View Full Version : Nikon vs Canon vs Olympus Confusion?
I am researching dSLR camera bodies to purchase to get more control of my photos. I've read many threads on best to buy within each range but how do you discriminate between brands. I was keen on Canon , maybe 50D, and many that I met at Queen Mary Falls meet last year seemed to have amazing Canon gear. I have also heard avid Nikon users rave over their brand, and today,I heard the arguments in favour of Olympus. You have all probably encountered a similar conundrum. Any Advice would be appreciated. Gail
Nikon or Canon, just go with what feels best to you.
Plenty of reasons for either of these two including range, availability, and networking
gabby, you are going to get a flood of answers to this one. :p
First off though, you tell us what it is that you want to photograph the most, sport, portraits, landscapes, wildlife etc.
In the long term it may have a large bearing on the brand that you become a slave to adopt.
pretty much what darren said.
all DSLRs are capable of producing good shots so its just a matter of learning how to use what ever you buy. canon and nikon are most popular but other brands will work for you just as well... maybe look into what lenses you will be wanting and base your decision around that. :)
I agree with Kiwi. Once you've factored in what you want to do with your camera, go to the shops and hold one in your hand. Take a memory card and snap a couple of shots in the shop. Then you can take it home and have a look.
I initially was going to buy canon or olympus because they are generally lighter thank Nikon and I wanted a camera that I could take on long trail hikes. The problem I found when I picked up the Canon was that it didn't feel right in my hand. The Nikon was a bit heavier, but it fit like a glove!
mkooper
09-04-2010, 3:29pm
Rather then saying "which brand", although this is almost a life decision, you might want to look at what level you want to step in to the DSLR market.
Entry level
Semi pro
Pro
Super Pro
Then work out the lens types you might use.
Then and finally you can go and look at your budget.
With all that in mind I think you'll probably find something that fits, the brand then comes with your choice rather then a primary driving decision.
P.S. You probably should also consider Sony DSLRs.
pgbphotographytas
09-04-2010, 5:39pm
We really need to know what you plan to take photos of to be able to answer this. Most common lens come in different mounts so the brand should not matter too much.
If you stick to canon and nikon they cover everything
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gregg Bell
09-04-2010, 7:09pm
I think personally, it's a matter of what you plan to use the camera for, how much, and what you specifically plan to use it for.
Nikon and Canon, with sony, olympus, pentax, etc. have got lenses to meet everything possible under the sun. Remember dSLR's aren't the only camera you can buy, there are Rangefinders, large format viewfinders, and today's CMOS cameras.
However I think you may be looking for a dSLR just for convenience and ease of use. I chose Nikon because of their strong history in imagery. Nikon first started as a lens making company, which has expanded into scanners, cameras, and lenses.
However I also preferred the ergonomics of Nikon better, though I don't appreciate their extortionate lens prices, I still personally think they make better optical quality lenses then Canon do. However this seems to be subjective.
you thread will only get subjective views, and not objective, you have to make a choice and come to a decision of which you think is best, and figure out what you want that will do what you want it to do.
When I want to enjoy photography most, or have fun with it, I get the Zeiss Ikon or Bessa out. Okay Im limited with a fixed focal length, as well as other constraints, and my photos aren't as good as my digital yet. However I still get more pleasure from messing around with it.
The shots that really grab me are wildlife zooms, candid portraits and macro -I'm not really in to landscapes on a large scale. I can't afford professional gear at this time!
Thank you Fried Chicken-your information explains a lot of things that people have explained that I had only half understood. Very helpful! I gather from your Canon Obsession Moniker that you might therefore consider them preferable to Nikons?
Hey Fried Chicken,
You've passed on quite a bit of handy information to Gabby but check one of your earlier posts.
I think you meant that Canon crop factor cameras are 1.6x and Nikon's are 1.5x.
I am also a Canon user but some of my travelling companions use a wide range of Nikon gear.
