I've heard two things about the evolt that lead me to want to discount it -- it also bigger than ist DS. One, the Kodak sensors in Oly's cams to date, are exactly quiet above ISO 400. Two, the viewfinders, while 1X, are really showing 100% of a substantially smaller window, so you get tunnel vision viewfinder effects...
The zooms are nice though.
I think what the other (non Nikon/Canon) systems are really missing is a selection of stabilized zooms.
Just have another look at the lense catalogue. It seems Pentax has neutered the KAF mount slightly. This seems a design decision made to facilitate USM and possibly VR lenses, it's not absolutely neccessary to do that (as Nikon shows) and it does somewhat hamper the full functionality of some older lenses...
Just something to look into. The new lense collection isn't especially bright from what I've seen in their catalogue...
Just have another look at the lense catalogue. It seems Pentax has neutered the KAF mount slightly. This seems a design decision made to facilitate USM and possibly VR lenses, it's not absolutely neccessary to do that (as Nikon shows) and it does somewhat hamper the full functionality of some older lenses...
I have read of this before but never understood. I will be using screw mount lenses on the same adapter for my 35mm camera and from what I've read, they work fine.
I am not quite sure which lenses are an issue (which would be good to know when I am shopping hock shops, etc)
Quote:
Where do Pentax shoppers go for f/2.8 or faster?
That I cannot answer... I am nothing more than a rank amateur photographer. I won't be buying $1000+ lenses anytime soon
Just got the ist DS and so far am happy. Love the ergonomics, it feels much better in my hands then the rebel or nikon's did. Haven't taken too many shots yet and I'm still getting used to the menus and functions. So far though I'm happy with the choice I made.
I went with E-1 (Olympus) while it's 5MP, as long as you don't print huge enlargements it's superb.
[b]
Those who have it, like it. And it looks like a good choice for more extreme environs, especially for those without the budget for D2H/X or EOS 1D/s MkII level cameras
Quote:
E-Volt, before you dismiss it, at least play with it.
One thing no-one but Oly does: dust filter, and it works.
I have no idea what's the deal with noise and all that "too noisy, cleaner etc.."
Take a look at good old film, and compare that to digital, what are we talking about here?
Anyways, look at the pictures, not the reviews :-)
18mm x 13.5mm = 243mm^2
23.7 x 15.6mm = 369.72mm^2
Some argue that 4/3rds is not that much smaller than APS-C, they tend to measure the linear difference in sensor size and state that it's only about 25% narrower and 15% shorter, but when you add that up, you get approximately 50% more surface area.
Then look at the results out of a D100 or D70, or any of the D60, 10D, 20D, S2. ALL are much cleaner than the EI/E300 at ISO 800-1600, and still visibly better at 400.
You could put some of it down to the Kodak sensor, or a lot of it. It'll be interesting to see the sensor tech improve, we see that some impressive gains have been made in smaller 1/1.8" sensors recently. Eventually, there may not be that much difference between 4/3" and APS-C, but right now the larger sensors are doing better
You can either compare sensor sizes, noise levels aspect ratios, endless features, and all that tech mimbo-jumbo, or you can just look at the pictures.
You can either compare sensor sizes, noise levels aspect ratios, endless features, and all that tech mimbo-jumbo, or you can just look at the pictures.
This line inevitably comes out. However, the topic thread wasn't asking how to take good pictures, but what makes a good camera, and a technical discussion is inherent in that discussion.
I'm far from thinking that 4/3rds is all doom and gloom, those people using e-1's seem to like them, and it's a cheap way to get a body for more extreme outdoor use.
There are good things possible in 4/3rds, like sharp, fast, zoom lenses at reasonable prices. The possible arrival of Panasonic as a 4/3rds partner may even bring stabilization. All good things. But right now, the 4/3rds cams have a definite mid-high ISO noise disadvantage as compared to APS sensors. Could be Kodak is to blame for this? It's likely. I wouldn't be too worried about it, high ISO performance is slowly improving with the latest generation of very small sensor cams, and considering that pixel densities have ramped up with each subsequent generation, just holding the line on MP for a bit, while storage, processing and retrieval systems catch up... that will bring marked improvements.
Yes,, ther are also some very nice 2MP images out there, and you can get a decent 8x10 with the right subject and the right software, but it isn't easy.
