DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> DSLR''s...too little too soon?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 70 of 70, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/25/2002 02:44:22 AM · #51
Originally posted by hokie:
My main "Itch" is a decent long range zoom. 300mm or maybe longer prime lens and some real action speed. Not this floating af on my Canon G2.

Try the 602. Very good and affordable 3mp, 210mm max zoom with teleconverter possibilities to reach 300mm+. Fast AF in good light, not much shutter lag, fast file writing, 5 frames per second for 1 second (max is 25 frames in a row, but it will only save the last 5), reasonably good ISO400, hotshoe (no TTL and other gimmicks), long battery life.



* This message has been edited by the author on 11/25/2002 7:42:24 AM.
 11/25/2002 02:49:23 AM · #52
By the way:

Dust gets into non-interchangeable systems too.

 11/25/2002 03:12:18 AM · #53
I'm going through this right now. Want to upgrade to a 5 or 6 megapixel. Want to use it professionally to take mostly portraits and stock photography. Is the Olympus E20 good enough? I really want the Canon EOS D60 but the price seems to be rising instead of falling, and I don't have any lenses. The total cost would be about $3000. I could get the Oly for about $1100.
Does the sony 717 compare to the Oly? Its $300 lower.
Help!

 11/25/2002 05:06:34 AM · #54
Click HERE to read the article that appeared in the washington post on Nov. 20.

 11/25/2002 05:36:15 AM · #55
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
...Film is estimated to be at around the equivalent of 6MP.

Could you tell me where you got that information? I've been curious about this issue for quite a while, but I have heard different numbers on this subject. I've heard that in order to achieve the same quality as film, a camera would have to be as much as 25MP.

I'd just be interested in hearing what the "real" number is, if it's even possible to determine...?

* This message has been edited by the author on 11/25/2002 10:33:52 AM.
 11/25/2002 07:42:01 PM · #56
after using a canon eos-d60 on an off and on basis, and a d30, the dust does not appear to get inside of the camera very easily, and i have used the Dslrs in very dusty, dirty places, such as horse shows and race tracks. no problem. the dslrs namely the canon eos series have VERY little noise at low ISO levels. the colors are very accurate, and the lenses you can pick just like normal slrs. they are very versatile, save for pocket=sized portability. i am considering getting a D60 next summer the more that i consider it, the more appealing the D60 looks... with the new 11mp coming out, the value should be down for it...
 11/25/2002 07:53:11 PM · #57
from what I have been reading and seen on ebay I can get add on lens' for my Sony DSC-S85.. (i think they go over the factory lens) There are wide angle, macro, and at least a 3x lens I have seen... has anyone tried any of these lens? if these are any good it would make me feel better... I love this camera, but now that I am getting into this hobby, I wish I would have spent the extra $200-$300 last january to get the f707... being able to put some different lens that work well on this one would be really nice
 11/25/2002 08:17:24 PM · #58
Originally posted by alansfreed:
Originally posted by Karen Bryan:
[i]...Film is estimated to be at around the equivalent of 6MP.

Could you tell me where you got that information? I've been curious about this issue for quite a while, but I have heard different numbers on this subject. I've heard that in order to achieve the same quality as film, a camera would have to be as much as 25MP.

I'd just be interested in hearing what the "real" number is, if it's even possible to determine...[/i]

When I was imaging slides to 35mm film from digital files, I used a film recorder which imaged 2000, 4000, or 8000 lines per inch. I used a minimum file size of 2048x1366 pixels running at the 4k resolution and got adequate results. This size file (uncompressed) is 8MB.
The next size up was 4096x2732 pixels = 32MB. The tecnician told me that the film grain itself was between 6-8000/inch (AgfaChrome 100ASA), but that going the next size up (8192x5464 pixels = about 130MB) did not provide noticable improvement.
If you're sizing for prints, final size at 200dpi is the minimum, 300dpi is optimum. Almost all of my slides were 8MB TIFF files. I probably have some old duplicates or whatever, if anyone wants to see what a digital file looks like on actual 35mm film I could probably find one and send it to you.
 11/26/2002 12:22:16 AM · #59
I never read so much miss information. the nikon DSLRs blow away the digital Point & shoots just like a film SLRs blow away film point & shoots. It's a no brainer
 11/26/2002 04:34:29 AM · #60
Originally posted by GeneralE:
When I was imaging slides to 35mm film from digital files, I used a film recorder which imaged 2000, 4000, or 8000 lines per inch. I used a minimum file size of 2048x1366 pixels running at the 4k resolution and got adequate results. This size file (uncompressed) is 8MB.

GeneralE... I think you may have mis-read my question... I'm curious about how many Megapixels are estimated to be equivalent to film... not Megabytes. I'm pretty well versed in file sizes... but I'm very curious to hear authoritative information that says that xMP is the "equal" of 35mm film, for example.
 11/26/2002 05:46:35 AM · #61
Originally posted by alansfreed:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[i]When I was imaging slides to 35mm film from digital files, I used a film recorder which imaged 2000, 4000, or 8000 lines per inch. I used a minimum file size of 2048x1366 pixels running at the 4k resolution and got adequate results. This size file (uncompressed) is 8MB.