Pentax... produces fantastic glass. They mainly always have 2 DSLRs out (they used to have 3), one pro/semi-pro and one amateur/beginner. The great thing is, you can easily get to their 'pro' DSLR. But the K-X, their starting range, is nothing fantastic... cheap, but not great. Fork out about twice as much, get the K7... and you have the best there is to offer for Pentax. Downside, it's not full frame, it doesn't have a built in battery grip... though it does have dust and weather sealing.
Lets get the facts... :th3:
3 current DSLRs from Pentax (K-x, K-7, 645D (medium format, high end pro, which is why they don't bother with the FF)).
They are extremely price competitive for their features.
The K-x has the best low light performance in its class (Google it).
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2010/03/pentax-kx-gets-dxomarktested-how-did-the-raw-sensor-do.html
The results are EYE OPENING in terms of low-light noise and dynamic range.
K-7 (and K-x) have in body shake reduction - that means all lenses are stabilised - not just the expensive IS/VR ones.
Even old manual lenses!
Both have live view, movie and the latest gizmos.
Prices... http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=Pentax%20K-X&pos=5
K-x body only Aussie stock < $700
K-7 body only Aussie stock < $1,200 (not double)
The Pentax K mount means all the last 50 years of lenses still work!
via an adapter for the very old M42 screw mount.
Obviously Sigma and Tamron produce Pentax mount lenses.
davesmith
10-04-2010, 12:03pm
Its lowest range camera, the a230, is cheap but not fantastic. It doesn't even offer IS, and because IS is in-body for Sony... yes, you have to upgrade bodies to get IS.
Not true. All Sony DSLR bodies are stabilised, including the A230. Effectively all AF alpha mount (Minolta, KM and Sony) lenses from the last 30 years or so are stabilised and there is no need to upgrade bodies to get that stabilisation.
So that means if I got a pentax my old Pentax ME Super lenses would still be usable??
Gail
Lets get the facts... :th3:
3 current DSLRs from Pentax (K-x, K-7, 645D (medium format, high end pro, which is why they don't bother with the FF)).
They are extremely price competitive for their features.
The K-x has the best low light performance in its class (Google it).
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2010/03/pentax-kx-gets-dxomarktested-how-did-the-raw-sensor-do.html
K-7 (and K-x) have in body shake reduction - that means all lenses are stabilised - not just the expensive IS/VR ones.
Even old manual lenses!
Both have live view, movie and the latest gizmos.
Prices... http://www.staticice.com.au/cgi-bin/search.cgi?q=Pentax%20K-X&pos=5
K-x body only Aussie stock < $700
K-7 body only Aussie stock < $1,200 (not double)
The Pentax K mount means all the last 50 years of lenses still work!
via an adapter for the very old M42 screw mount.
Obviously Sigma and Tamron produce Pentax mount lenses.
This debate and information that you've kindly offered seems to be the backbone of this forum. Thank you all for your contributions- it's more difficult than I would have thought just understanding the new ( to me anyway) digital terminology such as AF-S and IS and noise but your replies have certainly answered some of these questions. Gail
arthurking83
10-04-2010, 12:39pm
.....
They are extremely price competitive for their features.
The K-x has the best low light performance in its class (Google it)......
Competitive it is for sure! :th3:
For low light performance tho, and as far as I'm aware, nothing can still beat the D90 in APS-C sized bodies.(if you use DXO's compare feature)
Even though the D90 and D300 share the exact same sensor, the D90 has better low light capabilities than the D300. That anomaly is, and has yet to be explained by anyone, and the most likely reason may be due to a cooler (temperature) running sensor :confused:
Purely on a feature basis, the Kx seems to be the lowest priced camera body compared to any of it's competitors.
I think the OP needs to figure out two basic conditions for wanting to upgrade to a DSLR.
First of all price. One of the single most important aspects of consideration. How much is your initial budget, and how much you're willing to spend in the future.
Secondly and almost as importantly is; what is it that you really want the camera to do for you that you're not able to do ATM from your current camera, whether that may be a P&S or a film SLR or whatever.
