[Vektor]

My latest camera of interest (tonight anyhow) is the A640. It does fairly well considering all those pixels packed into a small sensor and counterintuitively the A630 is actually noisier at higher ISO than the 640 is. That coupled with the flip out LCD and a decent price has got me thinking...

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif low noise + high iso > IS, anytime.

I'm wondering if we blow high ISO noise out of proportion sometimes. When I've tried shooting ISO 1600 with my 5D, it's still better IQ then any 1600 35mm film I've worked with (ie grain grain grain). Unless you need the extra speed with a moving subject, I'd rather just use a tripod at low ISO for optimal quality. IS seems to have as limited uses as tripods: ie I've noticed night shots with IS tend to have too much motion blur because the person has forgotten that shutter speeds are slower. So everything has its place. Pick your poison with night shots: better quality with slower shutter speed and motion blurr, or less motion blurr but not as good IQ with very high ISO.

 

[kin0kin]

IS and tripod is only good for still subject - these are tools that correct human error, you still need high iso for moving subject. However, if noise is low even with high iso, then i'd go with high iso than wasting my money on IS; after all, with high iso, you can use faster shutter speed and eliminates human error. So, let's just hope the sensor R&D guys make a break through in the next couple of years with iso 3200 at current iso800's noise lol. As far as noise level is concerned now, I'd say Mk II/III is taking the lead, with s5 pro next, and 5d following up.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif IS and tripod is only good for still subject - these are tools that correct human error, you still need high iso for moving subject. However, if noise is low even with high iso, then i'd go with high iso than wasting my money on IS; after all, with high iso, you can use faster shutter speed and eliminates human error. So, let's just hope the sensor R&D guys make a break through in the next couple of years with iso 3200 at current iso800's noise lol. As far as noise level is concerned now, I'd say Mk II/III is taking the lead, with s5 pro next, and 5d following up.

It's still pretty amazing to see how quickly digital has matured. With traditional film based photography, high ISO film always stayed grainy....and there is no 3200 ISO setting on my Canon AE-1 for example. So principles of photography are still very much staying consistant. Knowing how to compose your shot is still the make or break skills of a good photographer. Getting motion blurr or light streaks from your subject can sometimes be what's desired. But I have noticed some bad IS photos where the static background is in sharp focus, and people are blurred. Since I don't do any low light photography that requires me to pan the camera around, I plan on just saving my money for faster non IS lenses. It's much cheaper to have a good tripod/monopod, and faster non IS lens: and I would have less instances where I need to go all the way up on ISO

 

[yellafella321]

To Akwok: if you don't like the d50, don't get the d80, they're in nearly exactly the same body. The d80 is not the same size as the d70.

Speaking of d70's, i have two: a d70, and a d70s, both of which I love tremendously. For the money, I don't think you can get a better dslr as used, they are about 400-450$ right now.

Also, in terms of the d80, it has a lot of metering problems, which is definitely one of the major advantages of the d200. So yes, it might have better noise than the d200, but whats the point of having less noise if you're going to get your exposure wrong and end up having more noise? The size, the feel, the controls on the d200 are all far superior, love the dedicated iso and qual buttons, and love how the mode is menu selected, not on a dial: no chance of your aperture priority slipping into shutter priority and screwing up a bunch of shots.

I've been thinking about jumping to the canon ship for a while now, waiting for the 40d to be released. I shoot indoors at high iso's a lot, and in that department canon is just better. I've also been looking at the fuji s5 and it looks pretty amazing except for 1 thing: speed, i just can't accept that it can only shoot 1.5 raws/s whereas the d200 can shoot raw at 5fps and has a buffer for 22 raw which is pretty amazing. Noise on the fuji and the d200 are pretty similar. Colors on the fuji are more "pleasing", but you can grab a brand new d200 for abt 1200$ these days where as the s5 is about 1900$ since it just came out. The d200 also has much higher resolution. (no im not talking about the pixel size of the image)

Anyhoos, the d70 is a pretty amazing camera, definitely the best camera to learn about dslr's on. I've got the 18-200 vr, a tamron 28-75 f2.8, the 50mm f1.8 and the 18-70 f3.5-4.5 dx.

 

[kin0kin]

Yup, when taking moving subjects, you still need to get shutter speed to be 1/60 and above to be passable, so the only way is to bump iso up in those situation (low light), IS doesnt do jack at all. Imho, I'd hope that all the manufacturers would design the IS feature in the sensor level and not at the damn lens....but I doubt that'd happen on nikon/canon, they make more $$ from the lens than from the body, greedy bastards

Funny though, despite sony implemeting IS in the body, their lenses still cost heck lot compared to nikon/sony's iirc, makes no sense at all as far as competitive advantage is concerned.

