| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2002 07:59:36 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
the oly e-20 has a 400 mm tele lens. (sold separately!)
Goes for about $600.
I didn't have a cache of lenses... so I hadn't already locked myself into a brand...
that said... I have locked myself in with the oly because they have camera specific accessories...
I'd still be interested to see how the technology advances. It would have to be with an image sensor the same size as the film plate for me to upgrade again though. (for my purposes).
If I owned a an Oly e-20 I would definitely be waiting a while for the tech to figure itself out. You can get too good of an image and lots of photo choices from that camera to move anytime soon.
I have set a goal I think with this thread of waiting for a Canon (or Nikon or whatever) that matches a Canon 1D and at least 6mp for about $2,000. I think that may be a while but..you know...Tech moves so fast it may a lot sooner than we all think.
If I were a Canon or a Nikon the whole trick is getting someone locked into a system. That may drive camera body tech prices down very fast to get at the lens and accessory money. I can hope :-) |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 08:19:16 AM · #27 |
Rumor has it that Olympus is coming out with a interchangeable lens D-SLR system. The CCD is going to be bigger than the current E-20 CCD but not as big as a 35mm frame. They are supposedly going to release a line of lenses for this system and also push the third party lens manufacturers (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) to produce glass for this system.
I think this will take over the "prosumer" (hate that word) market by storm. A lightweight interchangeable lens D-SLR system designed from the beginning to be digital is a niche the market desperately needs.
The current D-SLRs (Nikon, Canon) are just not optimal in my opinion. Why buy all of that glass when you are only going to use the center 2/3rds of it?
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 08:20:04 AM · #28 |
Hokie,
I think a camera that does it all is the way to go :-) Barring that, there's always a compromise! But I'm sticking with digital because film's compromises are too expensive and time-consuming.
I would trade up my G2 to an all-in-one DSLR if it was around US$1,000 - basically I'd look for:
- better lense, at least 50mm (in 35mm format)
- more solid body
- more megapixels
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 08:27:49 AM · #29 |
i'm aware of the accessory lens options offered by oly for the E-xx's. however, i don't think that they are a viable solution for me.
a) PRICE - waaay too high.
b) SIZE - that thing is like 18" long!!
c) VERSATILITY - or lack. It can only be used at max tele.
nope. i'll wait, thanks very much or just get second camera with better zoom to use on the side.
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
the oly e-20 has a 400 mm tele lens. (sold separately!)
Goes for about $600.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 08:31:10 AM · #30 |
balynch mentions something about Oly going for a digital system which I agree will be great.
Sigma has this X3 tech they are working on.
Contax is TRYING ot get something going.
Fuji is showing what Nikon SHOULD have made.
Canon is laughing all the way to the prosumer DSLR bank.
I think I can wait 6 months for the smoke to clear and the dust to settle a bit.
But man...that Canon 1D sure is nice. It's rough being a poor married guy with a daughter in her teens :-) |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 08:56:57 AM · #31 |
Man, I just payed a ridiculous sum of money (>$700) for my G2.
Consider I'm just a poor recent college graduate with a non-high paying job spending about 50% of my net take-home pay just on rent alone. Also consider I just signed the forms to put me in $40,000 worth of debt each year for the next 4 years.
I like this camera. I'm not upgrading anytime in the foreseeable future :-) |
|
|
|
07/30/2002 09:18:16 AM · #32 |
My 2 cents:
1. The Canon G2 that I have is a great camera, and some images I can print to 11 x 14 with no loss of sharpness at all. It's zoom range is frustrating though as I tend to look out toward the long end.
2. For that reason, my 'old' Nikon D1 is great. With a focal leingth multiplier of 1.5 my 70-300 ends up going out to 450mm. If you tend to find yourself at the wide angle end of the zoom a lot you're going to be frustrated.
3. There are pixels and there are pixels. I can get the same size prints out of my 2.7 mp D1 as I can get out of my 4 mp G2. If you're looking at one of the new DSLRs, consider focus. Canon's D60 has wonderful color and incredibly smooth tonal graduations, and Canon glass can't be beat. I love the 100-400 IS lens (and would love to be able to afford one). It would make a difference at 400mm even on a tripod. BUT, if you're a sports shooter you're going to be frustrated. The auto-focus is better than the D30 (which isn't saying much) but not nearly as good as the Nikon. As an aside, my G2 has a lousy auto-focus also. Some reviews say the Nikon D100 has more resolution than the D1x (square pixels instead fo rectangular) and the auto-focus is great. Nikon glass is great too, especially if, like me, you've got some anyway. One thing, Nikon's just came out with a firmware upgrade that has to be dealer installed to solve some problems in WB brackeiting so don't get one with v. 1.00.