.....
Sony is honestly the best 3rd option (behind Canon/Nikon or Nikon/Canon)... Sony is good if you're not a pro. To be honest, their bodies are not built for professional work. They're targeted to amateurs (not in a bad way; 'amateur' comes from Latin and French, meaning 'lover of') and general consumers.
Its lowest range camera, the a230, is cheap but not fantastic. It doesn't even offer IS, and because IS is in-body for Sony... yes, you have to upgrade bodies to get IS.
Sony should be commended for the a850, as it brings a cheap full frame to the market. The down side is that it's not even at prosumer-level full frame level when compared to others. 3fps, 25 MP (full frame is good because of low noise; yet introducing so many pixels is effectively creating the same amount... just at a higher resolution and a much larger file size: do note that you really don't need such high MP unless you want to print in mammoth sizes... anything 10+ is fine), etc...
Sony is not really geared for sports, nature photography... the highest fps is with the a450, APS-C, which has a standard of 5fps and can be pushed to 7fps.
....
Sony's camera bodies are as professional as the other manufacturers bodies with the same specs.
Using this reasoning and rationale, Canon's 5DmkII would also be considered to be a below pro-sumer class level camera body.
The danger that follows when using generic definitions such as in this case, is that misleading info may be used to make a decision.
ie. a professional photographer that specialises in say macro photography may purely want as many pixels as they can get for a limited outlay. This professional macro photographer may not be interested in 7fps and 13 million AF points to work with, but purely the best viewfinder that is currently available in a DSLR(which is apparently the Sony A900).
Along with the D3x(which costs 3-4 times as much) it has the highest resolution of any current DSLR and for macro work high ISO may be a frivolous feature.
Once a standardised definition of what constitutes a professional level camera and user is set by the ISO mob, then propose anything you like that falls within that definition.
To the OP(Gabby).
Quite simply, makes no difference on what you end up getting, as long as you get the lenses to suit what it is you want to do with photography.
ie. no point is getting uber cheap super telephotos to do macro or portrait work, and conversely there's no point in getting fast prime lenses of f/1.4 or f/1.2 aperture values to shoot birds with on a consistent basis...etc, etc.
In 90% of instances the camera body you initially end up, with will suffice for as long as it takes you to achieve a level of competency that you're happy with. There will be no set timeframe by which you'll arrive to that point, some folks are faster learners than others, but once you've achieved that level of competency and you have the bulk of the types of lenses that work for your purposes, you may then look at upgrading to a better body in that manufacturers lineup. Using that reasoning, I generally tell folks unsure of what it is that they actually want, to start off with a secondhand camera and lens combo(to a degree), and that's generally dependent on availability of each.
the exact brand therefore doesn't really matter as your only concern is to minimise the risk of spending too much on gear that you didn't really want in the first place.
Once you have a better understanding of what it is you want to take photos of, then you will be in a better position to make an informed decision(based on your needs, and not someone else's definitions!!)
Gregg Bell
10-04-2010, 1:53pm
Well, I'm a very rational person when it comes to these things.
I use Canon. However, Nikon is also great. There's no 'if you shoot portraiture/landscape/etc go here'. They're both the two leading brands.
Incorrect. There arfe certain types of cameras you use for certain specialities. Nikon and Canon generally aren't the answer to everything. If you want a landscape camera you get a Large Format Viewfinder. If you want a portrait camera you get a Hasselblad, if...
The thing is most people here won't want to delve into these format that are few aqnd far between, and stick to their dSLR. Which is fine, and as the OP mentioned she wants versatility.[/QUOTE]
So that means if I got a pentax my old Pentax ME Super lenses would still be usable??
Gail
For sure! My 50/1.7 was the one that came with my MX ;) Sweet fast piece of glass!
Those were the facts: medium format is not full frame. The fact remains that, while a DSLR, it's considerably larger.
I did mention Pentax's low prices and the image stabilisation.
