[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're right, you can't get ( at least not buying new ) the same features like massive zoom range and vibration reduction in even an entry level DSLR for the same money. But, like most electronics these days, you get what you pay for. So for a manufacturer to be able to give you those extra features at a certain price, they have to give up something ... and that's generally flexibility, expandability, and a certain amount of quality.

This is my main conundrum... it is hard to get the 'best' in anything if you don't have unlimited funds. Just trying to figure out what will be the better compromise/sacrifice.

Also, I'm hoping that this *wont* turn into another hobby like audio... so I almost appreciate the limits that one of these quasi-SLR point and shoots impose upon my wallet.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is exactly what I'm worrying about. I want a good camera, but I don't necissarily want a new head-fi like hobby that is going to be a huge money sink.

It's very true. I think I've invested about 3500$us into my camera equipment. That's about as much as I've spent into my audio hobby.

I started out with the most awful P&S's you've ever seen. But, I enjoyed taking pictures of my fish, or my computer. Then I upgraded my P&S to another P&S, and it was still a piece of junk. But I started taking more pictures for the fun of it. Started to do sunsets and landscapes out of my room window. I averaged about 20 pictures in 6 months at that point.
Then I went to work for a job that required me to take many (albeit nothing fancy) pictures of equipment. I started using my Dad's mega zoom Olympus P&S, and that was a pain. The lens was relatively large compared to P&S's, but it couldn't go up to very high ISO and the lens was still not taking in a lot of light. I finally got fed up with having to setup the camera on a tripod each time and sprang for a budget DSLR (at the time, it was the first sub 1000$ DSLR). I was so impressed! I didn't need a tripod anymore. I just set it to ISO400, and took pictures. Noise wasn't even noticeable. That's when you start to see the benefit of having a larger lens (even the kit 18-55 lens!). The pictures also looked a fair bit better just in auto mode.
I also loved how fast the Auto Focus was. Click and take the picture! With all the P&S's, it has to do this whole contrast based AF and whatnot, and it takes a very long time at times. Not fun.

Well, I purchased the DSLR for work, but I also started taking a LOT more pictures because it was much more fun. It was easier to take pictures, less of a hassle, and I was getting better pictures out of it even on auto mode.

I went from taking on average 30 or so pictures a semester to taking about 5000 or so. I think I've had it for about 3 years now, and have something like over 36,000 pictures on it.
So, as you can see, I'm biased.


dcresource sometimes does reviews of cameras, and at the end of the review they have a photo gallery. In the review itself they also usually compare high iso performance. Make sure you take a look at the reviews of some of the cameras you are considering and compare the images to something like a D40/D90.

It'll be interesting to see what you end up with.

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

I'm hoping that this *wont* turn into another hobby like audio...

Good luck with that.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It'll be interesting to see what you end up with.

Oh, probably a Hasselblad H3D and one less kidney at the rate I am flip-flopping.

EDIT: Thanks for the camera journey story btw. That helps. Though, I have to respectfully disagree on your "most awful P&S camera" designation... unless you too have had the unique 'pleasure' of owning a camera produced by Creative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good luck with that.

 

[FrederikS|TPU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good luck with that.

x3 on that

!

What started out as a necessity for my reviews has now turned into a hobby. I am glad it did though because the lessons learned about framing and composition helps me with my drawings (understanding perspective) and lots of other stuff. Since I am studying Design & Innovation (Master in civil engineering) at the Technical University of Denmark this kind of knowledge is invaluable. I still find photography interesting and challenging which is great, a very rewarding hobby if you get a feel for it.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by laxx /img/forum/go_quote.gif I disagree. You don't have to have pro gear to be a pro photographer. I can understand some (IE 70-200 f2.8), but I've seen plenty of pro wedding photographers without pro lenses (non Canon L primes such as 28 f2.8, 50 f1.4) and they take amazing pictures.

In most instances, yes. In a wedding, no. Lighting is often poor or mediocre, getting the best shots is often a matter of timing and being able to get stuff done quick (which means no AF hunting or slow shutter speeds causing subject blur), and, most importantly of all, you only get one chance.

If I was going in for a portrait session and the photographer had a consumer zoom, I'd give him his chance since if he misses something the shot can always be re-done. If I was hiring someone to do architectural shooting, I'd let them use whatever they want as they can compose the shots, get stuff done, whatever. But a wedding is a one-shot deal - you get it or you don't. And with as much as a good photographer costs, I'm not leaving such things up to someone with less than optimal gear. Fast glass and a decent flash setup are a must.

