06-05-2011, 07:11 AM
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2011, 11:04 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307214673' post='9033']
Thanks to everyone who responded.
First of all I'd like to specify whether it's reasonable to limit the choice only between Canon and Nikon.
[/quote]
I think it is reasonable. Unless you have a specific reason to choose a Pentax, a Sony or an Olympus, it makes most sense to choose a Canon or Nikon DSLR when you do not know which lenses you may want in future, which specific feature would make one of the others make it a more interesting choice. Canon and Nikon have the widest lens options.
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307214673' post='9033']
I suppose that the main plots of my future photos will be the following: nature, animals, landscapes, valleys, dales, mountains, views of cities, architecture and certainly people but mostly in situations stated above and also some sport events such as football matches.
[/quote]
Some types/subjects would benefit with wide angle (landscape/city space/architecture), some with tele (animals, football matches).
The by you stated price of the quite low fixed €650 makes me have the idea that the budget for lenses is also limited? This then means that for the moment you can not yet buy a diverse set of lenses for all purposes?
I will leave the lens advice for now, even though it is sort of linked to the choice of the brand of body.
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307214673' post='9033']
Will it be sagnificant difference between color depth 36 and 48 bit, max sensitivity 3200 and 6400, exposure range +/- 2 and +/- 5?
[/quote]
I am not sure where you get those bit depths from. DSLRs have a bit depth of 12 bit or 14 bit. That is per pixel, each pixel only containing one colour.channel (R, G or B ).. The values are not spread in a linear fashion, they will need to be spread out in a different way during conversion of RAW to fit in JPEG or other normal image formats (like the different TIFF formats and such).
JPEG has 8 bits per channel, so 3 x 8 = 24 bits per pixel. TIFFs can both have 8 bits and 16 bits per channel (16 x 3 = 48 bits).
8 bit per channel formats might also have an alpha or transparency channel, making it 32 bits per pixel, and 16 bit per channel formats which include an alpha channel will then have 64 bits per pixel.
Does it make a difference if the camera has 12 or 14 bits per pixel in RAW? In theory, yes. In practice? No one really knows... The differences are not so big that one can say from looking at an image than one image originates from a 12bit or 14 bit sensor.
Does it make a difference to shoot JPEG or RAW? While one can get very good results with just JPEG, RAW gives a lot more room in post processing, before the steps between values show up. Still, one can post process JPEG well too.
The max. sensitivity of 3200 ISO versus 6400 ISO means means 1/2 the exposure time difference. Whether they give usable results still differs from camera to camera.
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307214673' post='9033']
Is vari-angle screen really very useful?
What number of picrures is enough for RAW?
[/quote]
A screen that can swivel can be very useful in certain situations. Unless you come across those situations, it will not be very useful. Same as many other features of DSLRs....
The swivel screen of the Canon EOS 600D can be very useful when you can't get your head behind the camera to make a certain shot.. like for instance a shot from very low, where the camera is against the ground and pointing a bit up. With live view and the swivel screen, the shot gets to be possible to frame. In other situations, you won't need it, as you look through the optical view finder.
Similarly ISO 6400 for instance... One would only need that in low light situations where one wants to capture a moving subject, where one does not want to use flash. In most other situations ISO 6400 will not be used.
So just how useful a camera feature will be for someone is rather impossible to rate, or even predict.
I do not understand the number of pictures for RAW question, sorry.
Thanks to everyone who responded.
First of all I'd like to specify whether it's reasonable to limit the choice only between Canon and Nikon.
[/quote]
I think it is reasonable. Unless you have a specific reason to choose a Pentax, a Sony or an Olympus, it makes most sense to choose a Canon or Nikon DSLR when you do not know which lenses you may want in future, which specific feature would make one of the others make it a more interesting choice. Canon and Nikon have the widest lens options.
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307214673' post='9033']
I suppose that the main plots of my future photos will be the following: nature, animals, landscapes, valleys, dales, mountains, views of cities, architecture and certainly people but mostly in situations stated above and also some sport events such as football matches.
[/quote]
Some types/subjects would benefit with wide angle (landscape/city space/architecture), some with tele (animals, football matches).
The by you stated price of the quite low fixed €650 makes me have the idea that the budget for lenses is also limited? This then means that for the moment you can not yet buy a diverse set of lenses for all purposes?
I will leave the lens advice for now, even though it is sort of linked to the choice of the brand of body.
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307214673' post='9033']
Will it be sagnificant difference between color depth 36 and 48 bit, max sensitivity 3200 and 6400, exposure range +/- 2 and +/- 5?
[/quote]
I am not sure where you get those bit depths from. DSLRs have a bit depth of 12 bit or 14 bit. That is per pixel, each pixel only containing one colour.channel (R, G or B ).. The values are not spread in a linear fashion, they will need to be spread out in a different way during conversion of RAW to fit in JPEG or other normal image formats (like the different TIFF formats and such).
JPEG has 8 bits per channel, so 3 x 8 = 24 bits per pixel. TIFFs can both have 8 bits and 16 bits per channel (16 x 3 = 48 bits).
8 bit per channel formats might also have an alpha or transparency channel, making it 32 bits per pixel, and 16 bit per channel formats which include an alpha channel will then have 64 bits per pixel.
Does it make a difference if the camera has 12 or 14 bits per pixel in RAW? In theory, yes. In practice? No one really knows... The differences are not so big that one can say from looking at an image than one image originates from a 12bit or 14 bit sensor.
Does it make a difference to shoot JPEG or RAW? While one can get very good results with just JPEG, RAW gives a lot more room in post processing, before the steps between values show up. Still, one can post process JPEG well too.
The max. sensitivity of 3200 ISO versus 6400 ISO means means 1/2 the exposure time difference. Whether they give usable results still differs from camera to camera.
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307214673' post='9033']
Is vari-angle screen really very useful?
What number of picrures is enough for RAW?
[/quote]
A screen that can swivel can be very useful in certain situations. Unless you come across those situations, it will not be very useful. Same as many other features of DSLRs....
The swivel screen of the Canon EOS 600D can be very useful when you can't get your head behind the camera to make a certain shot.. like for instance a shot from very low, where the camera is against the ground and pointing a bit up. With live view and the swivel screen, the shot gets to be possible to frame. In other situations, you won't need it, as you look through the optical view finder.
Similarly ISO 6400 for instance... One would only need that in low light situations where one wants to capture a moving subject, where one does not want to use flash. In most other situations ISO 6400 will not be used.
So just how useful a camera feature will be for someone is rather impossible to rate, or even predict.
I do not understand the number of pictures for RAW question, sorry.