.
> Have had a Finepix 1300 and a Canon A95 (both P&S cameras), I feel that
> the time is right to graduate to a DSLR but there are so many choices
> out there.
>
> I have narrowed the field to Nikon D70,Canon Rebel XT, Pentax*ist, and
> Olympus E-1. I would like some help. Which of the above would be the
> best bang for the buck?
>
> Ron
My advice is go to a shop and handle them all. Get the one that you feel
most comfortable with.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
> S R wrote:
>> Could you fill me in on the difference between an optical viewfinder
>> and electronic.
>
> Optical is simply...optical...in that you are looking through a prism and
> mirror...which means you are looking directly at the light in the scene.
And isn't going to have any shutter lag..The EVF has to have a sensor design
that can feed the "video" to the EVF and then switch to "capture". There
will always be some lag during this "switch" in modes. Also there is going
to be some compromise in the sensor to allow this "live preview" from the
sensor as you're asking it to peform 2 jobs. The only reason people use the
"live preview" on the P&S is because the optical finders they use have BAD
paralax and many don't show the actual shooting focal length very well. the
only advantage an EVF has over an SLR system is it's cheaper to make.
>
> With an electronic viewfinder...though you look into a little lens, you're
> really looking at a video representation of the scene--much in the same
> way
> you would see when looking at a scene with a video camera. You don't see
> the actual light of the scene...you see a video of it.
>
It's also harder to judge the focus point with an EVF compared to an SLR
with a good focus screen.
--
Stacey
So no swivel viewfinders for those awkward taking angles! Plus you lose
movie mode, and may get problems with dust ingress (and spots being
visible on every subsequent picture) every time you change lenses. Better
low-light performance, though.
David
But which low-end DSLR offers a good focus screen?
I don't see split-prism or micro-focus screens any more...
David
"S R" <no email @ no spam.com> wrote in message
news:Uq5Xe.8588$zG1.6616@trnddc05...
That has been a problem, but not so much with the better
EVF's, and it's not an intrinsic limitation. Electronic
switch-over can be far faster than mechanically pulling a
mirror out of the way, or even moving a shutter.
> Also there is going
> to be some compromise in the sensor to allow this "live preview" from the
> sensor as you're asking it to peform 2 jobs.
It's pretty much the same job.
> The only reason people use the
> "live preview" on the P&S is because the optical finders they use
have BAD
> paralax and many don't show the actual shooting focal length very
well. the
> only advantage an EVF has over an SLR system is it's cheaper to make.
Definitely not true. I had a Sony F-707, and the flexibility
to hold the camera at places other than in front of my eye
was far more useful than I had expected.
Another advantage is the silence of electronic shutters.
--
--Bryan
Tons of situations where a swivelable LCD screen is helpful, if not
essential:
- underwater photography (essential for correct framing)
- panorama photography (necessary to be able to rotate the camera arond
its nodal point, if you don't have a tripod and panorama head with you)
- low light photography (a viewfinder might be too dark)
- unconventional angles, when you cannot look through a viewfinder
- when you need a live histogram before pressing the shutter
When you go (D)SLR, you invest in a system. Those are all
fine cameras, but one of the companies has developed a product
cycle that puts the others' futures in doubt. Not that any are
dying soon, but the smaller their markets, the less they can
invest in advancing their systems.
--
--Bryan
Absolutely. Beware of photographers who learned their
craft in the dark ages; they tend to think of new
facilities as toy-features for dilettantes, while
anything missing is a defect no serious photographer
could tolerate.
> A good option is the new Sony DSLR with 10MP and live preview.
I'm tempted. But what were they thinking leaving out
image stabilization?
--
--Bryan
First line from unique points at dpreview:-
"First non-SLR camera to feature a large format sensor (APS size)"
not quite a DSLR then..
In my opinion, the big disadvantage of focusing aids is that they only work
in the center of the screen. Subconsciously that may lead to bad compositions.
But they are also quite useless when you want to track a moving object that
is not in the center of the screen. On a tripod you have to move the subject
to the center, focus, and re-compose.
I prefer ground glass with the horizontal and vertical 'architecture'
aids.
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
I think their argument goes: we provided a large sensor, which works at
higher ISO, and therefore shorter shutter speeds, and therefore less need
for IS. And it's only a 120mm lens anyway.
I think the Sony camera is a market tester. If it sells well, future
variants will provide the features potential customers demand and other
makers will jump on the bandwagon; if it doesn't sell it will be noted in
history....
David
I think you may be right that that's how the argument goes,
but it's a silly argument. If the camera performs well in
kinda-challenging light, I'm all the more interested in how
it does in big-time-problem light.
> I think the Sony camera is a market tester. If it sells well, future
> variants will provide the features potential customers demand and other
> makers will jump on the bandwagon; if it doesn't sell it will be
noted in
> history....
