Also see some of these Pictures taken in Paris France.
I would say get a good quality camera and not worry so much about the camera make and "focus" more on the subject matter of which you will be capturing with each shot.
Fellowship: Have you unlocked the ISO 3200 option? -- it's under a custom menu. I wouldn't have thought the 20D went to 3200, but poked around after powerdoc posted the photo of his daughter.
Nikon needs to expand the number of VR lenses if they want my business. I am saving up for a EOS 5D.
ROFL.
If image stabilization is what you desperately desire, go with Sony's new Alpha (Minolta rebadged) line. Sony has reportedly improved on Minolta's design by incorporating much of its own steadyshot technology.
Besides...Nikon pretty much has the same catalog of VR lenses as Canon *except* the high end fixed teles...around 7 each. And since you're "saving up" for a 5D, I'm guessing you can't afford a 600m telephoto. Lenses with that kind of throw aren't going to be handheld anyway.
Oh and since a few of those Canon IS lenses are in fact EF-S, a 5D wouldn't be able to use them.
It's obvious that Canon has the best sensors right now. Or, I should say best overall combination of sensor and processing. But this is neither here nor there in many cases. In similarly priced cameras, D200 and 30D, there's little to give between competently exposed shots, at any ISO. When disecting image quality people should think about display size, whether that's electronic or print. Resized monitor viewing, will make many a camera just about equal anywhere from 6MP to 16MP -- even a 30" ACD doesn't have 6MP of resolution -- not that resolution and MP count are synonymous. The same goes for print sizes and resolution at various "speed" settings, or higher ISOs. 4x6 or 5x7, A D50 is as good as a D1sMkII. It all depends on what sort of output you're looking for.
You will find that a 30D or D200 will give pretty much the same print image at any size under high ISO: 30D a little cleaner (per pixel), the D200 a few more pixels. Print some 8X10, or 18x12 from ISO 800 or 1600, properly processed, and challenge anyone to pick them apart. At lower ISO's the 5D and D200 will print pretty even as well, though there's no denying the high ISO advantage of the 5D at larger print sizes, which is as it should be for a camera that costs nearly twice as much.
But what does all this mean? It means that too much is being made of sensor tech already. Also, the only thing we know for certain is that newer, sharper, better sensors will be coming out all the time, and that eventually these will be commoditized, and you'll be able to get pretty much the same performance from any brand. Therefore, let the lenses be your guide. If you already own some good ones, then that's the brand of camera that makes the most sense to buy. Don't spend your money for a body that allows huge prints from high ISO files unless, a, you're getting paid for it, and, b, you're doing it a lot. Look at powerdoc's pic above. It's downsized for screen display; shown that way, or printed that size, any number of DSLR's, old and new, could have produced the same result.
Any of Canon, Nikon, and Sony will remain well supported systems for both professional and hobbiest alike. Sony, by re-issuing a lot of Minolta lenses, will build off the small base of Minolta shooters, but when they add pro bodies, they will get more attention. They have done masterful work in video, and for a generation of image makers growing up without ever shooting film, they have huge potential to build off their brand equity into the realm of still imagery as well.
Certainly different professionals should consider different systems depending on their work environment, subject matter, support network, etc etc... Service and rental availability in your area and abroad can also be a major consideration depending on what you shoot, and for whom.
Comments
But my Canon is nothing next to my wife
Photos taken with Canon 20D:
Also see some of these Pictures taken in Paris France.
I would say get a good quality camera and not worry so much about the camera make and "focus"
Fellows
Originally posted by e1618978
Nikon needs to expand the number of VR lenses if they want my business. I am saving up for a EOS 5D.
ROFL.
If image stabilization is what you desperately desire, go with Sony's new Alpha (Minolta rebadged) line. Sony has reportedly improved on Minolta's design by incorporating much of its own steadyshot technology.
Besides...Nikon pretty much has the same catalog of VR lenses as Canon *except* the high end fixed teles...around 7 each. And since you're "saving up" for a 5D, I'm guessing you can't afford a 600m telephoto. Lenses with that kind of throw aren't going to be handheld anyway.
Oh and since a few of those Canon IS lenses are in fact EF-S, a 5D wouldn't be able to use them.
Have a nice day.
You will find that a 30D or D200 will give pretty much the same print image at any size under high ISO: 30D a little cleaner (per pixel), the D200 a few more pixels. Print some 8X10, or 18x12 from ISO 800 or 1600, properly processed, and challenge anyone to pick them apart. At lower ISO's the 5D and D200 will print pretty even as well, though there's no denying the high ISO advantage of the 5D at larger print sizes, which is as it should be for a camera that costs nearly twice as much.
But what does all this mean? It means that too much is being made of sensor tech already. Also, the only thing we know for certain is that newer, sharper, better sensors will be coming out all the time, and that eventually these will be commoditized, and you'll be able to get pretty much the same performance from any brand. Therefore, let the lenses be your guide. If you already own some good ones, then that's the brand of camera that makes the most sense to buy. Don't spend your money for a body that allows huge prints from high ISO files unless, a, you're getting paid for it, and, b, you're doing it a lot. Look at powerdoc's pic above. It's downsized for screen display; shown that way, or printed that size, any number of DSLR's, old and new, could have produced the same result.
Any of Canon, Nikon, and Sony will remain well supported systems for both professional and hobbiest alike. Sony, by re-issuing a lot of Minolta lenses, will build off the small base of Minolta shooters, but when they add pro bodies, they will get more attention. They have done masterful work in video, and for a generation of image makers growing up without ever shooting film, they have huge potential to build off their brand equity into the realm of still imagery as well.
Certainly different professionals should consider different systems depending on their work environment, subject matter, support network, etc etc... Service and rental availability in your area and abroad can also be a major consideration depending on what you shoot, and for whom.