Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 30D vs D200  (Read 55843 times)
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2006, 11:33:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Add to all of this the fact that the lens selection of the Canon system is quite a bit larger than the Nikon.

5)  ... Canon develops and manufactures their own sensors. 

Nikon has them made out of house

6) Full-frame.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Some comments.

a. the question is about the 30D and D300, neither of which is full frame, and Canon's 35mm format DSLR are way out of this price range, so frankly, item 6 is irrelevant. As irrelevant at the fact that Pentax makes MF camera is to choosing a 35mm film camera or "APS-C" format DSLR.

b. It makes no sense to compare lens systems by sheer numbers, or to compare lens systems designed for one format (35mm) when choosing a camera for another format. For example, Canon and Nikon's offerings of 24-something and 28-something zooms for 35mm format are far less importance than their offerings of EF-S and DX format lenses, where Nikon arguably has parity or a lead.
[Added later. I would suggest instead looking at the lens options for the D200 and 30D, deciding which of those lenses one is interested in now or in the foreseeable future, and judging which system better fits those needs.]

[Added later.
c. Sensor outsourcing is not nearly the disadvantage that some people make it out to be. For example, in the compact digicam market, Canon outsources all sensors, mostly from direct competitor Sony, and I have seen no suggestion that this is a disadvantage of Canon in comparison to digicam makers like Sony, Kodak, Fuji or Panasonic, who make some or all of their own digicam sensors.]
« Last Edit: April 17, 2006, 04:40:47 PM by BJL » Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #21 on: April 17, 2006, 08:15:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Some comments.

a) the question is about the 30D and D300, neither of which is full frame, and Canon's 35mm oramt DSLR are way out of this price range, so frankly, item 6 is irrelevant. AS irrelevant at te fact that Pentax makes MF camera s to choosig a 35mm film camera or "APS-C" format DSLR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62772\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I respectfully disagree, BJL.  One of the consequences of opting for the D200, is that the first-time purchaser has, for all intents and purposes, eliminated the option of full-frame format digital photography.  Nikon has repeatedly stated that it has no intention of making anything but reduced-sized sensor DSLR's.  

The purchaser can then buy DX lenses, engineered,sized, and priced  to work for full-frame sensors yet now destined to spend life on a reduced sensor camera.  Or, the purchaser can buy smaller, less expensive EF-S lenses, which will never work on a full-frame camera.


However, since Canon offers both full- and reduced -frame formats, the first-time purchaser can keep his options open.  Knowing that he may want to move to full-frame someday - perhaps some day soon, as real prices of the 5D are only now $800 more than the D200 - he can purchase lenses for his 30D that will work perfectly on his full-frame camera.

If you think you may want to go full-frame someday, you only need to buy your kit once if you go with Canon.


Quote
It makes no sense to compare lens systems by sheer numbers, or to compare lens sysems dsigne for one format (35mm) when choosing a camera for another format. For example Canon and Nikon's offerings of 24-something and 28-something zooms for 35mm format are far less importance than their offerings of EF-S and DX format lenses, whr Nikon arguably has a lead.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62772\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think I addressed part of your well-taken point here above.  While Nikon does have a lead in efs lens offerings, that lead is shrinking, as Canon came out with some new efs lenses just recently.

But Canon is also coming out with new non-efs sized lenses, for its full-frame digital, for its reduced frame digital,  and, I suppose film (did I just say film?) cameras. These lenses work on all of its cameras - think of the shattering harmonic beauty! Grin

 Does Nikon have much, if any, impetus to develop new non-efs lenses?

If not - then I would contend they are painting themselves into a technological corner, as the aps-sized sensor is about at its theoretical technological image quality limit.

If they do - which I suspect - it means that they will indeed come out with a full-frame DSLR as soon as they can, despite their current protestations to the contrary.

