[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dima1109 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Steve, what would be the principal difference between an SLR-like camera and a true SLR? (I don't care about video, that's the main difference I can think of)

My reply appears to have vanished with the outage... I'll try to reconstruct it.

The main differences between an advanced P&S and a low end DSLR are:

The DSLR will have a stop and a half to two stop advantage in low light because of better high ISO noise performance. But the lens on the P&S, like the Panasonic Lumix FZ-18 has an effective (35mm equivalent) focal length of 24mm to 500mm. You'd need at least three lenses to do that with a DSLR.

The biggest difference is cost though. For a usable D40 kit (18-55, 55-200) it will set you back $600. The Lumix is a little over $350. To get close to the $400 mark with the D40, you'd have to settle for just the 18-55. You can be guaranteed that you'll probably want another lens in the not too distant future.

The Lumix has all the same exposure, focus, white balance and ISO controls that the D40 does. There is no real difference in build quality. The main difference is the cost and the fact that the DSLR requires a kit of lenses, while the Lumix has one lens that does it all.

See ya
Steve

 

[erikzen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif Most P&S cameras have the same sort of control over aperture / shutter speed / white balance / ISO as DSLRS. That's not the difference.

I have not used the P&S you suggested but I have had a few, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, and none of them have the control over aperture and shutter speed that my DSLR gives me. I was never able to get a thin depth of field that can be so dramatic. Perhaps some of the newest ones give you the same kind of control.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braver /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would recommend against an Olympus just because sensor size really does matter. Kit lenses are all pretty slow (as in, don't go open very far), so you'll love getting great quality at ISO1600 with the D40.

I disagree that sensor size is an issue with the Olympus, especially for larger size prints. The aspect ratio for 4/3 is better for 8 x10 prints (less image cropping). APS-C is 14% bigger and Sigma is 6% bigger according to this article:

wrotniak.net: Four Thirds Sensor Size and Aspect Ratio

I know sensor size is more important than megapixels (hence a 6 megapixel DSLR will give you a better image than a 10 megapixel P&S) but the D40 is 6.1 MP while the E-420 is 10MP. If it's at all important to you the Olympus gives you "Live View". More importantly, the Olympus has one of the best dust control systems, while the D40 has none. Even if you don't change lenses, sooner or later dust will get stuck on your sensor and you will either need to very carefully clean it or send it out for service.

I will agree that if you want to shoot in very low light that you will get better results at ISO 1600 with the D40 than the E-420 but I don't know how important that is to you. If you don't want to shoot in available light in low light conditions then that benefit may be lost on you. To me I'll take proven dust control over better quality at 1600 ISO but that's just me. I've shot quite a few shots with my E-520 in available light with very good results, but that camera also has image stabilization.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you are putting the DCs into the 'purse camera' catagory and I simply do not agree.

And I think you're comparing cameras just in terms of image quality, which is silly. Image quality is just one of a whole slew of things that make up a camera.

You can't deny that a DSLR makes it easier to photograph things. They are faster, easier to use, with better and more robust features, easier access to settings, easier to hold/control, have better high ISO performance, considerably better batter life, etc etc. It's a through and through better camera from the photographers point of view.

The battery life alone should be reason enough to put this topic to rest.
One is a real camera, the other is still just a toy.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif ALL oly glass is high grade. only the good lenses from N and C are worth anything. if you stay at only kit lenses, oly is the best you can do (assuming zooms). for primes (which you don't want) I'd go pentax. N and C are over-rated unless you get their BEST bodies and BEST lenses.

Umm, no, no, no, no......

Well, maybe..

"Only the good lenses from N and C are worth anything." - This is easy to argue with since you didn't define which ones are the "good" ones. But assuming you mean only the "L" line of lenses for Canon, then you are completely wrong. There are lots of good Canon lenses that aren't from the "L" series.

"Primes, which you don't want." - Um, why not? Primes are generally sharper and sometimes have better contrast and saturation. Zooming isn't everything. There's a reason most photographers were born with two feet..

"N and C are over-rated unless you get the BEST." - I hope you don't expect anyone to believe this......

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr_baseball_08 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Umm, no, no, no, no...... Well, maybe.. "Only the good lenses from N and C are worth anything." - This is easy to argue with since you didn't define which ones are the "good" ones. But assuming you mean only the "L" line of lenses for Canon, then you are completely wrong. There are lots of good Canon lenses that aren't from the "L" series.

what I meant was that the kit lenses from N and C are a bit underwhelming. they are known to be. N and C are good examples of what a kit lens should NOT be. they aren't trash but they are NOT worth much over a superzoom lens and in fact often are inferior to the superzoom higher grade lenses.

Quote:

"Primes, which you don't want." - Um, why not? Primes are generally sharper and sometimes have better contrast and saturation. Zooming isn't everything. There's a reason most photographers were born with two feet..

that poster said 'I won't go beyond kit lenses'. I'll give him more leeway and assume he meant zooms and do primes are WAY overkill for someone just getting into it. that's all I meant. FOR HIM primes are not useful.