Sure. All products are market testers.
I'm on the edge; I probably won't buy it as it is, but I
probably would if it had IS. That means history could note
that people like me do not want and will not buy a fixed-lens,
large-sensor, electronic-viewfinder camera, when really we do
want it and would buy it.
Note to Sony: Good ideas. But if you lock a camera to one
lens, that lens has got to rock. Lens design is a matter of
trade-offs, but image stabilization is a huge advantage, and
the price is only cost and modest battery drain.
Please, build it. I'll buy it. And the laser-focus-assist on
my old F-707 was a winner too (just don't put it behind the
filter/converter treads).
--
--Bryan
> Have had a Finepix 1300 and a Canon A95 (both P&S cameras), I feel that
> the time is right to graduate to a DSLR but there are so many choices
> out there.
>
> I have narrowed the field to Nikon D70,Canon Rebel XT, Pentax*ist, and
> Olympus E-1. I would like some help. Which of the above would be the
> best bang for the buck?
>
Both the cameras you own are fairly small P&S cameras and I imagine
you've appreciated the conveniences as well as the shortfalls of both
cameras.
Plus points include portability, simplicity and unintrusive. Do you
really want to give up that because the photo magazines scream 'Look
what you're missing' - DSLRs will commit you to hauling a rucksack with
two or three heavy lenses plus a body and very sturdy (read: heavy)
tripod.
True, they're very versatile but think about large lens P&S or
near-DSLRs like the Fuji 9500 or 7000 or Pansonic FZ30 these are not
small but eliminate the need for changing lenses and are far more
compact (and cheaper) than an SLR.
Have you perhaps considered changing the record?
"Alfred Molon" <alfredREM...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d96bdaac...@news.supernews.com...
Actually, optical viewfinders are MUCH better in low light. Most of the EVF
that I have used are terrible in low light situations.
Mark² wrote:
> Optical viewfinders are MILES ahead of electronic viewfinders in terms of
> clarity and immediacy.
>
> If you want through-the-lens viewing with the greatest level of accuracy and
> responsiveness, the DSLRs optical VF is *THE* way to go.
My Oly E20 has both (optical and live preview LCD) and there doesn't
seem to be that great a penalty in light transmission. A prism directs
part of the incoming light to the OVF. I operate mostly in the optical
mode, but I can light up the EVF on the back if I wish. Used rarely, to
adjust color balance and sometimes exposure. No live histogram though.
Gary Eickmeier
In that case, you must not have had a chance to use any of the (Konica)
Minolta Dimage 5, 7 or A series cameras.
They all have an "amplified" brightened b&w view in the EVF that
automaticaly kicks in when the scene is too dark to otherwise see
anything much.
It is very useful for dark areas and is pretty much the same as "night
framing" mode that the Sony F828 has.
The only downside is that if you don't use flash, the length of
exposure alomst assures lots of camera shake and a fair dollop of image
noise shows up in the image.
Bryan Olson wrote:
> Stacey wrote:
> > [...] The EVF has to have a sensor design
> > that can feed the "video" to the EVF and then switch to "capture". There
> > will always be some lag during this "switch" in modes.
>
> That has been a problem, but not so much with the better
> EVF's, and it's not an intrinsic limitation. Electronic
> switch-over can be far faster than mechanically pulling a
> mirror out of the way, or even moving a shutter.
Bingo. Seems to me that the mechanical mirror slap would take longer
than an electronic switch. SLRs are very crude devices, if you think
about it.
> Definitely not true. I had a Sony F-707, and the flexibility
> to hold the camera at places other than in front of my eye
> was far more useful than I had expected.
Re-bingo. And the possibilities are only beginning.
>
> Another advantage is the silence of electronic shutters.
Bing - o, nevermind. Great post Bryan.
Gary Eickmeier
>
>
Have you thought about the Dynax/Maxxum 5D or 7D. Their both excellent.
David J Taylor wrote:
> So no swivel viewfinders for those awkward taking angles! Plus you lose
> movie mode, and may get problems with dust ingress (and spots being
> visible on every subsequent picture) every time you change lenses. Better
> low-light performance, though.
I don't think Ansel Adams, Edward Steichen, or Alfred Eisenstaedt ever
wrung their hands over not having a movie mode on a shoot. The dust
ingress part I agree with, though.
Gary Eickmeier
Jock wrote:
> what is the model number of the SONY DSLR? Are you mixed up with the DSC-R1
> P&S?
> If so, the link here shows it: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/
> Jock
If you want to go wise-guy on Alfred, get it right. The Sony is
technically an EVF ZLR, not a "Point and Shoot." We had raging arguments
when the Oly E10 came out whether it counted as an SLR or not. We ended
up refining the definitions between SLR and ZLR as to whether the lens
was interchangeable or not.