Still, the fact remains that in-body stabilisation: a) does not offer WYSIWYG - ie, you can't see the stabilised function and b) is not as effective as lens stabilisation.
Pentax's SR is good, but still needs some work.
The latest SR K-7 is rated up to 4 stops, in practice at least 3. No different to VR/IS.
To save we re-writing the same argument I'll quote...
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/96621-image-stabilization-needed-anymore.html
Nikon and Canon claim that in-lens image stabilisation is superior.
There seems to be something to these claims, but it also seems like a very minor advantage. And the disadvantage of having to buy IS over and over again in each lens, is a very clear disadvantage.
Both Nikon and Canon have in-body VR/IS in their compact cameras.
Obviously, with a fixed-lens camera, the distinction between in-lens and in-body IS disappears.
But the fact that their compact cameras have IS, shows that they too acknowledge that image stabilisation is valuable.
But Nikon and Canon (and their customers) have so much invested in separate VR/IS lenses, I really can't see them releasing a camera that has image stabilization in the body.
Maybe they'll surprise me.
I think Canon and Nikon are basically stuck. At least some of their management might LIKE to release a DSLR with in-body stabilization.
But if they did so, it would basically admit defeat on the issue.
So I think they're going to keep doing what they've been doing until the challengers take a big enough bite out of the market pie to start hurting them.
Then they'll release something "revolutionary"—a new line of cameras with in-body stabilization. I'm not a prophet, but I think this HAS to happen eventually. The current economic downturn around the world makes those cameras with in-body IS more attractive.
arthurking83
10-04-2010, 3:28pm
Not having experience with every system and lens ever made, I've looked into this a while back and the real advantage is only in the super telephoto lens range.. I think beyond about 300mm or so.
The test is(should be?? :confused:) quite easy to perform. Take a lens like the Sigma 150-500 which comes in an OS version for Canon/Nikon, but not Optically Stabilised for Pentax/Sony(or Olympus, if it exists)
Take many shots using both kinds of systems and the one that has a higher keeper ratio is better.
The argument that all lenses need to be stabilised over and again kind'a holds water a little in that, Canon and Nikon produce very cheap 'consumer lenses' in vast quantities with both VR(or IS) and non VR(or IS) and the added price seems to be about $100 or less, and the weight disadvantage is somewhere between 30g and 100g at most.
Technically there is no real(quanitifiable) cost advantage/disadvantage to either system. There are a few benefits in having it in the lens(as far as the future can tell) because there seems to be a notion that you can stabilise the lens on three axis(axes??) rather than just the two of horizontal and vertical, Canon have recently released a fore/aft stabilised macro lens.
Non super tele fast primes with VR/IS are a very rare breed as I see it ATM, with neither Nikon nor Canon offering say an 85mm f/1.4 with VR or IS(yet).
So far, all the evidence points to incompatibility issues in having in body stabilisation AND in lens stabilisation, so if Canon and Nikon produce stabilised bodies they'll almost certainly have a system where the in camera and in lens systems don't/can't clash. No reason for them not to produce stabilised cameras at some point in the future.
The point is that focal lengths change the way the stabilisation should run. Lens stabilisation caters to this.
Of course. Which is why Pentax asks for the FL when attaching a manual lens.
It detects the FL when needed on the Auto lenses.
One of the reasons Canikon are stuck with lens based systems is that they started SR/IS with film cameras.
BTW http://www.photographybay.com/2010/01/25/canon-patent-application-shows-sensor-based-image-stabilization/
In body for Canon soon - maybe they have seen the light :confused013 :rolleyes:
Further
Longer lenses necessitate much greater movement; 300 mm lenses would have to move the sensor about 5.5 mm (nearly 1/4”) to achieve the correction Canon gets with its IS system at the same focal length. This degree of sensor movement is beyond the range of current technology.
Is patently incorrect.
If the sensor has fast solenoids (simplistically) gross movements are not needed, just fast one to compensate as the shutter is pressed.