Quote:

"N and C are over-rated unless you get the BEST." - I hope you don't expect anyone to believe this......

I personally fully believe it. I would not get any kind of entry level N or C camera body OR lens. they simply .... suck.

N and C make good things but only if you SPEND. its a nasty 'design' of their product lines. you need a mid-level of *anything* to be as good as the competing guys such as oly and pentax even at their entries.

besides, nikon hobbles their very lowest bodies (can't use worm-gear focus lenses since the cheapie nikon bodies have no motors in them). unsuspecting buyers can get stranded and forced to buy ONLY the more expensive fly-by-wire lenses. that sucks.

if you are going to shoot N or C, go in with a big wallet and get their mid level bodies and pro level lenes. you'll be fine then. anything less and you are buying mostly a 'badge' but inferior qual compared to what you could get from other brands.

its just how the companies artificially 'place' their products. not that they could not MAKE a quality entry level cam but they choose NOT TO. its that simple.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Does a physicist have to go to the moon to understand the gravitational properties of the moon? Of course not!

By your reasoning I should be able to pick my headphones by looking at a frequency response chart or the manufacturers posted technical specifications.

I've actually held entry level DSLRs and point&shoot super zooms. Build quality is very similar, and as Steve pointed out they have nearly identical features. The difference being that you can cover an extremely large range with one lense on a superzoom. You do get a smaller sensor and less performance in low light, but not everyone does this for a living. Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You should give me more credit. I'm no dummy.

Never said that, but I'd give your advice in this case about as much credibility as people who suggest audio gear without hearing it.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can't deny that a DSLR makes it easier to photograph things.

things? what are 'things' ?

it DOES matter.

for macros, it is often easier to shoot with my superzoom and a raynox clip-on achromat 'macro lens'. I'll have to denoise my images but I'll get really strong magnification that would be hard (and expensive) to match on my high-end slr.

if I was shooting sports, no way I'd take my superzoom. I could hack it with a 'red dot sight' (another long topic..) but in general, its the wrong tool for the job.

the slr is not *always* the automatic best tool, though. I do agree its the most expensive - if that matters

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif you also get super wide depth of field on DC's that us macro guys appreciate. we want a lot in focus and DC's small sensors help with that.

Interesting, this is the first time I've heard this. Given that macros are a large part of what I want to do, that's another check for the superzooms...

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif in this case about as much credibility as people who suggest audio gear without hearing it.

Your loss.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by linuxworks /img/forum/go_quote.gif I personally fully believe it. I would not get any kind of entry level N or C camera body OR lens. they simply .... suck.

Entry level D80 with entry level kit lens 18-55mm (old version 1):
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/...e22c30e3_o.jpg
Ok Linux I'm calling you out this time. What about it sucks?

The camera is a fantastic piece of equipment, and the lens is simply the best 100$ zoom lens I have ever used.

The Ultra budget D40 would have taken the same picture with the same lens, if not a technically better image due to better ISO noise levels.

The Nikon and Canon DSLR's are fantastic cameras. For anyone to say that they suck blows my mind, simply put.
Why would you say that?

 

[Braver]

wow, I don't think the OP is getting any use out of this thread anymore.

anyway, I'd still like to post my post that was lost in the outage. I believe that anyone who really like to shoot photos, even if he does not want to go beyond kitlensens, will get a lot of satisfaction out of a D40 grade kit. sensor size is the most important factor in photos, especially if you are going to shoot iso1600 a lot (and you will). aside from this, the D40 is ergonomically very well designed: the size and weight are right and the buttons are in the right places. a dslr-like camera doesn't have this. it has a small sensor, so noise and noise reduction are issues even in bright daylight. I've used a G9 and many others, they're crap when it comes to real image quality. a proper dslr will make you very very happy. you can actually use ISO1600, it looks great. you can shoot great images in a lot more situations. and if the iso doesn't cut it, the D40 has a very nice flash built in, leagues ahead of P&Ss. wide depth of field is easy to get. what makes great pictures however is shallow depth of field and you can only get that with big sensors.
that said, canon and nikon make very nice cameras. I think the ergonomics of the D40 are better, the kit lens is supposed to be better, but Canon packs more features. I don't think those features matter, but you might. Olympus has a smaller sensor and the the 3/4 system is just a bad idea all over. they do pack features, but features do not take pictures. I absolutely refute the idea that low end canon and nikons are crap/ just browse through the amazing photos taken with D40 and XSI kits on flickr.