And finally, I stand by my assertion that more lenses in the line up is better than less.  How can choice be bad?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2006, 08:22:07 AM by gingerbaker » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #22 on: April 17, 2006, 04:32:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I respectfully disagree, BJL.  One of the consequences of opting for the D200, is that the first-time purchaser has, for all intents and purposes, eliminated the option of full-frame format digital photography.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Only to the same extent that a purchaser of 35mm format (film or digital) "eliminates" the option of changing to a larger format like 645 medium format. In each case, the evidence suggests that only a very small fraction of SLR buyers will feel much need to change to a larger format, and the few who do can do so by trading in.

It would make little sense to hamper a choice of 35mm system by choosing a brand (Pentax) that also offer medium format and using mostly or entirely medium format lenses, just to prepare for the small probability of wanting to change format later. It likewise make no sense to me (or to the vast majority of DSLR buyers why are buying EF-S, DX, 4/3 and such lenses) to hamper current choices and performance in order to prepare for that remote and unlikely change.


Get over it: digital in 35mm format and up are permanently high end niche formats, as surely as medium format became in the '60's as 35mm film format SLR's took over.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #23 on: April 17, 2006, 05:15:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... the aps-sized sensor is about at its theoretical technological image quality limit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Do you have any evidence for this claim that DX format is about to hit it theoretical limits (while 35mm format has room for significant further progress, apparently), or is this simply rehashed from the credo of the cult of "35mm film format will prevail in digital despite its current 3% market share"? When I first heard this pessimistic claim, DX was at the D100 and D1X: it has made considerable progress since then.
Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #24 on: April 17, 2006, 05:34:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
......the evidence suggests that only a very small fraction of SLR buyers will feel much need to change to a larger format, and the few who do can do so by trading in.....
(snip)

 ...It likewise make no sense to me (or to the vast majority of DSLR buyers why are buying EF-S, DX, 4/3 and such lenses) to hamper current choices and performance in order to prepare for that remote and unlikely change.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Right now onecall.com is reporting a 3 to 6-week backorder on the Canon 5D due to the recent $300 rebate on the camera.  I daresay nearly all of these buyers are moving up, not down the digital food chain.

I myself will soon augment my 20D with a 5D.  My lens purchase decisions for my 20D were predicated on the eventual availability of  affordable full-frame DSLR's.  To my delight, that day has arrived sooner than expected.

Please, tell me how my purchase of my Canon 24-70L  and my Sigma 12-24, instead of the efs equivalents has "hampered my choices or the performance" of my camera systems?  What hampers my camera systems is my incredible ineptitude and near complete lack of artistic sensibility! Grin



Quote
Get over it: digital in 35mm format and up are permanently high end niche formats..... [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


To quote the owner of this site on this very subject:

 " As I've written before – no one asked for smaller image sensors. Please sir – could I have a smaller negative? They were adopted by camera makers because larger sensors are much more expensive to make."

Today, the  difference in cost between the 5D and the D200 is barely more than the difference in cost between the D200 and the Canon 30D.  The scuttlebutt is that Canon may even introduce a lesser and cheaper version of the 5D at the exact price level of the D200.

Go to the dpreview Nikon D200 forum.  You will find thread after thread of Nikonians venting their disappointment that Nikon refuses to introduce a full-frame alternative.

Full-frame a "niche format"?  Perhaps not for long.
Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #25 on: April 17, 2006, 05:39:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do you have any evidence for this claim that DX format is about to hit it theoretical limits (while 35mm format has room for significant further progress, apparently), or is this simply rehashed from the credo of the cult of "35mm film format will prevail in digital despite its current 3% market share"? When I first heard this pessimistic claim, DX was at the D100 and D1X: it has made considerable progress since then.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is a good article that explains it better then I can  

[a href=\"http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html]http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html[/url]
Logged
DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #26 on: April 17, 2006, 05:54:28 PM »
ReplyReply

The one point to take from a D30 vs D200 comparison is that we should be moving beyond a pure comparison of technical specifications to one of total solution - i.e. both the equipment and the service that sits behind it.

Perhaps as important as which is the better camera is which company provides the best service (and I tend to fall into the camp that believes that both cameras will meet 90% of the requirements of 90% of photographers and the remaining photographers will know what they need to get the other 10% of photos that can't be caught with these two camears).  