The solid state gyros do the tracking and the sensor is moved only slightly during the exposure.
Which also means the battery drain with a sensor based system is much less than a lens based system.
(Less mass being moved less often.)
http://www.kallepahajoki.net/2009/01/19/in-lens-image-stabilization-compared-to-sensor-based-shake-reduction-sr-is-vr-os-vc-compared/
Now let me spoil the results: K200D wins.
Surprised? I was, and I know how good the Pentax stabilization is. The take home message: Don’t take anyone’s word over fact. Don’t believe that the stabilization system of Pentax, Olympus, Sony, Nikon or Canon would be better than that of the others because someone tells you so. Look at the tests and don’t waste your time worrying about half-stop differences.
And the K-7 and K-x have an improved SR system!
All I'm saying is that the in body SR is as good as the lens based systems.
To say the one is superior is just wrong.
[QUOTE=FriedChicken;553801]
newer ones).
However - Canon is generally cheaper (although as aforementioned, comparing directly is hard to do, the 'ranks' overlaps here and there) as their bodies have no motors for focusing and the lenses don't come with lens hoods or pouches.
Nikon comes with hoods and pouches for lenses, but are a little more expensive.
Hi Fried Chicken,
Some clarification on this point.
Canon L Series lenses come with lens hoods and pouches - the larger telephoto primes come with hard cases. Some L's have built in hoods.
Hoods and pouches can be bought for the non L lenses.
Not having the cost of the manufacturer's pouch included in the lens purchase suits some users because they prefer to buy pouches with more padding from Lowepro (or other). Hence, they haven't paid for pouches they don't intend to use.
This debate is great-it doesn't necessarily clarify things but it does educate!
Damn straight ,Gabby!
If your eyes, ears, nose & mouth are open, you're bound to be sensing something. However, if your finger is not on the trigger, you are bound to miss the shot (wise old Confusion say).
You can't go wrong with either Canon or Nikon. But secretly I despise the button layout of Canon systems :D
For one, the lens selection of both sides are simply huge especially with lots of 3rd party support.
arthurking83
10-04-2010, 9:02pm
Actually being a dedicated and hardened Nikon person now(I find the menu button layout easy and intuitive on any Nikon body now), I found Canon's layout a lot more confusing.
having briefly handled a Pentax K10 maybe.. can't remember what that(young) member used it was 4odd years or more ago.. but I found it Nikon like and inutitive. the controls seemed to make sense.
Then just about a year ago, I played for a few hours with a low end Sony, once again cant' remember which model exactly but A300/350 seems to ring a bell. Once again I found it felt immediately comfy and easy to adjust just about any element of the camera from AutoISO to shutter to aperture.
The other week whilst at Wilson's Prom, I had Canon-itis once again. Met a young couple when i pulled up at a lookout. The sun was setting, they were already there, and I came out with tripods filters and fussed over composition for a few minutes and then got up and lowered the tripd even more and seemed to take for ever. The woman was using newish/latest model low end Canon. They both went super quiet and once I clicked away my frames, we stopped and chatted, and I explained to them some of the really basic basics of photography.. how to adjust aperure value to achieve a desired effect(sunburst at something like f/16 or so). There was no way on God's Earth I could figure out how to set Aperture AND Shutter speed at the same time using manual mode. They had no idea on how to set the camera up, and when I explained to them set the aperture too.... I thought Aha! OK.. they're newbie auto using tourists too.. took me at least 5-10 mins to realise that I wasn't going to set the camera to the settings values I wanted them to try and even if I did eventually achieve that aim, it was going to be well after dark.. which is exactly what happened. Sun dipped below the horizon in the time it took me to try to figure it out(which I didn't). But we did stand there for a short while chatting.
I'm likely to believe that if you go with:
Pentax, you will always wonder why you chose that brand, and why you can't have access to an 85/1.4(soon about to change, by Sigma).