The argument with the Sony will be whether it can be called a ZLR or
not, since its viewing system is electronic and not "reflex." To my
mind, you are still viewing through the lens, which makes it like an
SLR. On the other hand, it is much the same as the 717 or 828 or the
Minolta A1, which are considered EVFs.
But it certainly isn't a P&S.
Gary Eickmeier
I was also dubious about the value of movie mode until I tried it - even a
few seconds of movie can enhance the enjoyment of memories of an event.
Try it!
David
>The argument with the Sony will be whether it can be called a ZLR or
>not, since its viewing system is electronic and not "reflex." To my
>mind, you are still viewing through the lens, which makes it like an
>SLR. On the other hand, it is much the same as the 717 or 828 or the
>Minolta A1, which are considered EVFs.
Since the light to the EVF comes through the lens, wouldn't it be a
TTL viewfinder system?
A TTLEVF?
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Either the D70s or the Rebel XT would be fine, with each having its
strong points and weak points. The advantage of the D70s is the spot
metering capability, which can be important to some users. The Rebel XT
is higher resolution, has a better selection of lenses, and has an
available vertical grip.
One thing that you need to consider is that long term, Pentax and
Olympus will probably not be in the D-SLR business. You especially want
to avoid the Olympus products, due to the inherent limitations of the
4:3 system.
You don't absolutely need prism screens (although they can be handy) you
just need to learn how to focus. It takes much longer to describe than to
do. Basically get approx. to the focus point, go past it and then just
back the other way past it and then just betwenn the two points and you
should be exactly in focus. Takes practice but can be very fast.
--
Neil
Delete delete to reply by email
> Be careful that with a DSLR you make one step forward, but also a step
> backward into the dark ages of photography, when no live preview
> existed. A good option is the new Sony DSLR with 10MP and live preview.
A clue is a terrible thing to waste.
Damn, how did I get by all these years (decades actually) without a
live preview and histograms? I must have learned the principles of
photography rather than expecting a chip to do it for me.
> So no swivel viewfinders for those awkward taking angles! Plus you lose
> movie mode, and may get problems with dust ingress (and spots being
> visible on every subsequent picture) every time you change lenses. Better
> low-light performance, though.
Yeah, I was always pissed that my Hasselblads couldn't take movies.
Can any camera with that format make movies?
Well, actually I have used both plain ground-glass and
micro-prism/split-focus screens on my SLR cameras, and I know which I
preferred. Why are the present low-end DSLR users being forced to put up
with inferior manual focussing aids?
David
David J Taylor wrote:
> I was also dubious about the value of movie mode until I tried it - even a
> few seconds of movie can enhance the enjoyment of memories of an event.
> Try it!
Try it? I am a videographer.
Gary Eickmeier
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> Damn, how did I get by all these years (decades actually) without a
> live preview and histograms? I must have learned the principles of
> photography rather than expecting a chip to do it for me.
Randall, get real. You must admit that digital has a narrower latitude
than film - especially on the overexposure end. Watch a pro doing a
wedding or something and see whether he or she checks the LCD after each
shot. I saw only one who did not - and she admitted that she did check
it after the first one, then depended on the rest to be the same.
Gary Eickmeier
Any 70mm movie camera...
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
And with a 70mm back, your blad will take exactly the same film.
What is the "best" way to take a really blurry image (no need for high
megapixel count)? Use the EVF and hold the camera at arm's length
with two hands to compose and shoot. WRONG! Use one hand! ;-)
EVF is very hard to see in daylight. Regardless of advances, it takes
time to read out a chip, reformat and send the data to a display. If you
want to follow action (one of the great advantages of a DSLR, whether it
be sports, wildlife, your pets, or your kid's first step) use a true optical
viewfinder. If you want to critically compose, use a true optical
viewfinder (e.g. see the details--do you really want that stick in your
composition?). If you want fast frame rates, low noise, with low shutter lag,
and great lenses, a DSLR is the top choice.
I have a Canon right angle finder that I can put on the camera when I want
odd viewing positions, and it gives me more magnification to help with
manual focusing. And it is true live preview, limited only by the speed
of light!
I do agree that DSLR manufacturers could add swivel LCD screens, and live
preview. In fact Canon has added live preview in the 20Da DSLR, designed
for astro-photography.
The big disadvantage of a DSLR system is weight. Many lenses, heavier camera,
mean bulk. But if image quality is what you want, and ability to have that
image quality from macro to super telephoto, dedicated lenses optimized
for a specific task is the only way to get top those quality images.
I often carry a 30 to 60 pound day pack of photo gear. My wife asks why?
I respond: because I can. And I will continue until I can't. Be happy that I am
in shape and still can (in my 50s). I look at it as exercise too.