Service needs to be:
1/ Pre-sales support = Either 'on the web' or 'in-store' information to evaluate whether either camera meets the customers requirements.
2/ Knowledgeable in store staff to advise the customer on which camera, lenses and accessories.
3/ Out of box experience - Does the box contain all hardware, software, etc to get the customer using the camera as quickly as possible...how does either Nikon or Canon compare with Apple for ease of use - both companies have some way to go with respect to ergonomics and usability. How good is either company at providing manuals and training on how to use the camera effectively - Digital is bringing in a lot of new photographers, surely there needs to be in the box training material (or pointers to training courses to get people taking better pictures).
4/ Post sales support - Something, somewhere is going to go wrong sometime. How good is either Nikon or Canon at resolving customer issues? Providing firmware updates? Resolving queries and fixing customer equipment faults?

I sometimes feel that the discussion forums focus too much on trading off equipment and not looking at the overall solution. Top companies are those that provide best overall customer experience - and neither Canon or Nikon can lay claim to being best in class yet.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2006, 06:28:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is a good article that explains it better then I can 

http://www.photo.net/oped/bobatkins/full_frame.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I asked for _evidence_, not the speculations of another 35mm die-hard like Bob Atkins. The evidence I see includes
1. a small and shrinking DSLR market share for 35mm format as the smaller DSLR formats experience far larger sales growth: about 3% now, far less than in the early days of the 1Ds and 14n.
2. a price gap of around US$2,000 that has not come down much in the almost four years since the 1Ds and 14n were announced.
If Atkins' "bigger formats will prevail" argument worked, medium format would have taken over from 35mm format film rather than the other way around. The basic flaw of all such arguments is ignoring or denying the advantages of smaller formats, such as size, weight and cost, advantages which have driven shifts in market dominance from 8x10" format to 4"x5" format to medium format to 35mm format, and now to APS-C and smaller digital formats. History shows that as image quality improves at any given format, an increasing proportion of photographers opt for the advantages of a smaller format.

Likewise for Michael Reichmann's "Please sir – could I have a smaller negative?": that is _exactly_ what a great proportion of photographers asked for when they started buying 35mm gear instead of the previously dominant medium format, particularly in the late 1950's and 1960's, once SLR's like the Nikon F came along.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2006, 06:52:38 PM by BJL » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #28 on: April 17, 2006, 06:42:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please, tell me how my purchase of my Canon 24-70L  and my Sigma 12-24, instead of the efs equivalents has "hampered my choices or the performance" of my camera systems?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My comment was about someone choosing lenses for use with a 30D or D200, not with a 5D. I leave it for you to work out the disadvantages of a standard zoom with wide angle coverage limited to "37mm equivalent", when the alternatives include the Canon or Nikon 17-55/2.8 lenses.

Quote
The scuttlebutt is that Canon may even introduce a lesser and cheaper version of the 5D at the exact price level of the D200.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62852\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is the wishful thinking anyway: again, do you have any evidence for this? Such a cost reduction seems unlikely, partly because Canon states on their website that their 24x36mm sensors require a more expensive "double exposure" process, as no stepper is capable of making them with the usual single exposure, which can be done for DX and smaller sensors. And would the cost cutting in this "lesser" version include a frame rate even slower than 3fps while the 30D and D200 do 5fps? Or even less environmental sealing, already an advantage of the D200 over the 5D?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2006, 06:50:36 PM by BJL » Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #29 on: April 17, 2006, 07:07:06 PM »
ReplyReply

re physics of pixils size, noise, diffraction:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/



upshot is apc-s size sensors have about reached their limit as far as number of decent-sized photoreceptors allowing low noise.
Logged
jd1566
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2006, 02:20:08 AM »
ReplyReply

The Tyranny of choice...

In a previous post someone mentioned the advantage of Canon's wide choice of lenses.. Well, have a read of this article and see if maybe you change your mind a bit.


http://www.godspy.com/culture/tyranny_of_choice.cfm

Choice is marketer's way of making us buy more, spend more, own more and upgrade more.  It is not necessarily a good thing.  Though Canon has a wider lens selection than Nikon, the important focal lenghts are all represented by Nikon.  Even Minolta with it's relatively meager selection has some wonderful lenses.  So the lens selection is a false promise in my book.