Nikon, you'll always wonder why you chose the brand with the most expensive DSLR lenses(best kit/consumer lenses, and spend your money on third party offerings for better value for money)
Canon, why on earth do they need auto modes on their top end cameras, do I go for the 70-200/4, with IS, without IS, or the f/2.8 ..... with IS or without IS.. with gravy or without gravy :p
Seriously tho, really makes no difference in the short term what and who you go with. All the lenses you'll ever need wil be available, and it's only when you become addicted to some specialist field that the camera you chose may become a limitation due to the selection of lenses available.
If you think you're going to get to the point where you're going to need specialist type lenses such as fast telephoto prime lenses or tilt shift lenses ... costing $5K or more.. go with Canon or Nikon.
if you just want to shoot general all purpose everyday kind of images, Pentax may be an overall cheaper way into photography and a more direct path to a higher end body.. but with a much less chance of going higher without outlaying vastly more money on more gear.
Adrian Owerko
11-04-2010, 7:24am
OK.. IS - VR in a lens may have the slight edge over in body SR from Pentax and Sony! But the newest SR DSLR's will out preform the 1st generation IS - VR glass from Nikon and Canon! So if you are willing to replace your IS -VR glass from Nikon & Canon ever new version release, to keep up with the IS - VR tech! Were with Pentax & Sony all you have to do is upgrade the body! Tell me what is the cheaper option is?
Anne1958
11-04-2010, 12:11pm
all DSLRs are capable of producing good shots so its just a matter of learning how to use what ever you buy. canon and nikon are most popular but other brands will work for you just as well... maybe look into what lenses you will be wanting and base your decision around that. :)
couldn't agree more with you David.
Hi Gail, my advice would be not to rush, do your research, study different Brands and read lots of reviews (Cameras & Lens) .... you can find quite a few here,
http://www.dpreview.com/
also, apart from looking at the many fine shots here on AP, go to the Official Camera sites of Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, etc and see if they have Galleries (most of them do) where you can see many more fine examples of what their Cameras are capable of producing.
A friend at work told me also to check out this site called DPReview, which has so-called unbiased reviews of all the different cameras..are any of us unbiased? So with 2 bits of advice int he one day- I'll go check it now.Thanks Annette!
I would not call DPreview totally unbiased.
After all it is owned by a huge company with vested interests in selling cameras etc. ---------
I would be more than happy to give you my unbiased opinion on brands --- but not in public because people would start howling that I am biased. :D
hi gabby, I have an Olympus e510. Its a good start but has not given me what I want. Noise kicks into shots very early, the lenses are often more expensive than its canon & nikon counterparts and at times it has not given as good a shot as I would have hoped (though that also might be be). I am aiming to change brands later this year, but the other downside is the resale isn't very good. Good luck in choosing.
What is noise that I hear so much about and how does it manifest-is it lots of dark spots in a photo???? - what causes it?
Gabby, the sensor in a digital camera is an amplification device, similar to how a stereo system or an iPod makes sound from electronic "data". When all the parameters of a well exposed picture are not met and in particular when parts of or the whole picture is underexposed and then one tries to bring back detail in those dark areas, graininess appears. The term noise seems to have been applied because the sensor and processor in cameras work as amplifiers and in the same way that over amplified music is bad and often "scratchy" the grainy areas of pictures are described as noisy.
There are quite a few factors affecting how noise is produced and some camera manufacturers have managed to get their sensors and processors working better than other makers to control "noise" especially at high ISO values ( heavily amplified light sensitivity ) and what is being done in 2010 is so far removed from 2005 as to be fairly astounding.
A quick attachment showing fairly typical noise, both for the make and model of the camera and the overall exposure of the shot. The dirty grainy areas within the circles ( and surrounding areas ) is the "dreaded noise".
