For those here looking for the cheapest of cheap prices on cameras it is best to read this article first. For some reason the camera business has always attracted ripoff artists:
edit: It was taken at about 6:30 in the evening, so it was getting dark out. I'm still working on getting some shots with more color. Maybe this weekend...
For an ISO 800 shot, the lack of noise in that photo is pretty nice in the resampled 1200x800 image.
But yeah, olor is definitely something of a weak-point in Canon D-SLRs. As you may have noticed already, they tend to underexpose by almost a full stop when not in bright light. And when they do nail the exposure, the colors are often a tad on the warm side. It's actually even more noticeable on Canon camcorders.
When I rented a D100 in February, the first thing I wanted to test was how well the programmed-auto setting nailed exposure. The second thing I tested was color.
This was the first shot in my color test:
Here's a long exposure test (another strong-point in Nikon hardware):
Well, almost a month later my D70 is finally back from Nikon service (CCD was replaced). I was almost in tears to see that it had shipped and was on its way home!!
Anyhow ---- double checking to be sure that dreaded thing is not on this sensor also, it seems the coast is clear! Check out this gorgeous little crop (things have really begun to grow in our garden -- I mean, it's been a month!):
This is a crop from a JPEG fine 3.33 MP in-camera-downsampled image. Me being curious tried printing it as an 8X10 --- the result is exceptional! I had done images just under 8X10 at 2 megapixels with the DCS620 but couldn't ever squeak out completely clean 8X10s with in-camera JPEGs. This is amazing --- a testament to the quality of the system overall, besides the sensor resolution. BTW, this is on the stock 18-70mm AF-S lens.
You're obviously right into digital photography, so I'll throw this question to you. (Of course I'm happy for others to chime in.)
I'm looking to buy my first digital camera, and I think I should buy one that I can grow into over the next few years. At the top of my list is the Olympus 5060.
Any reservations? Given the kind of camera I'm looking at, are there any others that I ought to short-list (ie similar prices/capabilities etc)?
Well, since no one's gotten back to your question yet, you need to evaluate a few things before you choose what kind and the manufacturer of the camera:
Will you want to shoot things indoors well with good exposure and minimal grain? Or will you be mainly outdoors where available-light photography is easier?
Will you ever have the need to make large prints? Do you like the idea of being able to shoot continuously for several seconds at a high rate for active shooting scenarios (sports, kids)?
I don't know if you've already gone over cameras in terms of things like this, but it's a good way to figure what direction you want to proceed in. I wouldn't just stick with one model I heard was good. The man may frustrate some people, but www.kenrockwell.com 's "how-to" section has a very good summation of the differences between classes of cameras. Basically, though, if you want a true, unhindered photographic feel with digital, a digital SLR is the best way to go. If you don't mind being forced to shoot at extremely low ISO sensitivities and tiny sensors and delays, then grab a point and shoot.
It all hinges on what you think you might do with your little gadget.
Well, since no one's gotten back to your question yet, you need to evaluate a few things before you choose what kind and the manufacturer of the camera:
Will you want to shoot things indoors well with good exposure and minimal grain? Or will you be mainly outdoors where available-light photography is easier?
Will you ever have the need to make large prints? Do you like the idea of being able to shoot continuously for several seconds at a high rate for active shooting scenarios (sports, kids)?
I don't know if you've already gone over cameras in terms of things like this, but it's a good way to figure what direction you want to proceed in. I wouldn't just stick with one model I heard was good. The man may frustrate some people, but www.kenrockwell.com 's "how-to" section has a very good summation of the differences between classes of cameras. Basically, though, if you want a true, unhindered photographic feel with digital, a digital SLR is the best way to go. If you don't mind being forced to shoot at extremely low ISO sensitivities and tiny sensors and delays, then grab a point and shoot.
It all hinges on what you think you might do with your little gadget.
Hi Fred,
Thanks for your thoughtful post, and the Ken Rockwell link.
I take Ken's point about speed being a crucial factor, but I can't really spring for a full d-SLR. And I've used an old Kodak 1MP camera that produced better pix than a new 3MP Hewlett Packard....