Get a D40, it will make you very happy

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Braver /img/forum/go_quote.gif wow, I don't think the OP is getting any use out of this thread anymore. anyway, I'd still like to post my post that was lost in the outage. I believe that anyone who really like to shoot photos, even if he does not want to go beyond kitlensens, will get a lot of satisfaction out of a D40 grade kit. sensor size is the most important factor in photos, especially if you are going to shoot iso1600 a lot (and you will). aside from this, the D40 is ergonomically very well designed: the size and weight are right and the buttons are in the right places. a dslr-like camera doesn't have this. it has a small sensor, so noise and noise reduction are issues even in bright daylight. I've used a G9 and many others, they're crap when it comes to real image quality. a proper dslr will make you very very happy. you can actually use ISO1600, it looks great. you can shoot great images in a lot more situations. and if the iso doesn't cut it, the D40 has a very nice flash built in, leagues ahead of P&Ss. wide depth of field is easy to get. what makes great pictures however is shallow depth of field and you can only get that with big sensors. that said, canon and nikon make very nice cameras. I think the ergonomics of the D40 are better, the kit lens is supposed to be better, but Canon packs more features. I don't think those features matter, but you might. Olympus has a smaller sensor and the the 3/4 system is just a bad idea all over. they do pack features, but features do not take pictures. I absolutely refute the idea that low end canon and nikons are crap/ just browse through the amazing photos taken with D40 and XSI kits on flickr. Get a D40, it will make you very happy

Very good advice Braver. Not to mention the amazing battery life of the D40.
The kit 18-55mm lens also functions very nicely as a close-up/macro lens! I'm always amazed at just how close it focuses at 55mm!!!

I'll also echo your comments about the nikon vs. canon. Both are very nice cameras and people have been taking amazing pictures with both. Having said that, I find the ergonomics of the nikon to be quite a bit superior. It makes holding the camera more enjoyable. Nikon sure knows how to make a comfortable camera, all the way from their D40 to their D3.

Get the D40 kit, and you'll love it Dima! Nikon knows what they're doing. ^_^

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Interesting, this is the first time I've heard this. Given that macros are a large part of what I want to do, that's another check for the superzooms...

oh yes! very very standard argument for small sensors or even 'crop sensors' (less than fullframe as its called). smaller sensor yields 'deeper' DOF.

that's one reason why digicams are good for people who aren't quite up to dealing with narrow focus ranges often found in fast slr glass. the same '2.8' that you have on a digicam has a much wider DOF than the slr would. ie, its more forgiving for snapshots but less 'artsy' with less control over what is in focus in the frame.

but for macro shots, you WANT wide DOF. so yes, another vote for superzooms since they don't need a zoom (its already there) and they have greater DOF for the same given lens.

macro lenses for slrs are $400 and up. macro clip-ons for digicams are in the $30-$100 range.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Entry level D80 with entry level kit lens 18-55mm (old version 1): http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2300/...e22c30e3_o.jpg Ok Linux I'm calling you out this time. What about it sucks?

meow!

that's a fine pic. a bit harsher on the NR than I'd want. was that jpg source or from raw? I'm betting its jpg but I could be wrong.

Quote:

The camera is a fantastic piece of equipment, and the lens is simply the best 100$ zoom lens I have ever used.

one of my complaints with nikon is their raw NEF format and how they keep your whitebalance encrypted ('held hostage'). I don't like those kinds of games.

their lenses have ALL KINDS of varying quality. you really can't just 'buy nikon' and know you are getting a good one. that's one reason I recommend oly - they don't make bad oly-branded lenses and they don't let bad samples leave the factory. for people ordering long distance, that matters! returns are a biatch

same with canon. I've heard their QC issues and how its frequent to get a 'bad sample'.

its not as bad as sigma but its still not a great track record.

lets also talk weathersealing. if you are stepping up to slr land, why not KNOW which lenses are sealed? these days, its a big deal having a sealed lens and most nikkors are not even listed as dust sealed or water sealed. not even listed - so no one knows. on the oly map, all mid and top lenses are sealed - period. all kit (lowest level) are not. very easy and simple rule to follow. I like that.

and yes, for the $500 range lenses, I can find mid-grade olys that are sealed. its nice to know. its also nice not to have to run for cover if it gets wet like the N and C guys do

Quote:

The Nikon and Canon DSLR's are fantastic cameras. For anyone to say that they suck blows my mind, simply put. Why would you say that?

there's a LOT more to it than 'taking nice pictures'. camera build, company style and support (warranty, user-hate when its greymarket (hello nikon!), QC record on new items and even firmware update history). many things go into camera selection.

nikon is not a friendly company. they are hostile to their customers. they push this 'no grey market' stuff on you (long rant I'd rather not get into) and they play binary license games with your NEF raw files. they also tend to use a lot of nonstandard connectors and batteries and I think they are starting to 'pull a sony' and even key/lock their batteries ;( just not a friendly company - and it DOES matter.

canon produces toy cameras until you get to mid level. you either have held them and know what I'm talking about or not.

you can produce good photos with even junk cams. but there's a lot more to having and selecting than 'look, nice piccie'. 100yr old cams can make 'nice piccies'.

that's not quite the point.

 

[mr_baseball_08]

Well, you've made it very obvious that you're a Olympus fanboy and I can't listen to any sort of fanboy be it Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Kodak, whatever.

You should learn to accept that they're are worthy solutions outside of Olympus and just because it's your favorite doesn't necessarily make it the best.

The proof is in the pudding and if Olympus is amazing as you say they are, they should already have a larger market share than they do. I suppose you'll probably just blame that on marketing campaigns and consume ignorance, but I digress.