When I want to travel light, I take a single lens (just spent 2 weeks in
England one 28-135 mm lens on a DSLR). If ultra light, I take a P&S.
A DSLR is not the only choice. But if I want to get great photos,
the gear comes out, including DSLR and 4x5.
For the OP: in choosing a DSLR, choose the lens and accessory system first.
Where do you want to be? Do you ultimately want an image stabilized super
telephoto? Do you want top end macro? Wide angle? Need Flash?
Choose the manufacturer's lens and accessories that best suit your desires.
Then choose the camera. As you build a lens set, camera bodies will change,
but you will likely keep your better lenses. That will allow you to maximize
you upgrade path. With a P&S you have to evaluate and pay for the lens as well
as the sensor. With DSLR, you get to choose the best independently and
can upgrade the sensor (body) and keep the great lens.
Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
They could add IS the way Konica-Minolta do it - by moving the CCD
instead of the lens.
How is an SLR defined ? What does "Single lens reflex" mean ?
Please define what a P&S is.
It might not be so easy, as KM have most likely carefully patented the
method worldwide.
--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
> Randall, get real. You must admit that digital has a narrower latitude
> than film - especially on the overexposure end. Watch a pro doing a
> wedding or something and see whether he or she checks the LCD after each
> shot. I saw only one who did not - and she admitted that she did check
> it after the first one, then depended on the rest to be the same.
I never look at histograms. I know the limitations of my equipment and
how to deal with it.
> In article <6WcXe.55160$FA3....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Jock
> says...
> > what is the model number of the SONY DSLR? Are you mixed up with the
> > DSC-R1
> > P&S?
>
> Please define what a P&S is.
Point and shoot.
--
Panta rei
But it isn't the same format, merely the same medium.
David
Doesn't have the same image format.
David
Time to look at some better cameras, if that's your opinion. Take a look
through the finder of a Nikon 8400 or Minolta A2. Just as easy to see in
anylight as any (D)SLR.
[]
> I often carry a 30 to 60 pound day pack of photo gear. My wife asks
> why? I respond: because I can.
[]
> Roger
> Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
I would regard 60 oz as enough!
Cheers,
David
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/slr.html
the sony has no prism or mirror
Only on some, the Pentax's at least do have replaceable screen.
--
And it really doesn't matter if
I'm wrong I'm right
Where I belong I'm right
Where I belong.
Lennon & McCartney
I get sharp handheld shots down to 1/13-1/15s when framing with the
viewfinder, with the camera approx. 20-30 cm from the eyes. But I don't
get sharp shots at 1/13s when framing through the viewfinder. My guess
is that the arms act as a shock absorber, reducing the movement of the
body.
<snip>
> I have a Canon right angle finder that I can put on the camera when I want
> odd viewing positions, and it gives me more magnification to help with
> manual focusing. And it is true live preview, limited only by the speed
> of light!
You still have to keep the eyes close to this angle finder, so you are
kind of limited there.
<snip>
> I often carry a 30 to 60 pound day pack of photo gear.
60 pounds is approx. 30 Kg, right ? I can't imagine a full day of
shooting with a 30Kg backpack on my shoulders.
> > Please define what a P&S is.
>
> Point and shoot.
By this definition also an SLR is a point and shoot.
>>> Please define what a P&S is.
>>
>> Point and shoot.
>
> By this definition also an SLR is a point and shoot.
What was implied was P&S&NT. There may have been a little bit of
snobbery involved since most of the early P&S cameras didn't have
manual modes. So those little "pissant" Point & Shoot & No Think
cameras couldn't do what SLR's could. Unless, of course, SLRs are
used in Auto mode. Nowadays many P&S cameras allow far greater
control than many of the most sophisticated SLRs from yesteryear.
Reflex means that the viewfinder uses a mirror. The "single lens" bit means
you use the same lens for viewing and taking the picture (as opposed to a
Twin Lens Reflex).
> Randall, get real. You must admit that digital has a narrower latitude
> than film -
This is incorrect. Do a google search of this newsgroup and you
will find a lot of discussion on that subject. Current digital cameras
have a much larger dynamic range than film. 11+ stops for
DSLRs.
Roger
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> []
>
>>EVF is very hard to see in daylight.
>
>
> Time to look at some better cameras, if that's your opinion. Take a look
> through the finder of a Nikon 8400 or Minolta A2. Just as easy to see in
> anylight as any (D)SLR.
Then this is like looking through the viewfinder of an SLR except
not the real scene but a video of it? If so, then can you
change the angle like so many our touting as a benefit of EVFs?
>
> []
>
>>I often carry a 30 to 60 pound day pack of photo gear. My wife asks
>>why? I respond: because I can.
>
> []
>
>
>>Roger
>>Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
>
>
> I would regard 60 oz as enough!