I'm principally interested in panoramic landscape shots while mountain biking -- the camera should be rugged, not too heavy, have excellent optics, and reasonably fast. I don't ask much!
Wide-angle lenses (let's overlook add-ons at the moment...) have a special appeal because they should reduce the number of pix required to cover a given panorama. And LCD viewfinders that flip around should make for a more durable package.
The Ricoh Caplio GX sounds promising: fast, wide, inexpensive. But some owners have voiced misgivings about image quality. The Canon G5 seems pretty good, but the Oly 5060 comes in at about the same price, goes wider, and seems to be supremely versatile.
So right now I'm more-or-less looking for reasons to *not* go for the Oly.
Oh, and since this is a Mac forum, I should add that native OSX software is a must, but we all knew that, right?
Ah, for landscapes and on a bike...no, I wouldn't necessarily drag an SLR along either then. I've never looked at that Olympus model much in-depth, but it seems to be a good overall package. I have also never used the Olympus software for OS X (perhaps someone else can give us their experience with it).
To add a little flavor to the cameras you're looking at, though --- consider also the Nikon Coolpix 5400. It falls in about the same price range and also has a wonderful wide angle (28mm equivalent -- just a little tighter than the Olympus' 27mm equiv.). Nikon stuff seems to be built to last better than most Olympus gear I've handled (which might be important given your shooting environment), but I don't know if things have changed with Olympus cameras since then (about two years).
And another thing slightly in favor of the Nikon is the viewing LCD -- has that great Coolpix trademark tilt and swivel. The Olympus' only rotates up and down 180º, so one cannot twist it in for save storage in the case...of course, this might be a nonissue.
Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two models. I would try to find both in some store and see which's "feel" you like better.
Wide-angle lenses (let's overlook add-ons at the moment...) have a special appeal because they should reduce the number of pix required to cover a given panorama. And LCD viewfinders that flip around should make for a more durable package.
Oh, and since this is a Mac forum, I should add that native OSX software is a must, but we all knew that, right?
Go with a DSLR. I'm a bit of an armature photographer and own a Nikon SLR with slide scanner. I'm still shooting slides and scanning them in with great results. I was recently given a Sony CyberShot 3.2 megapixels digital camera from the folks as we're expecting a little one soon and I must say that I'm disappointed with the digital noise -- this is on a 4x6 print! I'm new to digital, but I think all the point and shoot cameras have problems with digital noise. A friend of mine has the Nikon D70 and I must say I was impressed. I didn't see any digital noise in the file and the print I made (4x6) was great. The DSLRs use a larger CCD sensor which helps in reducing digital noise. So you shouldn't just look at megapixels as a 5MP point and shoot does not equal a 5MP SLR as the sensor's are actually different sizes, plus better optics.
Great camera. The lens I use the most right now is the 28 -135. I like the wide angle 17 - 40. My next lens will be the 70 - 200 f/2.8 L. You will next need to get a larger compact flash card. Get the largest you can afford now or at least a 512. Have fun it is a great hobby.
Great camera. The lens I use the most right now is the 28 -135. I like the wide angle 17 - 40. My next lens will be the 70 - 200 f/2.8 L. You will next need to get a larger compact flash card. Get the largest you can afford now or at least a 512. Have fun it is a great hobby.
reg
1 GB Microdrive Well worth it. (They are up to 4GB now I think).
I almost/should have gotten the 28-135 as it was highly recommended.
I am severely tempted to get the 17-40 but I think I don't need it just yet.
Hahaha! I know what you're talking about. A pro in my area uses the 1D and 10D almost exclusively now (with a Bronica medium format) and I was talking to him about how the medium format lenses are so expensive. He laughed and said "I thought that, too, until I started buying all these great Canon Ls!"
Those lenses -- wow. I'm a Nikonian, but I admire the collection Canon has. Nikon never seems to get it all right at once (with the exception of a few lenses of late --- finally incorporating vibration reduction and AF-S together). I'll second the desire for the 70-200 f2.8 (AF-S VR on my camp); but I just don't have the bucks to part with now! I'll do with a used 80-200 f2.8 when I can find one!