Heya Gabby and others. I spent OH SO LONG going through this sort of decision. In the end I went with olympus for a few reasons, and I feel us oly's need to speak up every now and then in the face of Cannik superiority :D Firstly, I held all the cameras on offer, including the ridiculously expensive ones. Ergonomics play a big part for me and I wanted to know that my investment would feel good in my hands and make me want to use it. Lens support... now nikon and cannon supply some unbelieveable optics... they also supply some astronomical price tags. I found olympus lenses to be exceptionally high quality and with very few reports, if any, of faults. The crop factor of the sensor was a plus to me in the way that I don't have to lug HUGE lenses around to get the length or DOF supplied by many of the much smaller and lighter zuiko lenses. I say many with a little irony, be very aware that while olympus offers some premium optics at very reasonable prices (in many instances the optics are better glass than the cameras themselves can use) they still offer a very limited range. Also, should you want to buy second hand glass at any time, olympus isn't your brand, we tend to hold onto our lenses. Nikon and Canon have a MUCH larger second hand market in the lens department (many pros also cycle through their gear at a high rate and sell the cast offs on ebay quite regularly, needless to say, said pros are very rarely olympus users) Among many other reasons I came up with for my decision the two I found most compelling were the build quality of both camera body (my friends refer to my E3 as ' li'l tanky') and lenses AND that little fuzzy feeling I get when out and about, seeing so many canon or nikon neck straps, knowing that I'm in the minority. A very small minded approach to such a big financial decision, I know but hey, you have to enjoy the little things. If you got through all of that, Gabby, please take one thing away from my experience. Choose the camera that you just feel right holding. It may not be the best gear for you at the time but if you like it, given time, and those occasions when you take that shot that you feel extra proud of, you'll end up loving it. Good luck.
Well explained, I@M - which manufacturers do you consider better at noise reduction in the sensors and processors so far?
Nikon is #1 in noise at this stage, D300, D90, D3, D3s in that order. Each is about a stop better than the last and imho a stop better than the Canon equivalents
N, C, P. :D
Now everyone will call me biased and start jumping up and down again. :(
Thanks Beej-good points-I must admit when I hold a Nikon,it doesn't feel as comfortable as the Canon. I also remember times when I didn't want to cart all my old Pentax gear due to the heavy weight when you walked long trails.
Don't get too hung up on one particular area of comparison between brands, noise is not the be all and end all of a good photo, think beyond that to the way one brand appears to have more appealing colours or how many of which brand that you hear about being repaired regularly. Start a database and spend time and then more time researching camera models / brands and then start checking the boxes in that database that are important to you.
head down to your local camera store and look at and hold every camera you can, get on the net and read every review that you can. Spend plenty of time on AP and ask questions (as you are doing) because sooner or later someone will have the correct answer to your questions.
Research research research.
This response process is like Skype isn't it -where you answer the post you can see, only to find it totally out of order as others posts jump in in front-keeps you on your toes!:efelant:
arthurking83
12-04-2010, 8:51pm
A friend at work told me also to check out this site called DPReview, which has so-called unbiased reviews ....
the bias or otherwise may be apparent to some, but it's not overly obvious in their testing.
Noise can be a product of some many variables, it'd warrant a new thread topic of it's own.
But needless to say that all digital cameras produce some noise, to a degree, but it may not be noticable.
The trick is to work out for yourself via some of the vast information available to you on how to compare apples to apples when it comes to digital photography.
One of the reasons people will recommend to you to go with brand X, Y or A :p becaus eit has lower noise ability is to simply improve the chances of getting higher quality images more often, and in more difficult(usually lower) light, or without the use of external lighting to get a decent exposure.
Noise can be everything, and it can also be nothing to worry about.
Easy way to see for yourself how noise can affect the camera of your choice, and how to compare cameras is via DPR.
They have a system of comparative tests done on a simple website layout that allows you an easy way to reference about 4 or 5 cameras at once with respect to image quality.
But!! Don't be fooled by the jpg image comparisons. What you want to compare is the ability of the cameras raw files with respect to noise(at least). If you think you may shoot with less and less reliance on flash or other fill light of some kind, then noise may be an important consideration for you.
Currently As Kiwi said with his reply on Nikon cameras.