Well, when you don't have a 500 mm f/4 lens you will not
get that wildlife shot. When you don't have 4x5, you won't get
the spectacular landscape that you can make a sharp wall-size
print from. Sometimes I carry both. That's when I carry
60+ pounds.
There is nothing wrong with a P&S. Just understand the
limitations. One can get great pictures from a P&S in limited
situations. But, as I said, if you want top images, you need
the proper equipment that will deliver.
The OP wanted to step up to a DSLR and look at all the people
making a big deal out of that decision. Talk about snobbery,
and it is not the DSLR people!
Roger
That's just not correct.
Digital has surpassed film in terms of stops.
I think it's well over 10 with Canon CMOS sensors.
I guess it depends on how you define sharp. At 1/15 second, I doubt
most pictures whould be sharp hand held, from any camera.
Acceptable perhaps, but not sharp in my opinion. There are
always exceptions, but generally one needs a tripod for the
sharpest images.
>>I have a Canon right angle finder that I can put on the camera when I want
>>odd viewing positions, and it gives me more magnification to help with
>>manual focusing. And it is true live preview, limited only by the speed
>>of light!
>
> You still have to keep the eyes close to this angle finder, so you are
> kind of limited there.
I've never found it limiting. I have found swivel LCD screens limiting,
e.g. in sunlight.
> 60 pounds is approx. 30 Kg, right ? I can't imagine a full day of
> shooting with a 30Kg backpack on my shoulders.
No pain, no gain ;-)
I carried about 45-50 pounds of gear for these grizzly bear images:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear
That includes rain gear, but no food (didn't want a pack with food
around bears). Photo gear included 2 DSLR bodies, 24 to 500 MM lenses,
carbon fiber tripod, warm clothes, rain gear.
Roger
It's not snobbery, it's stupidity. As in, "it's the image quality, stupid".
This is a joke, right?
Gary Eickmeier
Nope. As someone who shoots mostly film, I assure you, the claimed latitude
of film is basically a lie. Shadows turn to incredibly ugly mush, and
highlights blow out. DSLR digital shot at ISO 100 has a lot of room (several
stops) for rescuing shadow detail. (P&S digital has gotten worse over the
years, though.)
Ron
"Alfred Molon" <alfredREM...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d97cfb2f...@news.supernews.com...
My normal kit, in a back pack, includes, one each, Canon 20D, 16-35 f2.8L,
24-70 f2.8L, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L, flash, filters, flash cards, extra
batteries, asstd. tools and monopod. About 20Kg, or less. And not a
problem to carry.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>> What was implied was P&S&NT. There may have been a little bit of
>> snobbery involved since most of the early P&S cameras didn't have
>> manual modes. So those little "pissant" Point & Shoot & No Think
>> cameras couldn't do what SLR's could. Unless, of course, SLRs are
>> used in Auto mode. Nowadays many P&S cameras allow far greater
>> control than many of the most sophisticated SLRs from yesteryear.
>
> Hardly, they only provide more "no think" modes, as do many SLRs, now.
Sorry, but you're wrong here. Some P&S cameras may have a
bewildering number of "thinking is futile" modes, but I was
referring to the more advanced features that they have, and it only
requires a single example to disprove your "only . . . 'no think'
modes". My Nikon SLRs never showed things such as the parts of the
images that would be either grossly overexposed or underexposed.
Nor did it have user memory to preset custom settings including
focus point. I'm not talking about advanced features today's DSLRs
may also have. Note above the words "sophisticated SLRs from
yesteryear". My old Nikon SLR is still superior in many ways to my
current P&S. But at the same time it lacks many useful features.
Couldn't do bracketing either (manual bracketing is much slower and
doesn't count), but with the cost of film and processing, it's not
anything I would have lusted after.
> Have had a Finepix 1300 and a Canon A95 (both P&S cameras), I feel
> that the time is right to graduate to a DSLR but there are so many
> choices out there.
I would suggest that you keep your P&S camera when you buy a D-SLR.
There are good and bad points to each system and having both is the
ideal way to cover almost any situation.
> I have narrowed the field to Nikon D70,Canon Rebel XT, Pentax*ist, and
> Olympus E-1. I would like some help. Which of the above would be the
> best bang for the buck?
The strength of the SLR design is the interchangeable lenses, buying
Canon or Nikon ensures a huge range of lenses in all price ranges to
choose from (from Canon or Nikon as well as Sigma, Tamron and Tokina).
I would also suggest considering the Canon 20D as well, it would be a
good idea to handle the Rebel XT and the 20D and the Nikon D70 to see
which you like the feel of better. Maybe being used to small P&S
cameras you will like the small size of the Rebel XT, maybe you will
prefer a larger more solid feeling camera.