Comments
Originally posted by torifile
edit: It was taken at about 6:30 in the evening, so it was getting dark out. I'm still working on getting some shots with more color. Maybe this weekend...
For an ISO 800 shot, the lack of noise in that photo is pretty nice in the resampled 1200x800 image.
But yeah, olor is definitely something of a weak-point in Canon D-SLRs. As you may have noticed already, they tend to underexpose by almost a full stop when not in bright light. And when they do nail the exposure, the colors are often a tad on the warm side. It's actually even more noticeable on Canon camcorders.
When I rented a D100 in February, the first thing I wanted to test was how well the programmed-auto setting nailed exposure. The second thing I tested was color.
This was the first shot in my color test:
Here's a long exposure test (another strong-point in Nikon hardware):
crop
Anyhow ---- double checking to be sure that dreaded thing is not on this sensor also, it seems the coast is clear! Check out this gorgeous little crop (things have really begun to grow in our garden -- I mean, it's been a month!):
This is a crop from a JPEG fine 3.33 MP in-camera-downsampled image. Me being curious tried printing it as an 8X10 --- the result is exceptional! I had done images just under 8X10 at 2 megapixels with the DCS620 but couldn't ever squeak out completely clean 8X10s with in-camera JPEGs. This is amazing --- a testament to the quality of the system overall, besides the sensor resolution. BTW, this is on the stock 18-70mm AF-S lens.
You're obviously right into digital photography, so I'll throw this question to you. (Of course I'm happy for others to chime in.)
I'm looking to buy my first digital camera, and I think I should buy one that I can grow into over the next few years. At the top of my list is the Olympus 5060.
Any reservations? Given the kind of camera I'm looking at, are there any others that I ought to short-list (ie similar prices/capabilities etc)?
Thanks!
Will you want to shoot things indoors well with good exposure and minimal grain? Or will you be mainly outdoors where available-light photography is easier?
Will you ever have the need to make large prints? Do you like the idea of being able to shoot continuously for several seconds at a high rate for active shooting scenarios (sports, kids)?
I don't know if you've already gone over cameras in terms of things like this, but it's a good way to figure what direction you want to proceed in. I wouldn't just stick with one model I heard was good. The man may frustrate some people, but www.kenrockwell.com 's "how-to" section has a very good summation of the differences between classes of cameras. Basically, though, if you want a true, unhindered photographic feel with digital, a digital SLR is the best way to go. If you don't mind being forced to shoot at extremely low ISO sensitivities and tiny sensors and delays, then grab a point and shoot.
It all hinges on what you think you might do with your little gadget.
Originally posted by fred_lj
Well, since no one's gotten back to your question yet, you need to evaluate a few things before you choose what kind and the manufacturer of the camera:
Will you want to shoot things indoors well with good exposure and minimal grain? Or will you be mainly outdoors where available-light photography is easier?
Will you ever have the need to make large prints? Do you like the idea of being able to shoot continuously for several seconds at a high rate for active shooting scenarios (sports, kids)?
I don't know if you've already gone over cameras in terms of things like this, but it's a good way to figure what direction you want to proceed in. I wouldn't just stick with one model I heard was good. The man may frustrate some people, but www.kenrockwell.com 's "how-to" section has a very good summation of the differences between classes of cameras. Basically, though, if you want a true, unhindered photographic feel with digital, a digital SLR is the best way to go. If you don't mind being forced to shoot at extremely low ISO sensitivities and tiny sensors and delays, then grab a point and shoot.
It all hinges on what you think you might do with your little gadget.
Hi Fred,
Thanks for your thoughtful post, and the Ken Rockwell link.
I take Ken's point about speed being a crucial factor, but I can't really spring for a full d-SLR. And I've used an old Kodak 1MP camera that produced better pix than a new 3MP Hewlett Packard....