4. The 'dirt on the image sensor' problem is overblown. I've never been bothered with it i the 2+years I've had my D1. If you take a little care when you change lenses, you shouldn't worry about it.
5. You'll get more effective resolution with a given lens with a DSLR than a film camera because with the smaller imaging surface you're only using the center part of the lens, which is always the sharpest.
6. The Fuji S2 has great reviews. Their 'super CCD' doesn't give anywhere near twice the resolution, but you can see a difference on a large print compaired with the D60 or the D100. Now that they lowered the ISO it's easier to use it for portraiture or with studio lights.
7. Check out the raw format used. Nikon and Canon have the best processing software with the most flexible processing options, although Fuji's latest is good also. I use MacBibble , a shareware .NEF processer that'll do anything except get drunk. The latest version will also process D 60 and EOS 1D .CRW files. I'm waiting for them to release the Mac version.
8. Bottom line: If you can afford it, you'll be astounded at the quality. The D100, the S2 and the D60 can make prints up to 20 x 24 which would be pushing it in the 35mm world.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2002 10:31:14 AM · #33 |
all i can say is that i am perfectly happy with my nikon d100. i loved my sony dsc s70, but this puts it to shame. i am fortunate to have nikon glass from my 35mm days (which are mostly over, who can afford to develop 35,000 pictures in two years), so all i needed was memory.
the ease of use and quality are wonderful |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:55:29 PM · #34 |
Well I would like to point out that most DSLR's are not 4k. There are some darn good quality DSLR's around 2k:
Canon D30 $1,500
Canon D60 $2,000
Nikon D100 $2,000
Fuji S2 $2,400
I mean sure, there is the higher end professional DSLR's in the 4k range - but the above cameras are no joke. The quality I've seen of the Canon D30 on this site and on www.digitalphotocontest.com is amazing. And it's a 3megapixel DSLR.
When thinking about your question - which is a great question (I'm also been thinking of which makes more sense to me as well) I'd say... Is it more cost effective to buy two cameras that cover the range you are looking for (and is that range even possible to get?) in two fixed cameras as opposed to a DSLR + len(s).
I don't think though we are looking at DSLR's as a 4k solution, but rather a $2,000-$2,800 solution (that's including lens'.) If you already own Nikon lens' that would fit on a Nikon D100 - then I'd say save the money and buy the D100 (using your existing lens') - same for Canon or Fuji.
If you are starting Fresh, then maybe the two camera method is the way to go. But there is a big difference in quality. I've seen good shots with the Canon G2 - but I've seen amazing shots with the Canon D30 (which uses a 3megapixel sensor, rather the then G2's 4.) Lens quality can make a huge difference and when you can pick and choose that quality - you are gaining total control of your shots.
I bought a Sony S85, and I love the Carl Zeis lens... but the fixed lens has become such a burden... how many times do I see a great shot, but I don't have a decent telephoto so I give up on the shot... it happens all the time. Forget taking shots at sporting events, or air shows.
I'd almost go with a Sony 717 but at that point I could hop up to DSLR for not too much more. That and the 707/717 just don't cover the range I want. I think the canon Pro 90 is the range I'd like - but again, if I'm going to dish out another 1k-2k I might as well think about DSLR.
Originally posted by hokie:
I have been reading some interesting discussions around the internet that has been centering around the real need for an interchangeable lens system on cameras.
The idea is that the latest DSLR's are nothing but compromises, using 35mm body design just to extend the life of the aging lens systems out there being used by 35 mm film photographers.
The argument goes like this. Interchangeable lens systems open the inside of the camera to contamination. Logic would say that an all in one solution would be superior for the most contamination free photos.
Plus, smaller sensors..while not offering as large a pixel as the DSLR sensors..do offer better focus capabilities and greater light range.
Light is one of the biggest hurdles any photographer faces and the compromise of adding a lens designed for film onto a digital camera means you lose wide angles at reasonable prices and iso speed.