One thing to keep in mind when asking advice here is that there are a
few one-eyed crackpots that only see things their way and can't
understand other points of view.
A D-SLR is better than a non SLR digital in many ways, and worse in many
ways to.
D-SLR strengths include the ability to change lenses for whatever suits
best, low noise even at high ISO settings, fast AF and very short
shutter lag.
D-SLR weaknesses/limitations include the much greater size and weight, a
much higher price once you have the good lenses, no movie mode and you
can't compose with the LCD.
So for fast action where you need a long zoom (motor racing, sports,
wildlife, birds, etc) it is hard to find a non-SLR digital that offers
the right mix of features, but an interchangeable lens D-SLR will easily
do the job.
For the times you want to have a camera in your pocket just in case, a
small P&S will be the best choice.
The new Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1 may seem like the perfect non-SLR with
low noise to ISO 1600 due to the larger sensor. but the lens only offers
up to the equivalent of 120mm, also due to the larger sensor. If you
compare the 24-120 that the Sony is capable of to what you can get with
a D-SLR (at a greater cost and with more bulk and weight) you can see
that the Canon Rebel XT can use a 10-22 lens for the equivalent of 16mm
wide (a lot wider field of view than 24mm) and with a lens like the
100-400L IS lens it can provide the equivalent field of view of 640mm
with image stabilisation. So the Sony might be the perfect choice for
some people, but wholly inadequate for others. It is also worth noting
that the Sony does NOT offer video, so if someone wants a non-SLR
digital for the movie mode then they will not get it on the Sony. The
shutter lag on the Sony is not as good as on most D-SLRs, I wouldn't
want to use one for sports personally.
--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 5-September-05)
"The person on the other side was a young woman. Very obviously a
young woman. There was no possible way she could have been mistaken
for a young man in any language, especially Braille."
Maskerade
> Stacey wrote:
> []
>> It's also harder to judge the focus point with an EVF compared to an
>> SLR with a good focus screen.
>
> But which low-end DSLR offers a good focus screen?
I'm happy with the screen in my E300. The bitch is it get's complaints from
reviewers because it isn't as bright as the "viewer screens" other makers
use which you can't see the focus point! you'll never see a review where
they talk about how well you can manually focus the different camera
bodies..
--
Stacey
> Why are the present low-end DSLR users being forced to put up
> with inferior manual focussing aids?
>
Because they rightly assume 99% of the users will never turn off the AF,
many probably don't even understand what "focus" is?
--
Stacey
> Stacey wrote:
> > [...] The EVF has to have a sensor design
> > that can feed the "video" to the EVF and then switch to "capture".
> > There will always be some lag during this "switch" in modes.
>
> That has been a problem, but not so much with the better
> EVF's, and it's not an intrinsic limitation.
Yet none of the P&S's I've used had anywhere close to the responce a dSLR
has.
>
> > Also there is going
> > to be some compromise in the sensor to allow this "live preview" from
> > the sensor as you're asking it to peform 2 jobs.
>
> It's pretty much the same job.
Yet it isn't using the same parts of the sensor to do this from what I've
gathered? Sensors used for dSLR's can't do "live preview", the parts aren't
there.
>
> > The only reason people use the
> > "live preview" on the P&S is because the optical finders they use
> have BAD
> > paralax and many don't show the actual shooting focal length very
> well. the
> > only advantage an EVF has over an SLR system is it's cheaper to make.
>
> Definitely not true. I had a Sony F-707, and the flexibility
> to hold the camera at places other than in front of my eye
> was far more useful than I had expected.
The flexibility to have no shutter lag is a lot more useful to me!
>
> Another advantage is the silence of electronic shutters.
>
Which is also part of the reason for the lag, they have the "clear the
sensor" from the live preview and then reset it to take the shot. The
mechanical shutter models don't have this problem and the old film cameras
sure didn't have any lag to speak of. I never heard people talking about
shutter lag till digicams came along!
--
Stacey
>
>
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> So no swivel viewfinders for those awkward taking angles! Plus you lose
>> movie mode, and may get problems with dust ingress (and spots being
>> visible on every subsequent picture) every time you change lenses.
>> Better low-light performance, though.
>
> I don't think Ansel Adams, Edward Steichen, or Alfred Eisenstaedt ever
> wrung their hands over not having a movie mode on a shoot. The dust
> ingress part I agree with, though.
>
>
Another bonus for going with the olympus.. No dust.
--
Stacey
> I agree somewhat. I want to move up to D-SLR because I regret being
> unable to take that special shot because of the limitations of a P&S.
> For example I went to the F1 race in Montreal last June and really
> wished I was able to "get up close" to the action. I don't think I would
> mind having to lug around a little extra equipment (lens, tripod etc.)
> to accomplish this. However, I think I would always keep a P&S camera
> around for backup.