GeneralE... I think you may have mis-read my question... I'm curious about how many Megapixels are estimated to be equivalent to film... not Megabytes. I'm pretty well versed in file sizes... but I'm very curious to hear authoritative information that says that xMP is the "equal" of 35mm film, for example.
[/i]

I didn't mis-read the question, I just skipped doing the math. A 2048x1366 image = 2,797,568 pixels or about 2.8MP. 4096x2732=11,190,272 or about 11.2MP.
 11/26/2002 06:01:59 AM · #62
i think the number is 14 Megapixels
 11/26/2002 06:12:05 AM · #63
Originally posted by kendall:
I never read so much miss information. the nikon DSLRs blow away the digital Point & shoots just like a film SLRs blow away film point & shoots. It's a no brainer

I had a similar problem with that article. It sounded like it was written
by some people that don't know how to use a camera. They use an expensive, professional digital camera, in full auto mode and complain
about the results not being good as a point and shoot in full auto mode.

I wonder how many people using expensive camera bodies always leave it in auto everything ? Why would you expect to get good results that way ?

It would be more interesting to see the results if the cameras had been used properly in each case, with a preset white balance and proper exposure control. It might have even made sense. What next, camera reviews where the lens caps are left on and all the analysis based on
pixel noise ?
 11/26/2002 06:22:11 AM · #64
you mean i can use my D60 in a mode other that Auto? ;-)
 11/26/2002 06:46:48 AM · #65
I never had a digital camera till late last year. I bought the Sony DSCF505V ( the predecessor to the 707 ) and loved the camera to death. I shot thousands of photos, but after less than a year, I found the cameras limitations cutting into what I wanted to achive with my photography. Not having the options of a 35mm camera that I was used too, was the main reason I switched to the D60. Theres just no way to get the effects I wanted with the Sony. The most important thing to remember is to learn how to use what you have to the max. Youd be amazed at what you can do with your camera once youve pushed it to its limits!
 11/26/2002 06:48:36 AM · #66
Some very light googling reveals a summary of the arguments, with a quick demo thats pretty damming for 35mm.

//www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm

FujiFilm S2 Pro, here I come, now, where did I leave my wallet?
 11/26/2002 06:49:20 AM · #67
Originally posted by rll07:
you mean i can use my D60 in a mode other that Auto? ;-)

Well, there is that handy 'P' mode as well that is worth using.
All the other ones seem too complicated though.
 11/26/2002 08:29:43 AM · #68
If the auto functions are intended to be dismissed as useless, then why are they even included in the cameras?? Why not have manual everything?

Answer? The manufacturers intend those auto settings to BE usable :).

Comparing the auto abilities of cameras is a perfectly valid comparison. It does not tell the entire story of camera capabilities, but it may be a comparison of interest to many people who want to know how much they will need to sweat to get acceptable results buying a particular product. And it is esp valid in a general newspaper article targeted at the public.

Not everyone is like us - living for tweaker's heaven :) .. I know people who bought DSLR's and are really annoyed that they spent that kind of money just to find that the most automatic modes don't yield as good a result as their previous, usually consumer, camera.

I know my own camera (Oly E-10) gives FAR BETTER results with manual WB than it does on auto, but 99% of the time, if I'm out and about and taking advantage of rapidly unfolding situations, I don't have time to do a manual WB setting. And 5 sec later the lighting might be different again. I wish my auto WB was a lot better.

Sometimes I would even rather use this Kodak DX4900 point and shoot, simply because it's Auto WB and color rendition is SO good. I often wish my E-10 could 'see' colors as well but it's Auto WB is totally retarded in artificial lighting.

Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by kendall:
[i]I never read so much miss information. the nikon DSLRs blow away the digital Point & shoots just like a film SLRs blow away film point & shoots. It's a no brainer

I had a similar problem with that article. It sounded like it was written
by some people that don't know how to use a camera. They use an expensive, professional digital camera, in full auto mode and complain
about the results not being good as a point and shoot in full auto mode.

I wonder how many people using expensive camera bodies always leave it in auto everything ? Why would you expect to get good results that way ?

It would be more interesting to see the results if the cameras had been used properly in each case, with a preset white balance and proper exposure control. It might have even made sense. What next, camera reviews where the lens caps are left on and all the analysis based on
pixel noise ?
[/i]



* This message has been edited by the author on 11/26/2002 1:26:50 PM.
 11/26/2002 01:33:08 PM · #69
for one thing the contamination thing is way overblown. I can clean it in 2 seconds and it will last for months. The auto modes in the nikon D-1x are great auto modes. and the other modes are awesome as well. The flash is real TTL. The viewfinder is real TTL. it has real spot meter and center wieghted meter and real 3-d matrix metering. it has a shutter lag that is only about 0.005 seconds. Shoots 3.5 Frames per/sec. It has a flash sync port on the body. it's water tight. My 300mm F-2.8 is a 450 f-2.8 lens when i put it on the canera. And my 105mm F-2.8 micro lens will shoot a frame filling shot of a butterfly's face from 10 inches away (Enough room for a tripod or flash) and cable releases. radio ones, infrared ones, and electronic ones with timers built in. I could go on and on about D-SLRs....OH BTW the Nikon D-1h has a 2.75 MP CCD that will blow any 3.34 MP ccd out of the water. I print 13x19 size prints from my 2.75 MP nikon D-1 all the time and they are awesome. Why would you want to get bigger than that?
 11/30/2002 05:50:57 PM · #70
Dont forget much much less noise at high ISOs and long exposures 30 seconds and longer
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 11:51:58 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/07/2025 11:51:58 AM EDT.