Also the lenses could be a heck of a lot smaller than the 35mm add ons because digital cameras do not need the mirror in th body and therfore can get the lens much closer to the sensor, allowing the lenses to get smaller.
My question.
Even though digital SLR prices are getting lower each day (dropping as fast as computer chip prices) is it still early to adopt this tech in a modified 35mm format.
Is Olympus really on to something with their take on the digital market and would it be better to own 2 cameras(in the future)..one with a fixed 16-100mm capability and another at a 100-400mm each one costing $1,000 each (or better less) versus spending $4,000 on a DSLR system that may not even be the best way to go technology wise?
Just curious what the REAL digital camera users think versus all the film people on the net.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 02:59:50 PM · #35 |
I don't know if I agree with you on this one.
I have seen some amazing shots with the Nikon D100 with a $200 telephoto (70-300mm.) By amazing I mean shots of dirt bike riders caught fozen in motion hanging in mid air - no noise, perfect focus... all around great shots.
I understand that yeah, you buy a $2000 camera that you might want high end lens... but it's not a necessity for great shots. Check out the work of some cD30/cD60/nD100 users online... Check out the lens' they are using. Some are definately using $1000 lens' but many are not. I think you could have a DSLR of great quality with a telephoto lens for under $2500 if you shop patiently.
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
[i]Okay.. revision... I can't afford the interchangeable lens D-SLRs
That is a BIG concern for most folks not making their living (and even some that do) on photography.
A nice DSLR needs nice lenses. For Canon that means L series and they are about $1,000 each minimum depending on focal length with some as much as $4,000 or more.
What scared me would be if in a year the technology moved to multiple cameras (ala Olympus E-20) with fixed lenses.
You could own an Olympus E-30wz (fictional number :-) with the 'wz' standing for wide angle zoom of 18-100 mm and own an Olympus E-30lz with the 'lz' standing for a long zoom of 100-400. Each bought for about $1,200 and Voila!!! A semi pro kit. Add a 5-8 fps speed and fast auto focus and sign me up! [/i]
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 03:49:51 PM · #36 |
My dad has the Pro 90 and it is a nice camera with a great IS lens but the effective pixels is only 2.6 megapixels. Yes, he will get a higher resolution image at maximum telephoto range then me doing the same with my F707 with the equivalent cropping but for the majority of shots his 2.6 megapixels aren't a match for my 5. I did buy a 1.85 x's teleconverter for it and it is useful but I found that the 5 x's zoom is plenty for nearly all of my shooting needs. What I really want is a wide angle converter which I think I will get a lot more use out of. Eventually I will get it if I can find the money somewhere.
T
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 04:29:19 PM · #37 |
Im considering the jump to dslr from my c-2100UZ. I want to shoot action shots at night and freeze the motion. The light conditions arent good enought to get my shutter speed fast enough to eliminate the blur. The D60 is supposed to be better for night shots. How true is this? Which one is best?
Tim |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:21:14 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by Ronin:
[i]Sorta off topic but I was just reading that the camera that they installed on the Hubble telescope shoots at 16 million MP,.. now thats a big ass picture.
But I heard the focus was a bit soft :-)[/i]
Not since they did that repair job a few years ago -- you can check for yourself at The Hubble Site.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/2/2002 9:20:01 PM. |
|
|
|
10/02/2002 05:56:23 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by timj351:
My dad has the Pro 90 and it is a nice camera with a great IS lens but the effective pixels is only 2.6 megapixels. Yes, he will get a higher resolution image at maximum telephoto range then me doing the same with my F707 with the equivalent cropping but for the majority of shots his 2.6 megapixels aren't a match for my 5. I did buy a 1.85 x's teleconverter for it and it is useful but I found that the 5 x's zoom is plenty for nearly all of my shooting needs. What I really want is a wide angle converter which I think I will get a lot more use out of. Eventually I will get it if I can find the money somewhere.
T
How do prints of the same scene compare at equivalent sizes ?
Just curious.
|
|
|
|
10/02/2002 06:33:35 PM · #40 |
That's a good question, Gordon. Unfortunately I can't test it for a while because my dad lives in Spokane and I live in Kent, Wa. About 280 miles apart. I will try to make a comparison the next time I visit him. I'm pretty sure it will depend on what zoom settings are used. But I do know that if I zoom in 10 times with the Pro 90 and end up with a 2.6 megapixel image and then I zoom in 5 times with my F707 and then crop my image to match the Pro 90 image my final cropped image should be around 1.25 megapixels which is roughly half of the 2.6 megapixels. Did that make sense? I hope so. Again, this will only occur if we are doing comparisons at the maximum zoom ranges of the cameras. Anything less wich change these numbers considerably. I'll have to check out the actual images to do a more accurate, visual comparison.