>
I still have my nikon 2100, it works great for snap shots.
--
Stacey
> In article <432DA405...@qwest.net>, Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark) says...
>
>> What is the "best" way to take a really blurry image (no need for high
>> megapixel count)? Use the EVF and hold the camera at arm's length
>> with two hands to compose and shoot. WRONG! Use one hand! ;-)
>
> I get sharp handheld shots down to 1/13-1/15s when framing with the
> viewfinder, with the camera approx. 20-30 cm from the eyes.
Got some examples of this?
--
Stacey
>You especially want
> to avoid the Olympus products, due to the inherent limitations of the
> 4:3 system.
I'm so glad you NEVER bash other camera systems as you've claimed so many
times in the past!
BTW have you ever got around to shooting anything besides lens test shots
with your canon?
--
Stacey
>
> The strength of the SLR design is the interchangeable lenses, buying
> Canon or Nikon ensures a huge range of lenses in all price ranges to
> choose from
>
> One thing to keep in mind when asking advice here is that there are a
> few one-eyed crackpots that only see things their way and can't
> understand other points of view.
>
LOL
--
Stacey
>
>
> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>
>
>> Damn, how did I get by all these years (decades actually) without a
>> live preview and histograms? I must have learned the principles of
>> photography rather than expecting a chip to do it for me.
>
> Randall, get real. You must admit that digital has a narrower latitude
> than film - especially on the overexposure end.
Mine doesn't seem to have this problem.
> Watch a pro doing a
> wedding or something and see whether he or she checks the LCD after each
> shot.
Chimpin'
--
Stacey
It's a personal thing, but I have found that point-and-shoot cameras I can
hand hold down to a much slower shutter speed - 1/10s or less. I put this
down partially to the lower resolution of the cameras I was then using
(3MP compared to film) but mainly to the complete lack of vibration and
acoustic noise when shooting. Now that image stabilisation is available
(e.g Panasonic FZ5), that 1/10s is sharp even when zoomed to 100mm
equivalent. I think I would find it difficult to reproduce these results
with a noisy DSLR and its slapping mirror.
David
Many of the higher-end point-and-shoot cameras now provide full manual
control, just like on an SLR.
David
Yes, but (for example) on the Minolta A2 the whole EVF assembly can
swivel. Many cameras offer both an eye-contact EVF and a swivel LCD.
[]
>> I would regard 60 oz as enough!
>
> Well, when you don't have a 500 mm f/4 lens you will not
> get that wildlife shot. When you don't have 4x5, you won't get
> the spectacular landscape that you can make a sharp wall-size
> print from. Sometimes I carry both. That's when I carry
> 60+ pounds.
I have a 432mm f/3.3 lens in a ~300g camera.
I rarely make prints.
I do sometimes make panoramas (typically less than 180 degrees) from
multiple images, so I do get more resolution than the basic camera image.
> There is nothing wrong with a P&S. Just understand the
> limitations. One can get great pictures from a P&S in limited
> situations. But, as I said, if you want top images, you need
> the proper equipment that will deliver.
>
> The OP wanted to step up to a DSLR and look at all the people
> making a big deal out of that decision. Talk about snobbery,
> and it is not the DSLR people!
>
> Roger
Equipment is helpful to getting the best images, but not under all
circumstances. For street candids, the last thing you want is a big lens
on a DSLR with a tripod mount (unless you are paparazzi). Inside many
museums and churches tripods are not allowed. So it is not immediately
obvious that a DSLR is a step up, depending on what you are trying to do.
Both DSLRs and point-and-shoot have their limitations, and I think the
discussion has brought some of these points out.
Different folk have different needs, and different kit will suit them
best.
David
Why is image quality the be-all and end-all? Miss a picture of a unique
event because you were still getting the tripod out?
David
Maybe there's no need for extra equipment - look at the long zoom image
stabilised cameras such as the Panasonic FZ5 (432mm f/3.3 image-stabilised
Leica lens). That's what I took to the Barcelona GP in May and I was
delighted with the results. If that's not enough, then get a DSLR and an
expensive telephoto lens, but then you may not see as much of the race as
you'll be full-time photographing it! If that's what you want, fine....
David
No.
>> I have a 432mm f/3.3 lens in a ~300g camera.
432 mm f/3.3. That is a lens of 432/3.3 = 131 mm (5.1 inches).
An impressive lens.
Ah, but you really mean "equivalent" because of the small
sensor. It is really a 72mm f/3.3 (6-72 mm zoom) if you mean
and FZ5. Generally zoom ratios greater than about 3 compromise
image quality to get the extreme zoom range.
It would be interesting to see a side by side comparison
of images from the same scene FZ5 and DSLR. A 300mm f/4 on a
20D with 1.6 factor is equivalent to 480mm. The DSLR +300 f/4
has wonderful image quality, and speed for sports and wildlife.