You know, Dalsa has a 40MP 645 (well, @ 48mm x 36mm, not quite 645) sized sensor on the boards. That means we'll probably see a FF 35mm product with 20MP soon... My guess is a Kodak SLR n/c replacement announced some time near Q4 '05
Yeah, this is all far afield, but it goes to show that sensor resolution won't stand still, and while gains in dynamic range, and s/n ratio are eaten up by the drive for more MP, those are also happening and will eventually lead to digital nirvana.
Using the pixel densities of current 7MP 1/1.8" sensors would result in a nearly 60MP APS sensor, or a 120MP FF sensor! You might only be able to shoot 1fps-0.5fps using the fastest processors, and probably be limited to no more than ISO-100, but those'd be some incredible studio cameras!
And the further we go, the more like film this will all become. We're just waiting on the processing tech to catch-up in many cases. Imagine a 120MP FF 35mm sensor. Noisy as shit above ISO 100 you say. Maybe. but with so many pixels, just blending it down to 12MP would cure that.
Completely impractical today. But what about in 5-10 years, when the we have processing power to spare? Then it would be just like film. "slow" film (ISO 25-100) gets you higher resolution, "fast" film (ISO 800-3200) get you progressively more sensitivity at the penalty of progressively less resolution.
So now we're completely off-topic, but just trying to say that the technical aspect is itself interetsing
One on topic and more practical consideration of the e300 vs *Ist DS would be the viewfinder. It has been noted that the e300 viewfinder is rather dark and small, whilst the *Ist DS has one of the best viewfinders in the segment. The viewfinder is one of the greatest factors in comfortable camera operation - a good one makes it that much easier to get the shot.
I have both of the cameras in question and the Nikon D70 is the only one I use. Seriously get the D70 you'll be blown away. It eats my D100 and a couple other studio cameras i have for lunch in most areas.
I was a camera junkie many years ago and then abandoned the whole thing. I still have my Canon T80 SLR from 1988 or so and took many thousands of great pictures. I then went to college and obviously couldnt lug around an SLR to parties and such. I didnt hated throw-away cameras and such and digital was just at its infancy.
Since then I have had a wonderful Olympus 1.2MP camera and then a Sony P70 and now the Sony P100.
Quality is ok and I love the movie functions... but I miss the fine control of the lens and zoom and play around with light. These point and click cameras, well, just suck for that. Great for parties and general stuff but... well... you get it.
So.. anyway... lets say I have a 1000usd budget and Im NOT a pro photographer. I know my way around a little (very rusty) and want to take nice pics.
I came accross this thread and also came accross the fact that the new Canon Digital Rebel is out and seems to be a solid buy. Also, I read about the fact that you can Firmware it to a pro-level camera (D10? or something?)
So... whats the BASIC difference between the Digital Rebel (the 350 is just out, here is a review on DP Review) and the Nikon D70 or the Pentax that is mentioned here.
Would my Canon's old lenses be usable on the Rebel? I probably wouldnt buy many or any extra lenses probably, but just in case... which is "nicer" to have. Also for accessories and such, which would I be better off with?
I love the Pentax I just got, but if your Cannon lenses will work with the Rebel I'd suggest checking the Rebel out. The two things that really impressed me about the Pentax are it's small size and substantial construction. It just feels like a solid piece of gear and while I've only taken about a 150 shots so far I've been very happy with the results.
THere's no 'basic' difference between NIkon and Canon; the D70 and the Drebel are very similar. Although Canon is currently at the top with their higher resolution dSLRs (1Ds mkII at around 16MP and $8K to boot).
If you don't have any Nikon lenses, I would go with Canon as they have higher resolution and somewhat decreased noise levels. Their lenses tend to be somewhat cheaper as well.
I had a lot of older Nikon lenses so I stuck with Nikon and the D2h. Otherwise, I would have gone to Canon.
Yes, I had a bunch of AIS manual focus lenses. They work with my D2h and D1x in that I can use MATRIX metering. This is not the case for the other Nikon bodies such as the D100 or D70. I'm told that you can add a little chip to SOME of the older Nikkors so that they can be used with the D100/D70 and you can get color MATRIX metering with them as well if your camera supports it.
There's a new Canon 350D out to replace the 300D. Looking at the pics, it seems that they've made it a lot smaller than the old D Rebel. It shoots about as fast as the D70 too. The kit lense isn't as good, but this may be more than offset by the 2MP increase (8 vs 6) and the generallyy class leading high ISO performance of the latest Canon DSLRs
Comments
The zooms are nice though.