I'm principally interested in panoramic landscape shots while mountain biking -- the camera should be rugged, not too heavy, have excellent optics, and reasonably fast. I don't ask much!
Wide-angle lenses (let's overlook add-ons at the moment...) have a special appeal because they should reduce the number of pix required to cover a given panorama. And LCD viewfinders that flip around should make for a more durable package.
The Ricoh Caplio GX sounds promising: fast, wide, inexpensive. But some owners have voiced misgivings about image quality. The Canon G5 seems pretty good, but the Oly 5060 comes in at about the same price, goes wider, and seems to be supremely versatile.
So right now I'm more-or-less looking for reasons to *not* go for the Oly.
Oh, and since this is a Mac forum, I should add that native OSX software is a must, but we all knew that, right?
To add a little flavor to the cameras you're looking at, though --- consider also the Nikon Coolpix 5400. It falls in about the same price range and also has a wonderful wide angle (28mm equivalent -- just a little tighter than the Olympus' 27mm equiv.). Nikon stuff seems to be built to last better than most Olympus gear I've handled (which might be important given your shooting environment), but I don't know if things have changed with Olympus cameras since then (about two years).
And another thing slightly in favor of the Nikon is the viewing LCD -- has that great Coolpix trademark tilt and swivel. The Olympus' only rotates up and down 180º, so one cannot twist it in for save storage in the case...of course, this might be a nonissue.
Here's a side-by-side comparison of the two models. I would try to find both in some store and see which's "feel" you like better.
Have fun deciding!
Why didn't I shortlist the 5400? Hmmm....
Thanks for the tip -- it's the obvious base for comparison, really!
Originally posted by fred_lj
To add a little flavor to the cameras you're looking at, though --- consider also the Nikon Coolpix 5400.
Originally posted by boy_analog
Wide-angle lenses (let's overlook add-ons at the moment...) have a special appeal because they should reduce the number of pix required to cover a given panorama. And LCD viewfinders that flip around should make for a more durable package.
Oh, and since this is a Mac forum, I should add that native OSX software is a must, but we all knew that, right?
Canon Powershot A80
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/ca...ew/index.shtml
Pentax will also release a cheaper version of his DSLR camera.
If people are interest in DSLR camera, I suggest them to wait for the photokina.
Canon EOS 10D
and:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Wide Angle Zoom Lens
Fantastic, unbelievable combo. Stunning quality.
Damn, now I have the L bug.
Going to Thailand next month, can't wait to take some snaps.
reg
Originally posted by reg
Great camera. The lens I use the most right now is the 28 -135. I like the wide angle 17 - 40. My next lens will be the 70 - 200 f/2.8 L. You will next need to get a larger compact flash card. Get the largest you can afford now or at least a 512. Have fun it is a great hobby.
reg
1 GB Microdrive
I almost/should have gotten the 28-135 as it was highly recommended.
I am severely tempted to get the 17-40 but I think I don't need it just yet.
I want all the L's...grrrrr...stupid poverty.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Canon will release new digital LSR in september. A 3000 D for 700 $ is on the way. There may be others cameras, but it's uncertain for this ones.
Pentax will also release a cheaper version of his DSLR camera.
If people are interest in DSLR camera, I suggest them to wait for the photokina.
powerdoc:
I'm thinking about buying a Canon 300D camera. Is this a wild rumor or is this an almost sure thing? I definitely would wait if true.
dixli
Originally posted by johnq
I want all the L's...grrrrr...stupid poverty.
Hahaha! I know what you're talking about. A pro in my area uses the 1D and 10D almost exclusively now (with a Bronica medium format) and I was talking to him about how the medium format lenses are so expensive. He laughed and said "I thought that, too, until I started buying all these great Canon Ls!"
Those lenses -- wow. I'm a Nikonian, but I admire the collection Canon has. Nikon never seems to get it all right at once (with the exception of a few lenses of late --- finally incorporating vibration reduction and AF-S together). I'll second the desire for the 70-200 f2.8 (AF-S VR on my camp); but I just don't have the bucks to part with now! I'll do with a used 80-200 f2.8 when I can find one!