 

[philodox]

RE: DMC-FZ50k

Turns out that you only get maybe 350 pictures with the LCD on per charge, so that's a big difference. Also, I'm wondering if the 2" screen is going to be big enough... though the ability to reorient the screen looks usefull.

*sigh*

 

[mbriant]

If you do go the P&S route, at the very least, make sure it has the capability to easily attach an external flash. (pc connection and/or hotshoe) .... also check that the manufacturer offers an external flash and sync cord that will allow you to use all the auto features of your camera with an external system flash). While the built-in flash is handy in a pinch, it does have some drawbacks such as limited power, inability to use bounce flash, and most important, causing red-eye. The red-eye (flickering pre-flash) reduction feature on flashes is very distracting to the subject, and often doesn't work anyway. Post production red-eye removal is not perfect either, and often leaves the subject with huge black pupils. The only way to guarantee no red-eye is to either bounce the flash off the ceiling/wall or better still, use an external flash mounted high on a flash bracket. This also offers the benefit of more pleasing, natural-looking lighting.

This isn't something you'd necessarily need right away, because you won't always need or want flash, but it's one of those things that down the road you'll realize means a real difference.

 

[jayehs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbriant /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good luck with that.

Why do you think i put up my RS1 for sale

I think you should buy both P&S and dslr and see which one you like

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif They are completely different beasts. Take your best P&S, and then even just try a D40. The D40 should blow you away.

A couple of comments... A few posts back, I linked to a thread that mentioned a point and shoot that outperforms a Canon DSLR. There are several reasons for this, principle among them the fact that optics in better quality point and shoots are matched to the sensor. It's a lot easier to create a tack sharp lens with a huge focal length range for a small image sensor than it is for a large one. All that glass makes it harder, not easier to get good optical quality. Also, focus is more critical with DSLRs with large aperture lenses than it is with P&S cameras that are designed to shoot one stop down (usually around 5.6) rather than the f8-11 that most DSLR lenses are optimized for.

The main difference, aside from accessories and lenses, between P&S and DSLR is the low light performance. They both shoot great images.

Neither DSLRs nor point and shoots are any better for creating artistic images. Artistry is 100% in the eye of the photographer, not in the equipment they use. I've seen beautiful photos taken with cameras in cell phones and Goodwill bin cameras.

See ya
Steve

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is exactly what I'm worrying about. I want a good camera, but I don't necissarily want a new head-fi like hobby that is going to be a huge money sink.

That's easy. Just focus on taking pictures, not accumulating equipment. I think a good point and shoot is more than enough to keep you busy for many years. A P&S is the perfect compromise between the ease of use and portability of a pocket camera and the flexibility of a DSLR. Battery life is not an issue, and the screen is just for composing. I think you're on the right track with the DMC-FZ50k. You could get a lot of great pictures with that. You've got me seriously considering that camera to replace my Olympus C3030.

See ya
Steve

 

[mbriant]

Quote:

I'm pretty jacked, I just bought my first film SLR, a chrome Nikon FE. It should be here later this week! __________________

You should be....they're great cameras....and a bargain thanks to the digital revolution. I've still got an FM, FE, and FE2 I've had since the early 80's. (I had another FE2 as well and several lenses which I lent to a fellow head-fier a few years ago and never got back) I haven't used any of them for several years, but they all still look and work like new.

 

[laxx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yea, well I disagree. So there! ^_^ I would not pay someone 4000$ unless I had the peace of mind that their equipment was up to the job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif In most instances, yes. In a wedding, no. Lighting is often poor or mediocre, getting the best shots is often a matter of timing and being able to get stuff done quick (which means no AF hunting or slow shutter speeds causing subject blur), and, most importantly of all, you only get one chance. If I was going in for a portrait session and the photographer had a consumer zoom, I'd give him his chance since if he misses something the shot can always be re-done. If I was hiring someone to do architectural shooting, I'd let them use whatever they want as they can compose the shots, get stuff done, whatever. But a wedding is a one-shot deal - you get it or you don't. And with as much as a good photographer costs, I'm not leaving such things up to someone with less than optimal gear. Fast glass and a decent flash setup are a must.

I understand that, but what it comes down to is what is pro gear? For Canon, only L's are considered pro gear? I don't know what it is for Nikon. Or the right lense for the right situation is considered pro gear?

Because the 85 1.8 is nowhere near the build quality of the 85 1.2, but I consider the 1.8 up there and should be considered pro gear, even though it doesn't sport that red L.