I think what the other (non Nikon/Canon) systems are really missing is a selection of stabilized zooms.
I have pretty much decided on the Pentax *DS.
Just something to look into. The new lense collection isn't especially bright from what I've seen in their catalogue...
Where do Pentax shoppers go for f/2.8 or faster?
Originally posted by Matsu
Just have another look at the lense catalogue. It seems Pentax has neutered the KAF mount slightly. This seems a design decision made to facilitate USM and possibly VR lenses, it's not absolutely neccessary to do that (as Nikon shows) and it does somewhat hamper the full functionality of some older lenses...
I have read of this before but never understood. I will be using screw mount lenses on the same adapter for my 35mm camera and from what I've read, they work fine.
I am not quite sure which lenses are an issue (which would be good to know when I am shopping hock shops, etc)
Where do Pentax shoppers go for f/2.8 or faster?
That I cannot answer... I am nothing more than a rank amateur photographer. I won't be buying $1000+ lenses anytime soon
Here's the lens listing from their US website:
http://www.pentaximaging.com/product...35mm/index.jsp
There are many lenses faster than f/2.8 listed, but I cannot comment any further on quality or extent of the line up.
I went with E-1 (Olympus) while it's 5MP, as long as you don't print huge enlargements it's superb.
E-Volt, before you dismiss it, at least play with it.
One thing no-one but Oly does: dust filter, and it works.
I have no idea what's the deal with noise and all that "too noisy, cleaner etc.."
Take a look at good old film, and compare that to digital, what are we talking about here?
Anyways, look at the pictures, not the reviews :-)
good luck
[b]
I went with E-1 (Olympus) while it's 5MP, as long as you don't print huge enlargements it's superb.
[b]
Those who have it, like it. And it looks like a good choice for more extreme environs, especially for those without the budget for D2H/X or EOS 1D/s MkII level cameras
E-Volt, before you dismiss it, at least play with it.
One thing no-one but Oly does: dust filter, and it works.
I have no idea what's the deal with noise and all that "too noisy, cleaner etc.."
Take a look at good old film, and compare that to digital, what are we talking about here?
Anyways, look at the pictures, not the reviews :-)
18mm x 13.5mm = 243mm^2
23.7 x 15.6mm = 369.72mm^2
Some argue that 4/3rds is not that much smaller than APS-C, they tend to measure the linear difference in sensor size and state that it's only about 25% narrower and 15% shorter, but when you add that up, you get approximately 50% more surface area.
Then look at the results out of a D100 or D70, or any of the D60, 10D, 20D, S2. ALL are much cleaner than the EI/E300 at ISO 800-1600, and still visibly better at 400.
You could put some of it down to the Kodak sensor, or a lot of it. It'll be interesting to see the sensor tech improve, we see that some impressive gains have been made in smaller 1/1.8" sensors recently. Eventually, there may not be that much difference between 4/3" and APS-C, but right now the larger sensors are doing better
It all boils down to how you look at it...
You can either compare sensor sizes, noise levels aspect ratios, endless features, and all that tech mimbo-jumbo, or you can just look at the pictures.
These are my wife's :
http://www.womaninaction.net/galeria.php?id=10
http://homepage.mac.com/piwozniak/Kids/index.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/piwozniak/Wedding/index.htm
http://homepage.mac.com/piwozniak/2004_ocup6/index.htm
Just get out and shoot!!
I had D70 and ist DS before. now I have ist DS.
I guess if you like to use zoom lens. buy D70.
or..if you want to use 14mm lens (under 1000$)
buy ist DS if you can afford pentax 31mm, 43mm, 77mm limited lens..buy istDS those are great lens.
now I'm using 14mm and 35mm pentax lens..when 40mm limited
lens is available I'm going to sell my 35mm lens and
I will get 40mm.
Originally posted by piwozniak
sorry for the delay...
It all boils down to how you look at it...
You can either compare sensor sizes, noise levels aspect ratios, endless features, and all that tech mimbo-jumbo, or you can just look at the pictures.
This line inevitably comes out. However, the topic thread wasn't asking how to take good pictures, but what makes a good camera, and a technical discussion is inherent in that discussion.
I'm far from thinking that 4/3rds is all doom and gloom, those people using e-1's seem to like them, and it's a cheap way to get a body for more extreme outdoor use.
