Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Choice of a new reflex camera
#11
[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.
#12
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1307257906' post='9040']

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]



Let the limit be about 900 Euros, 1000 euros as a last resort, both for body and a lens with a wide angle. I'll try to find money for other lenses in future. Are there some Kits with an adequate lens in order not to buy an additional one?



[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1307257906' post='9040']

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 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='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.

[/quote]



The depth 36 and 48 bit per pixel wasn't invented by myself. For instance, Canon EOS 450D has 42 bit and Nikon D90 has 36. Due to your discussion the situation become clear.
#13
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307269131' post='9044']

Let the limit be about 900 Euros, 1000 euros as a last resort, both for body and a lens with a wide angle. I'll try to find money for other lenses in future. Are there some Kits with an adequate lens in order not to buy an additional one?

[/quote]

With DSLRs you can only get good and affordable lenses with limited focus ranges. The 550D I mentioned before does come with 18-55mm IS kitlens for the stated 650 euros. That gives you an ok-ish lens with wide angle to short portrait tele, a so called "standard zoom".

Similar kits can be found from Nikon, Pentax and Sony, obviously.

To get a set with simple but effective tele zoom, you can do two things. Either get a superzoom (which has limited image quality due to design constraints) like a Canon/Nikjon 18-200mm or Sigma/Tamron 18-250/270mm, or get a two lens kit with standard zoom and cheap tele, like the Canon 55-250mm IS and Nikon 55-300mm VR.

The tele lenses will give better results than the ultra zoom lenses.



A Canon EOS 550D with 18-55mm IS and 55-250mm IS costs a little less than €900. A higher quality standard zoom lens will take the costs over the €1000 mark.

A Nikon D3100 with a similar kit set will cost about the same.





[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307269131' post='9044']

The depth 36 and 48 bit per pixel wasn't invented by myself. For instance, Canon EOS 450D has 42 bit and Nikon D90 has 36. Due to your discussion the situation become clear.

[/quote]

I still do not get where those figures come from, though (even if you got them from somewhere else)... The 450D uses 14 bits to store its information (luminance). The D90 stores 12 bits. This does not translate into 42 or 36 bits RGB values, though.. because of the non-linear mapping of the luminance values within RAW.



So, while one can say the 450D uses 14 bits and the D90 12 bits, both translate into 24 bits RGB (8-bit formats like JPEG) or 48 bits RGB (16 bit formats like 16-bit TIFF). There may be cameras where the 14 bits show an increase in actual information (like maybe the 1D mk III/IV), but the differences will be small. Between a D90 and 450D, I doubt any differences between the cameras are really impacted by the theoretical advantage of 14 bits over 12 bits.
#14
If you were to go secondhand, for either Canon 550D or Nikon D90, it might be worth checking out if you'd have enough left with a budget of 1000 euros for a higher quality 'standard' zoom: 15-85mm USM from Canon or the 16-85mm from Nikon.

Either of these would give you 24mm at the wide end, rather than 29mm from Canon or 27mm from Nikon for lenses starting at 18mm.

That would get you off to a good start with very good quality for landscapes - check out the lens reviews here: [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is"]Canon 15-85[/url], [url="http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/377-nikkor_1685_3556vr"] Nikon 16-85[/url] - through to short telephoto (130mm on the Nikon, 136mm on the Canon) for other uses, which you could build on with a longer telephoto when funds allow.

Ian
#15
If i'm not mistaken it's possible to buy Canon 600D, Nikon D90 or Nikon D5100 and lenses for about 1000 euros.

Can anybody compare these bodies not in all specifications but only in fundamental ones which provide qualitative differences between them?
#16
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1307395135' post='9056']Can anybody compare these bodies not in all specifications but only in fundamental ones which provide qualitative differences between them?[/quote]



You can find comprehensive reviews of these cams for example at dpreview.com - why don´t you make use of this excellent and readily available source for information?
#17
Here is a link to a page with D90's and different lens combinations. Excellent camera at that price! [url="http://www.cameranu.nl/en/index.php?hg_id=257&sg_id=1010"]http://www.cameranu.nl/en/index.php?hg_id=257&sg_id=1010[/url]
#18
[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1307399437' post='9058']

You can find comprehensive reviews of these cams for example at dpreview.com - why don´t you make use of this excellent and readily available source for information?

[/quote]

I agree.

If you're looking at those three bodies now, even if you don't want to read the whole reviews at DP Review, it's got to be worth using them for the overviews and conclusions - and they'll give you exactly what you're asking for here: a reliable, as unbiased as you'll get perspective on the comparative merits of the 3 camera bodies.

From the reviews, you should be able to decide what features are really important to you.



Then, it's a case of going and trying them to see which you like the feel of and using. There are some things which a review may not be able to tell you and which you may not know until you get the camera in your hands.
#19
Sorry for late answer. The final choice is Nikon D7000 Kit Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, 1124 euros.

Thanks to everybody who took part in this discussion.
#20
[quote name='hen_cock' timestamp='1314556864' post='11115']

Sorry for late answer. The final choice is Nikon D7000 Kit Nikkor AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, 1124 euros.

Thanks to everybody who took part in this discussion.

[/quote]





You have made a very smart choice. The D7000 just got the price for the best "expert" DSLR camera for 2011 and the 18-105 is a very honest lens that will do all you want it to for a long time in your development as a user of a DSLR. Good shooting <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)