I wonder why Pentax has such low market share in slr, personally I think that the K10D is a very fine camera when capturing at RAW, and it has IS built into the body.

The S5's only only 1.5/RAW with 400% DR. At 100%, it is 3fps, and beyond iso 1000, it is also 3fps. The main draw back is probably the wait time for the preview to load up...hopefully new firmware will fix it. I wont put my money in the D200 for a number of reasons - greenish/yellowish cast, relatively noisy, cant do purple/violet *turns to blue*, which is why I hope nion get the D200 replacement model right. The noise on s5 is barely similar to the D200, it is at least 1 stop better than the D200, and there are many comparison shots out there (5d vs s5, d2x vs s5, d200 vs s5), and s5 has the lead in all the comparisons thus far.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I wonder why Pentax has such low market share in slr, personally I think that the K10D is a very fine camera when capturing at RAW, and it has IS built into the body.

It's probably a really tough market: the "budget" DSLRs. I say "budget" because they only look cheap compared to cameras like the 1Ds

SLRs had their largest sales in the early 80s...with the Canon AE-1 leading the pack. Pentax was known for having more affordable SLRs: the k1000 the main manual camera used in photography classes. That's probably when they had the most sales. With shutter priority, these cameras could automatically set exposure for a novice, and point and shoots were pretty much in their infancy. So a lot more people where using SLRs then.

Now with digital you have so many high quality point and shoots that can compete with SLRs in IQ. Those that are really serious will look at more expensive dSLRs for features. But at least there is more diversity in SLRs now. Pentax and Olympus seem to be getting good reviews.

 

[kin0kin]

I used to have an olympus 5060wz. I don't know why it gets so much rave...it works good during th day, but in low light, it is almost unusable, and the olympus noise is such a big draw back. I'd never consider another olympus.

I think Pentax and olympus is just not marketing the right market segment...always been seen as the middle child...gets little to no attention at all. While canon is getting more than it deserves

 

[Davesrose]

The Olympus Evolt E500 is getting good reviews. Looks like it competes well with Pentax, Nikon, and Canon.

As for Canon having too much attention....yep, I admit that I also had a bit of brand loyalty when I decided on the 5D

Having a perfectly functional 30 year old SLR makes me believe that Canon is capable of making some good cameras

Full sensor and reviews of lenses also made me think about sticking with the Canon camp. Now if only Canon made some more prime lenses.....why they feel compelled to follow trends and have effecient market shares by catering to the zoom lens crowd

No wonder why Canon stopped selling their 50mm 1.0L: who'd spend $4k on a 50mm!! Though I sometimes am tempted to want to get the 1.2L just to see if there's really that much difference with the 1.4 (reviews seem to indicate it's more about flare reduction then vignetting or sharpness).

 

[kin0kin]

Canon resembles Sony in the olden electronics industry, whereby they were initially dedicated in making really really good quality products. Apparently, these companies are more profit driven nowadays, and probably also more "rational" or efficient.

 

[akwok]

Argh, when I finally decide to get the Nikon 17-55mm it goes out of stock on Amazon (it was $1199 a few days ago -- now it's $1249 + shipping).

I guess I will hound FredMiranda to see if anything pops up.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kin0kin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Canon resembles Sony in the olden electronics industry, whereby they were initially dedicated in making really really good quality products. Apparently, these companies are more profit driven nowadays, and probably also more "rational" or efficient.

Canon and Sony are both good companies: they know who's looking for what in a budget product vs an uber expensive professional product. The thing is you're paying a bit extra for the brand name. Heck, I don't care cause I got full sensor now babby!

Now if only this camera lasts 30 years

But the trends digital SLRs and lenses are pretty much like they've always been with SLRs.

 

[Icarium]

Hrm this might be too OT but I am somewhat looking for a digital camera. I probably don't need or want to go DSLR (Complete newbie etc). I just want something that does lossless... preferable accepts sdcards... has GREAT macro capabilities (For taking close up shots of my headphones) and does good with longer distances/in all sorts of lighting. Intuitive interface/settings etc etc.

I don't mind paying decent money if its something that perfectly suits my needs and won't go out of date for like 2-3 years.

 

[Davesrose]

don't know much about macro with point and shoots....I haven't even tried to get up close with my P&Ss!!! But here's a good thread I found that shows you IQ of a P&S camera:

http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/...m/385005334831

 

[Thrasher]

I am currently in the possession of a Sony DSC-W1 point & shoot. I don't love it, especially because some plastic broke and now my battery compartment is only partially closed, but I do like it, because it makes good enough pictures and I can fit it in the inner pocket of my jacket.

But I do wish they would make sturdy, well built cameras, something like Motorola phones made of metal..... Or do they?