I know a friend who ever since he moved from Nikon to canon is absolutely obsessed by lenses.  In the space of a few months he's bouthg 5 L lenses, and talks of buying more..  My view is that he'll be spending more time changing lenses than actually shooting.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2006, 02:20:49 AM by jd1566 » Logged

B&W photographer - Still lifes, Portraits, Urban scenes, Landscapes, Abstract images.
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2006, 07:45:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi jd1566

That's an interesting article!

 Not sure it exactly buttresses your argument that the wider Canon lineup instigates too much lens buying, though.  The article says too much choice may stymie purchasing:

"Shoppers who confront a display of 30 jams or varieties of gourmet chocolate are less likely to purchase any than when they encounter a display of six."

"The more funds employers offer their employees in 401(k) retirement plans, the less likely the employees are to invest in any, even though in many cases, failing to do so costs them employer-matching funds of up to several thousand dollars a year."

On the other hand, the article describes "maximizers" - those who want the optimum result from their decisions - [or perhaps their lenses?] -  as:

"When maximizers, as opposed to satisficers, go shopping for big items or small ones, they spend more time looking, have a harder time deciding, look around more at what others are buying, and are less satisfied with their purchases."


Boy, if that doesn't describe the dpreview forums, I don't know what does!!  
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2006, 08:25:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
5)  There is something to be said for buying into the camera company with the best R&D, supply line, and product breadth as well.  Canon develops and manufactures their own sensors. 

Nikon has them made out of house, by companies now about to compete with them head to head in the DSLR marketplace.  While they claim to have settled on a single sensor size  - eschewing the larger full-frame size with its inherent advantages (some drawbacks) and potentials - they still haven't even settled on a sensor technology, as they go back and forth between CCD and CMOS. This is a tad troubling to me.



Gingerbaker
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In a category of inmature technology with a high velocity of change, betting on one technology is often a road to ruin.

Canon has been correct so far and has build an lead. But Canon doesn't have a lock on promising technology. In labs all around the world, scientist and engineers are working feverishly to top the current technology. Keeping ones options open can avoid getting trapped by a single technology. I see that as what Nikon is doing. Their last 4 camera's all had different chip designs, yet they all worked well enough. I have noticed that they get the new chips from (Sony,etc.) before the rest of the camera (non-Canon) industry. That is a strength of being a long term market leader with an broad array of lenses and accessories.

I see Canon, potentially more at risk being wedded to one technology.

Bob
Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2006, 08:56:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In a category of inmature technology with a high velocity of change, betting on one technology is often a road to ruin.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Canon has put CCD sensors in its high-end cameras until quite recently.

Quote
Canon has been correct so far and has build an lead. But Canon doesn't have a lock on promising technology. In labs all around the world, scientist and engineers are working feverishly to top the current technology.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Are these the same scientists who are working feverishly to make my underarm deoderant work harder as my stress level goes up?  Grin

 
Quote
Keeping ones options open can avoid getting trapped by a single technology.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Do you have an insiders view of what happens deep in the bowels of the super-secret Canon R&D facility, hidden miles deep below Mt Fuji,  behind vanadium-plasma-enriched steel doors ten-feet thick?

Quote
I see that as what Nikon is doing. Their last 4 camera's all had different chip designs, yet they all worked well enough. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Another interpretation might be that they are flailing about in hopes of finding something that will work better than the last incarnation they were sold on by the previous sensor manufacturer they had their last contract with.   Not that there's anything wrong with that. Grin

Quote
I have noticed that they get the new chips from (Sony,etc.) before the rest of the camera (non-Canon) industry. That is a strength of being a long term market leader with an broad array of lenses and accessories.