The FZ5 can do some interesting imaging too, just not up to
the same speed and image quality. I could do my 1.3 factor
1D Mark II with a 300mm f/4 (390 mm equivalent) versus the FZ5,
if someone wants to bring by an FZ5 for testing.
It is a different trade space:
P&S: small and lightweight (compromise in image quality) versus
DSLR: image quality (compromise in size and weight).
Roger
Should I have changed the subject line? I agree that pro-
histogram does not mean anti-DLSR.
--
--Bryan
The vast majority of shutter lag on P&S comes from slow AF systems, not the
trivial amount of time taken to reset the sensor. Cheap film P&S are just as
slow.
Sorry if you were unhappy with your cameras.
>> > Also there is going
>> > to be some compromise in the sensor to allow this "live preview" from
>> > the sensor as you're asking it to peform 2 jobs.
>>
>>It's pretty much the same job.
>
> Yet it isn't using the same parts of the sensor to do this from what I've
> gathered? Sensors used for dSLR's can't do "live preview", the parts
aren't
> there.
Sounds like you need to gather a bit more.
[...]
>>Another advantage is the silence of electronic shutters.
>
> Which is also part of the reason for the lag, they have the "clear the
> sensor" from the live preview and then reset it to take the shot.
Pulling them lines low is faster than moving a shutter.
--
--Bryan
If you go far enough back up the thread, you'll see that live histogram was
presented as an advantage of P&S cameras. Randall was responding to that,
although his response turned into a sidetrack.
If the picture you're taking doesn't need special focusing, then you
can just point the camera and shoot, most landscape pictures need no
extra focusing, no composing, nothing, so even a dSLR works as a
point&shoot camera. I'm always baffled by those that think a SLR
camera (digital or film) won't function without someone's eye attached
to it, I have taken thousands of pictures without looking through the
viewfinder, you can not be 'sneaky' or get a good candid picture when
you have a picture up to your face so it's obvious you're taking a
picture, if the camera does an acceptable job of exposing a picture
when it's near your face, it does just as good of job when it's hanging
off your neck or along your side.
>> My old Nikon SLR is still superior in many ways to my
>> current P&S. But at the same time it lacks many useful features.
>> Couldn't do bracketing either (manual bracketing is much slower and
>> doesn't count), but with the cost of film and processing, it's not
>> anything I would have lusted after.
>
> It depends on what you define as "yesteryear." My wife's old Canon
> EOS10s has autobracketing. But bracketing, manually, was available on
> all the old cameras, and you had the choice of how many shots to
> bracket, an option not given to you on any auto program.
In addition to "yesteryear" note that I said "old Nikon SLR".
This would be the Nikon F, followed several years later by a Nikon F
Photomic T. Whatever bracketing your wife's old Canon had was nice,
but still in no way comparable to the many more types of bracketing
offered by modern P&S cameras. I think you're really straining if
you think that all old cameras could bracket. Sure, all possible
types of bracketing can be done manually, whether your equipment
uses sensors, 35mm film or large glass plates. I hope that your use
of "all the old cameras" was a sort of typo, where you meant
something else.
> User memory isn't more control, it is less think.
I strongly disagree. Others here have reported several advantages
with user memory. One being to be able to change many camera
settings more quickly when speed is essential. This can save many
seconds of time, in some cases more than a minute. If it's fair for
DSLR advocates to brag about quick startup time that might allow
them to take pictures that would have been lost with most P&S
camera's longer startup times (typically 2 or 3 seconds), it's fair
to see this as an advantage (shared by many DSLRs) over older SLRs
lacking such automation. It's far from a "less think" feature.
With some cameras, user memory can also store not only focal
lengths, but the actual focus point as well. This is very useful if
you plan on taking long exposures in situations where it's too dark
for the camera to focus quickly and accurately.
> Histograms are less think, since you don't have to really think about
> what your dynamic range is, both of your scene and your film.
> I'm not saying it isn't good not to have to think about all of these
> things, either.
Don't make the mistake that because some people may not use
histograms to their full advantage that their use demonstrates a
lack of thinking. But since you brought up histograms, there is a
very useful related feature that's available in some cameras that
shows the locations in the frame where detail would be lost due to
excessive darkness or brightness. The eye can only guess. With an
old film camera, to determine the same thing you'd have to use an
accurate spot meter to sample many parts of the scene and try to
keep track of all of the readings. Far too slow and complex for
most photographers. Despite what people have read about the zone
system, how many people actually used it? That don't use view
cameras, that is. If this is an example of how modern cameras offer
"less think" than old ones then I'm all for it. It's a tool that
even many pros probably use, one which allows them to dispense with
their old, once essential light meters.