T
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 09:46:07 AM · #41 |
One reason i would like a digital camera with a removeable lens is not so i can put another lens on it, but rather so I could use it with NO lens. I would like a camera that could do an ok job at astrophotography, and I would prefer to do prime focus rather than eyepeice projection.
right now i just don't get out enough to justify getting one of the dedicated ccd sensors
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 10:56:51 AM · #42 |
There are more to DSLR's then simply more pixels or not.
A Canon D30, which has only 3 megapixels will outperform easily the Minolta DiImage, the Sony F707, etc. which has higher pixel counts. It has lower noise, the CCD sensor is LARGER per pixel (thus more resolving power for the light), etc.
As far as the "cropping" factor goes, that's the current generation. The newer DSLR's such as the Canon 1Ds and the Kodak DCS 14n (Nikon body) would have FULL FRAME CCDs.
I am not sure if the Olympus proposal would take off because there are a ton of people with existing Canon or Nikon lenses, and they're just waiting for the digital body prices to drop. As far as the comment about how DSLR's are unable to resolve details because it was designed for FILM, well, a film has a resolution of about 100 lines per mm, or about 8 megapixels (34 * 100 x 24 * 100, or 3400 x 2400 in resolution), so an SLR of 6 megapixels would be enough, 11 megapixels would exceed the film resolution, but not the optical resolving power yet for 35 mm.
Certainly, for lenses the size of Canon G2 and other "prosumer" digital cameras that are built in, going past 5-6 megapixels wouldn't make any sense because the lens can't resolve past a certain resolution no matter what the CCD pixel count is and going higher in pixel count is simply wasting wafers. The larger the lens, the more details it can resolve. And Olympus' proposal has a smaller lens compared to the DSLR's. They're trying to solve the "cropping factor" problem but they do that and sacrified image quality that you can get with a 35 mm that you can't get with the prosumer cameras.
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:06:28 AM · #43 |
The other part of this is of course that there is nothing magical
about 35mm size/format. Maybe some of the camera companies should
take a more forward looking approach and build the complete system
that works well around a digital sensor.
But of course they are targetting the large installed base of
lenses, which is where most of the DSLR and SLR cost actually lies.
A D30 or D60 will be close to obselete in a few years, the lenses
wont be. I guess though that the time to make such a radical shift
is getting almost too late, as digital buyers start investing in SLR
lenses more and more.
Lenses suited to a 2/3rds size sensor would be smaller, faster, lighter
and resultingly cheaper. There isn't really any down-side other than
the existing installed base. Sensor quality is an issue, that is going
to just keep improving at exponential rates, the rest of the system is
going to improve at more traditional, non-semiconductor driven, rates,
so glass quality is not really a factor. Most good SLR lenses are
totally beyond the capabilities of the typical users, cameras and
film anyway.
* This message has been edited by the author on 10/24/2002 3:14:02 PM. |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 11:45:40 AM · #44 |
It all supposed to change soon when the Foveon chips become affordable -- mere pixel counts may not suffice for comparison since the quality is supposed to be much better.
Most digital cameras (at least mine!) seem to have a 4:3 video aspect ratio than the 3:2 of 35mm -- it's frustrating to me 'cause I'm more used to the other print sizes and designing slides...
I'd be much more likely to use an "all-in-one" camera than interchangeable lenses. I'd love one with more resolution and a longer zoom, but probably can't afford to replace mine until it breaks. |
|
|
|
10/24/2002 12:44:13 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
5. There is word out there that manufacturers are attempting an image sensor the same size as a film plate: Therefore you wouldn''t need to do the conversions for focal length. Contax has this out - for a huge price. But others will follow, and eventually the price will come down.
I thought it was worth waiting spending the big bucks until this could be mastered.
Canon EOS 1Ds 11mp 35mm censor. app. USD 9000.