I see Canon, potentially more at risk being wedded to one technology.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62920\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Why?  Surely, if and when another company produces the MostStupendouslyAdvancedSensorEverSeen, they can sell it to Canon just as easily as to Nikon?
Logged
gingerbaker
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 32



« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2006, 09:35:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Get over it: digital in 35mm format and up are permanently high end niche formats, as surely as medium format became in the '60's as 35mm film format SLR's took over.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Before the Canon 5D,  35mm (full-frame) digital  was "niche".  You needed two things to enter the club:

1) Huge money  -   a 1D series Canon would run $5000-$8000+

2) Huge forearms -  these full-frame cameras are huge and heavy

=> these entry criteria are true no longer.

The 5D is the same size or smaller than the D200, and only marginally more expensive.

It looks, and more importantly, it operates and handles just like a 30D or 20D.

Your analogy of comparing Canon's full-frame offerings as being as different as a medium format camera is to a 35mm film camera are  off base, I think.

Todays medium format camera, especially a digital medium format, is a totally different beast from any DSLR.  Way more expensive, way more complex, way more technically challenging to use, and very different in form and function.

The 5D, on the other hand, can be picked up and used immediately by anyone with experience using a Canon 30D or lesser DSLR.

BJL, You used the somewhat demeaning phrase "Get over it", above.  It seems to me you are very defensive on this issue of full-frame and Nikon.
Logged
gryffyn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 323


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2006, 09:54:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Something I posted on the Nikonians D200 forum, on a similar topic:

At the level of the D200 and 5D (and likely the D30), it's not the tool....it's the "tool" behind the tool that makes the difference. Most cameras in this class are better than the photographers that own them. Many of the posts on Nikonians and other forums would attest to that.

Check out my "Lion about D200 Sharpness" thread. It might help dispell some of the incorrect opinions bandied about here about D200 sharpness. More to come on high ISO noise when I get a moment later this week as well.

Ignore the pixel-peepers....since most of them couldn't take a good picture with a Haselblad with a 39megapixel back if their life depended on it.

Do your homework.....go to a good pro-level camera shop and check out the ergonomics of the D200 and Canon 5D and/or D30 and then go take lots of pics. Don't ever look back, since that won't help your photography.

I'll be shooting with a friend early June in Tennessee and Illinois, and then again around home (Barrie, Ontario, north of Toronto) early July. She has a 5D and a Rebel. I have a D200, D100 and D70. We're going to swap for a few hours to see how the "other half" lives, just for fun. I expect that we'll both have a ball doing that, but will be relieved to get back to our own gear after the experiment. And on a good day, our pics are excellent and indistinguishable. On a bad day....well, let's say that the high end camera gear lets you take crappy shots so much more easily and quickly.

Oh...and she has asked me more than once how I get such sharp wildlife shots, where every piece of fur is distinct. Like I said...it's not the gear...it's the photographer (and the post-production workflow as well).
Logged

.....Andrzej
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2006, 01:42:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
re physics of pixils size, noise, diffraction:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/
upshot is apc-s size sensors have about reached their limit as far as number of decent-sized photoreceptors allowing low noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62873\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The usual nonsense of comparing at equal f-stop and ISO, even though he in several places notes the pattern that using equal aperture (focal length divided by f-stop) is what gives closer to equivalent results. This equal ISO and f-stop assumption flies in the face of the long established trend of using larger f-stops in larger formats. Going to a larger format, larger pixels and larger focal lengths will very often need the use a higher f-stop because
- getting adequate DOF requires it, and getting _enough_ DOF is a very common goal
- lens size, weight, and cost require it: for example, cost and weight are about equal for 200/2.8, 300/4 and 400/5.6 lenses, with a pattern of minimum f-stop changing in same proportion to the focal length (equal effective aperture diameter of about 70mm in these example). Going from 200/2.8 to 300/2.8 to 400/2.8 instead greatly increases both weight and cost.
- The available lenses require it, because the minimum f-stops of the fastest lenses available tend to increases as focal length increases: f/1.4 to 85mm, then f/2 to 135mm (Canon) or 200mm (Nikon), then f/2.8 to 400mm, then f/4 to 600mm, and beyond that, you are probably using TC's which increase minimum f-stop. Zoom lens speeds fall off even faster: Canon zooms drops from f/2.8 to f/4-5.6 once one goes beyond 200mm.