 

[philodox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I think you're on the right track with the DMC-FZ50k. You could get a lot of great pictures with that. You've got me seriously considering that camera to replace my Olympus C3030.

Thanks again for the advice. Unless I flop back to considering a full blown DSLR, I think it is between that one and the Fujifilm Finepix S100FS. Also considering the Leica V-Lux 1 since it is nearly identical to the Panasonic with Leica styling and I can get it locally for $680CDN after rebate. I can't seem to find anywhere local that sells the Panasonic, but it is listed for $540CDN on ebay.

 

[milkpowder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif Upon further reading, it seems that you actually can get three 'conversion lenses' for the DMC-FZ50k, a Tele, a Wide and a close-up. Not sure how good they are, but this at least gives you a bit of variety.That is what first attracted me to it. When you compare the f/2.8 LEICA DC VARIO-ELMARIT 12x optical zoom lense to what comes in most of the DSLR kits it starts looking very good.

Ignore whatever jargon manufactures tag on to their lens. It may have a Leica badge, but then again, I don't think Leica were ever famous for their zoom lenses. The large F/2.8 aperture is good, though. Also, I would want to look into the focus speed of the DMC-FZ50. It's insanely annoying when the focus hunts back and forwards for a second or two before it 'locks'. Combine that with a shutter lag and you'll find yourself missing shots. Since the FZ50 is one of the better "point 'n shoots", it may not be so terrible.

DSLRs tend to focus much quicker, but I have encountered at least one which isn't quite up to scratch: Pentax K10D. I was shooting with one last night (w/ 50/1.7) and the focus hunts quite a bit.

Another area where DSLRs would be superior is metering accuracy. Quite a few DSLRs have very sophisticated metering systems. The latest and greatest Nikons have thousand-pixel sensors that meter pretty much across the whole frame. Even the size of the center-weighted point can be adjusted

Quote:

I don't see myself having the budget to buy a comparible lense or a slew of lenses to form that kind of range for a DSLR any time soon.I've been comparing the specs of the D40 to the DMC-FZ50k and they have the same ISO sensitivity ranges. Is there really *that* big of a difference between a 10MP 1/1.8" CCD and a 6MP DX format CCD?

The DX format CCD/CMOS is much larger: 15.8 x 23.6mm. The 1/1.8" CCD is only 5.3 x 7.2mm. While there is a lot more to a sensor than just size, the size of each photo-diode/sensor/pixel generally determines how much noise there is in picture, ie larger photodiode = higher S/N ratio.

On a DX/APS-C CMOS sensor like the one on my D300, I will be able to achieve cleaner pictures (higher S/N ratio) at ISO1600 (or even 3200 if the exposure is perfect) than a FZ50 at 400. That's at least three times as much light with the same aperture and shutter speed. On a full frame/FX CMOS sensor like the one in the D700/D3, the performance is even more insane: ISO 6400 looks better than ISO 2000/3200 on my D300.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Towert7 /img/forum/go_quote.gif First off, that's hilarious that I see you type +ve. A teacher used that in class and no one understood what it meant. ^_^

Haha. It was totally subconscious, and I wouldn't even claim to be any good at mathematics!
Quote:

We have to be careful though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a F/2.8 on a 1.5 crop sensor is quite a bit more narrow than a F/2.8 on a 2x crop sensor. I'm not sure why this is (it really doesn't make sense to me yet), but that's what I've been told. Actually, the more that I think about it, perhaps it does make sense.

I have read that too, but honestly, it doesn't make a difference to my shooting so I haven't really bothered trying to understand this 'phenomenon'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach /img/forum/go_quote.gif In most instances, yes. In a wedding, no. Lighting is often poor or mediocre, getting the best shots is often a matter of timing and being able to get stuff done quick (which means no AF hunting or slow shutter speeds causing subject blur), and, most importantly of all, you only get one chance. ... Fast glass and a decent flash setup are a must.

In fact, the newest Nikon pro glass - eg 24-70/2.8 - focusses even faster than my 50/1.4 AF-D!

Quote:

Originally Posted by philodox /img/forum/go_quote.gif RE: DMC-FZ50k Turns out that you only get maybe 350 pictures with the LCD on per charge, so that's a big difference. Also, I'm wondering if the 2" screen is going to be big enough... though the ability to reorient the screen looks usefull. *sigh*

Screen size is not as important as screen resolution. 350 pictures per charge is pretty poor though

Is that with flash? I was just at a wedding the other day and I shot 380~ (RAW+JPEG) photos, all flashed (some +EV compensated) with a lot of viewing in between. My battery was around half way.