Kodak DCS14n 14mp 35mm censor. app USD4000
Pentax ??? ??mp APS censor. app USD1600
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 01:08:02 PM · #46 |
Smaller lenses = less resolving power. So a smaller lens would not capture as much details as a larger lens. So no matter how good the sensor technology is, it will eventually be limited by the lens, which is limited by the size. So you can have a much better sensor in terms of NOISE, but the lens will still have the same resolving power. Thus, for prosumer cameras, most manufacturers will probably not exceed 5 megapixels. The Canon PowerShot G3 is still running on a 4 megapixel platform for that reason -- any more pixels and you're just wasting pixels because the lens is unable to resolve details unless the lens gets bigger. It's the diffraction property of the lens.
There are simply very good lenses you can get for the 35 mm camera at cheap prices, versus the larger formats. Maybe the 2/3 size format would work, but it will require 35 mm film people to convert to a smaller lens. By the time 2/3 size format are out and readily available, i suspect the full frame SLR's will be reasonably price by then (i mean, < $2000, the same price as teh D60 right now).
Originally posted by Gordon:
The other part of this is of course that there is nothing magical
about 35mm size/format. Maybe some of the camera companies should
take a more forward looking approach and build the complete system
that works well around a digital sensor.
But of course they are targetting the large installed base of
lenses, which is where most of the DSLR and SLR cost actually lies.
A D30 or D60 will be close to obselete in a few years, the lenses
wont be. I guess though that the time to make such a radical shift
is getting almost too late, as digital buyers start investing in SLR
lenses more and more.
Lenses suited to a 2/3rds size sensor would be smaller, faster, lighter
and resultingly cheaper. There isn't really any down-side other than
the existing installed base. Sensor quality is an issue, that is going
to just keep improving at exponential rates, the rest of the system is
going to improve at more traditional, non-semiconductor driven, rates,
so glass quality is not really a factor. Most good SLR lenses are
totally beyond the capabilities of the typical users, cameras and
film anyway
|
|
|
|
10/24/2002 01:09:32 PM · #47 |
The EOS 1Ds is the MSRP price, but the Kodak is the STREET price. I'd suspect the street price for EOS 1DS will drop to the $6000 range.
The Sigma SD9, Foveon Sensor, out later this month is for about $1800 street price, which will force D60 and Nikon D100 to lower their prices. I am waiting for the D60 price to drop.
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
[i]
5. There is word out there that manufacturers are attempting an image sensor the same size as a film plate: Therefore you wouldn''t need to do the conversions for focal length. Contax has this out - for a huge price. But others will follow, and eventually the price will come down.
I thought it was worth waiting spending the big bucks until this could be mastered.
Canon EOS 1Ds 11mp 35mm censor. app. USD 9000.
Kodak DCS14n 14mp 35mm censor. app USD4000
Pentax ??? ??mp APS censor. app USD1600
[/i]
|
|
|
|
10/25/2002 09:36:08 PM · #48 |
I am photographer for a state fair in my state, and I use my friend's D30. It completely blows away my olympus c-3000z at the same megapixel level, and I constantly wish I owned one. I am the primary user of the camera, since my friend has two D60's in his possession. the D60 is great, I really would like to have one.... I am eyeing the price on Ebay for a new body for about $2300.. the 1D is $4300. the lens i mostly use on the D30 is about $1300. it is a canon 85mm fixed (F1.2), etc.. even though it is fixed, I really like the huge apeture. my c3000 only goes to 2.8. i am constantly jaded to take shots simply because i cannot capture what i want with my inferior lens. I almost plan to pursue getting a DSLR (D30, D60), but that would be nearly $4000 for just the body and one lens... not including the memory cards ($500-up for 1gig card), the other lenses, equipment, and so on... or I could get a DSC-F707/717 until the pricing came down a little on the DSLRs, or they became more advanced. I am 16, so my budget is just a little limited.... ;), but for graduation, I might consider a DSLR.. or just save up over this winter and get a sony or something or other... I am also eyeing the olympuses with the F1.8 lenses....
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/25/2002 2:05:08 AM. |
|
|
|
11/24/2002 09:11:42 PM · #49 |
| well i got a F707.. I am glad, the 707 is pocket sized, and has a great lens. maybe as a second camera i will someday get a dslr, but for now the 707 works well |
|
|
|
11/24/2002 09:34:58 PM · #50 |
Hmmm...I've been eyeing that Minolta Maxxum 7 35mm SLR. At about half the price of the DiMage 7Hi, it's very tempting...
* This message has been edited by the author on 11/25/2002 2:39:11 AM. |
|