The really important point tho is that the difference is pretty minimal for almost all non professional users.
Another site that usually verifies most of the tests made on DPR is DXOLabs, DXOMark (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database) database.
The idea is that this is a subjective, raw only, test procedure and if you really want the best quality from your images you want to be shooting raw, so knowing which sensor is better at minimising noise can help you to decide what camera is a long term prospect.
I may have mentioned before.. if i were in yoru situation, I'd be looking to a secondhand camera to begin with. (I've also now convinced a friend to do the same thing for herself.. simply because she's unsure of what it is she wants to do with photography).
There's no point in spending up big on a Nikon system, if you never venture past ISO200!
Get the best camera system to suit your current needs, with the important point of at the lowest possible cost. At least at the lowest possible cost(to you now) eliminates a high, or hard hitting loss factor if you decide that you want to change systems to <whatever other brand takes your fancy>
For my friend, we're going to look for a Nikon D80. She's more into portraits, so we're going to get her at least one dedicated portrait lens, which I'll get her to figure out what focal length, by using a portrait specific zoom lens(28-75mm). My guess is that she'll want the 35mm focal length for a crop(APS-C) body, but without her input, I have no idea on what her preference is. Once she's worked that preference out, then we'll get her a lens to suit(my guess is either a 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4) for her portrait needs.
I also recommended to her to get a consumer grade kit lens(18-105) for it, as well, as it'll suit 99% of her other needs, and then we'll analyse the lens usage data and work out if she'd benefit from using a more dedicated(but limited) fast aperture zoom lens too, or if she finds that she want to do more wide angled images and the lens is not wide enough, then we'll get her something wider in it's field of view.. etc, etc.
But the most important aspect I tried to drum into her head, is not to waste any money(yet) on getting a camera body that she may not need, or eventually want.. even in the immediate future.
Her usage pattern, and other requirements will dictate whether she needs to spend more money on a better(featured) camera body.
D90, 18-105, 35/1.8, SB600 and you're set for a good while
D90, 18-105, 35/1.8, SB600 and you're set for a good while
What is the SB one-I gather it's not a 600mm telephoto which would cost much moola but be super expensive.
I'm unlikely to use over ISO 800 if I take my previous non-digital Pentax usage into account. Do you use something at ISO 3200 more than once a year? Wouldn't that take total dark cave type images?
arthurking83
13-04-2010, 6:10pm
I regularly use ISO3200 in a fairly dimly lit room, with camera values such as 1/60 and f/2.8.
SB600 is an external flash, and with a Nikon Dxx(where xx represents a number) the SB600(and higher numbered flashes) can be controlled wirelessly by the camera.(super cool feature to have up your sleeve).
You will(or can) be surprised at how handy it is to have ISO3200 up your sleeve with good results to show for it.
ATM, and with my usage pattern, I'd reckon I'm unlikely to shoot beyond ISO12800 now..
OK-thanks all- I've learned so much from all this discourse and had fun at the same time!
OK I've taken your ideas and all the helpful information you've given to turn me from total digitalSLR ignorance to someone who at least partially understands the technology. I further researched and went to different stores getting the feel of the various cameras and found one camera salesman who really knew his stuff and allowed me to take shots using various lenses. (Most of the stores wouldn't even put a battery in let alone a memory card- it's like trying to sell a car without allowing buyers to turn it on and testdrive it):eek: I have decided to go with the Canon 50D with the 18-200mm lens and add a 100mmF2.8 MACRO lens. I'll then save to grab a decent telephoto.
The 18-200mm would be an anytime convenient lens that I could afford. Ultimately I'd like at least 300mm telephoto but my current mortgage doesn't permit that yet. The basic camera gear is expensive enough. Is home ownership really worth it????
I would appreciate advice on best place to buy, Fried Chicken. I've checked EBay and the best price quide on the net as well as a couple of very expensive local camera shops on the southern Gold Coast and Tweed. There seems to be great bargains in Asia but I worry about the warranty if something goes wrong.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.