There are good things possible in 4/3rds, like sharp, fast, zoom lenses at reasonable prices. The possible arrival of Panasonic as a 4/3rds partner may even bring stabilization. All good things. But right now, the 4/3rds cams have a definite mid-high ISO noise disadvantage as compared to APS sensors. Could be Kodak is to blame for this? It's likely. I wouldn't be too worried about it, high ISO performance is slowly improving with the latest generation of very small sensor cams, and considering that pixel densities have ramped up with each subsequent generation, just holding the line on MP for a bit, while storage, processing and retrieval systems catch up... that will bring marked improvements.
Yes,, ther are also some very nice 2MP images out there, and you can get a decent 8x10 with the right subject and the right software, but it isn't easy.
You know, Dalsa has a 40MP 645 (well, @ 48mm x 36mm, not quite 645) sized sensor on the boards. That means we'll probably see a FF 35mm product with 20MP soon... My guess is a Kodak SLR n/c replacement announced some time near Q4 '05
Yeah, this is all far afield, but it goes to show that sensor resolution won't stand still, and while gains in dynamic range, and s/n ratio are eaten up by the drive for more MP, those are also happening and will eventually lead to digital nirvana.
Using the pixel densities of current 7MP 1/1.8" sensors would result in a nearly 60MP APS sensor, or a 120MP FF sensor! You might only be able to shoot 1fps-0.5fps using the fastest processors, and probably be limited to no more than ISO-100, but those'd be some incredible studio cameras!
And the further we go, the more like film this will all become. We're just waiting on the processing tech to catch-up in many cases. Imagine a 120MP FF 35mm sensor. Noisy as shit above ISO 100 you say. Maybe. but with so many pixels, just blending it down to 12MP would cure that.
Completely impractical today. But what about in 5-10 years, when the we have processing power to spare? Then it would be just like film. "slow" film (ISO 25-100) gets you higher resolution, "fast" film (ISO 800-3200) get you progressively more sensitivity at the penalty of progressively less resolution.
So now we're completely off-topic, but just trying to say that the technical aspect is itself interetsing
One on topic and more practical consideration of the e300 vs *Ist DS would be the viewfinder. It has been noted that the e300 viewfinder is rather dark and small, whilst the *Ist DS has one of the best viewfinders in the segment. The viewfinder is one of the greatest factors in comfortable camera operation - a good one makes it that much easier to get the shot.
I was a camera junkie many years ago and then abandoned the whole thing. I still have my Canon T80 SLR from 1988 or so and took many thousands of great pictures. I then went to college and obviously couldnt lug around an SLR to parties and such. I didnt hated throw-away cameras and such and digital was just at its infancy.
Since then I have had a wonderful Olympus 1.2MP camera and then a Sony P70 and now the Sony P100.
Quality is ok and I love the movie functions... but I miss the fine control of the lens and zoom and play around with light. These point and click cameras, well, just suck for that. Great for parties and general stuff but... well... you get it.
So.. anyway... lets say I have a 1000usd budget and Im NOT a pro photographer. I know my way around a little (very rusty) and want to take nice pics.
I came accross this thread and also came accross the fact that the new Canon Digital Rebel is out and seems to be a solid buy. Also, I read about the fact that you can Firmware it to a pro-level camera (D10? or something?)
So... whats the BASIC difference between the Digital Rebel (the 350 is just out, here is a review on DP Review) and the Nikon D70 or the Pentax that is mentioned here.
Would my Canon's old lenses be usable on the Rebel? I probably wouldnt buy many or any extra lenses probably, but just in case... which is "nicer" to have. Also for accessories and such, which would I be better off with?
Thanks a bunch...
If you don't have any Nikon lenses, I would go with Canon as they have higher resolution and somewhat decreased noise levels. Their lenses tend to be somewhat cheaper as well.
I had a lot of older Nikon lenses so I stuck with Nikon and the D2h. Otherwise, I would have gone to Canon.
Originally posted by cj3209
I had a lot of older Nikon lenses so I stuck with Nikon and the D2h. Otherwise, I would have gone to Canon.
cj, how old were your Nikkor lenses, as old as the AI-S series? And what kind of functionability did they have as far as auto exposure and such?
Try this site for more info:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
Cheers,
CJ
Originally posted by cj3209
Try this site for more info:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
Cheers,
CJ
cj, thanks for the information and the link.
Definitely worth a look...