Once the larger format uses a higher f-stop, it needs to use a higher ISO speed to get the same high shutter speed, invalidating S/N comparisons at equal ISO speed. For example, if focal length changes in proportion to pixel size (to get equal pixel counts) and then f-stop changes in proportion to focal length (to get similar lens weight, cost and DOF), then equal shutter speeds deliver an equal amount of light to each pixel, and so gives roughly equal S/N ratio. Actually, larger pixels generate more electrons of dark current noise, so with an equal number of electrons of signal, the S/N might be a bit worse.


P. S. Some compact digital camera sensors with pixels 2.8 microns or smaller give excellent low noise images when used at optimal (low) ISO speeds, so when high shutter speed is not important (and this is a landscape forum remember, a domain where low ISO film used to dominate), the APS-C format could easily go to over 5000x7500, over 30MP. Lens resolution limits and the desire for somewhat higher shutter speeds will probably impose a limit below that, but still significantly beyond the current 12.5MP maximum.
Logged
shootergirl
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2006, 01:53:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'll be shooting with a friend early June in Tennessee and Illinois, and then again around home (Barrie, Ontario, north of Toronto) early July. She has a 5D and a Rebel. I have a D200, D100 and D70. We're going to swap for a few hours to see how the "other half" lives, just for fun. I expect that we'll both have a ball doing that, but will be relieved to get back to our own gear after the experiment. And on a good day, our pics are excellent and indistinguishable. On a bad day....well, let's say that the high end camera gear lets you take crappy shots so much more easily and quickly.

Popping my head out from lurk mode. I'm the friend he's speaking of and it's true--we can both take good photos with our equipment and we can both take bad ones. And I can't wait to get totally confused when I use his D200.    

To the original poster: My humble suggestion is for you to visit a good camera store that will have both cameras in stock. Take along a couple memory cards (if you have them), and take a bunch of photos. A local store here will let me step outside (but in plain view of them) to test out equipment. Then take your pics back home and compare to see what you like best. By being able to handle both cameras you'll be able to see what is physically more comfortable to you and what seems to make the most "sense" in operation. And with the photos you've taken, you can get somewhat of an idea what each camera will do. When I was debating on buying my original Digital Rebel, I nearly drove myself crazy reading reviews. It turns out I was very happy with the camera (with a few exceptions) but it would have been a much easier decision of I'd only handled it in a store before buying one.

Quote
Oh...and she has asked me more than once how I get such sharp wildlife shots, where every piece of fur is distinct. Like I said...it's not the gear...it's the photographer (and the post-production workflow as well).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62946\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True. He's given me tips on the settings he uses in Photoshop and it's greatly improved the sharpness and detail in my photos.

Donna
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5161


« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2006, 01:56:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Before the Canon 5D,  35mm (full-frame) digital  was "niche".  You needed two things to enter the club:

1) Huge money  -   a 1D series Canon would run $5000-$8000+

2) Huge forearms -  these full-frame cameras are huge and heavy

=> these entry criteria are true no longer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 5D has a US MAP of US$3,300, about as much as a Leica M7 and about $2,000 more than a 30D, from which it differs mostly in the larger sensor. Meanwhile, the great majority of DSLR's sell for under US$1,000. 24x36mm is still priced _way_ out of the budget of most SLR buyers.

And the longer telephoto lenses needed with larger sensors and pixels can still require "Huge forearms"!

Quote
BJL, You used the somewhat demeaning phrase "Get over it", above.  It seems to me you are very defensive on this issue of full-frame and Nikon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=62941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I was borrowing a catch-phrase that our host Michael Reichmann has used many times in chastising people who are to slow to accept the changes bought by the digital transition. Given the very small and shrinking digital market share of 35mm format (even with 5D sales) and its abandonment by most SLR makers, I think that it is you who are very defensive, of that format.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2006, 01:57:00 PM by BJL » Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2006, 02:25:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Why can people not grasp the fact that both formats have their pluses and minuses and neither is perfect for everyone?  Die hards on both sides will fight to the death, neither is a clear winner.  Choose which will work best for you and the given cost and value.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad