Next Dslr for me
-
D
- Thread starter Robert Brummitt
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Sliding Back for 4x5 Graflok
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Since I already have a Maxxum and five lenses (including 3 primes), I am seriously looking at the a850. Yes, it's two grand, but a Canon 7D and a decent lens ...
Lens quality does or should matter. Quality of glass and coating, number and type of elements, purpose of design, and on and on. lenses are much more than just resolving power. A 2.8 lens is going to have a different look than a 4.5 regardless of sensor size or pixel density. A lens designed for the smaller chip with a zoom range of 28 (normal) to 70mm (long) is going to be a different animal (and likely better lens, fewer glass surfaces, fewer compromises, etc..) than one with the same range built for a full frame chip.
To be frank, if quality is a primary concern a zoom is probably not a good choice.
To be frank, if quality is a primary concern a zoom is probably not a good choice.
It isn't always about resolution, but lens characteristics, unless you are shooting techpan and a very high resolution sensor there is little out there that will resolve all of what a good lens is projecting.
I would agree to a certain extent (in regard to sensors) if there wasn't so much more to a lens than how sharp it can resolve. In general crappy lenses have chromatic aberration, poor contrast, and they tend to be slow, all of which are characteristics that I personally am unwilling to live with. Of course YMMV.
David A. Goldfarb
Moderator
Another issue is distortion, particularly when comparing a 28/2.8 to a 28-70 zoom, but for lenses designed for 35mm, it might not make as much of a difference when used on an APS sensor.
I had a 40D for a while, and I thought it was pretty good actually. The 50D had the same sized sensor with greater pixel density, so it wasn't a significant improvement, and yet when it came out, there were plenty of cheap used 40D's to be had. The 7D is enough of an improvement to justify trading up from a 40D, particularly if you might need the video features. Currently I use a 5DII, when I'm shooting digital.
I had a 40D for a while, and I thought it was pretty good actually. The 50D had the same sized sensor with greater pixel density, so it wasn't a significant improvement, and yet when it came out, there were plenty of cheap used 40D's to be had. The 7D is enough of an improvement to justify trading up from a 40D, particularly if you might need the video features. Currently I use a 5DII, when I'm shooting digital.
/one more thing/ .... more Mpix better ? I don't think so ... We should talk about Print Size. I do believe- 10 x 14 " Print is a big enough for everyday projects . But I would like to see DSLR with same Mpix range 12-15 Mpix BUT with higher resolving power .
like this ... Sigma DP1x digital camera specifications: Digital Photography Review
.................in old fashioned way it should be like ASA 100 VS ASA 400
like this ... Sigma DP1x digital camera specifications: Digital Photography Review
.................in old fashioned way it should be like ASA 100 VS ASA 400
As per lens quality, the lens distortion correction profiles in Lightroom 3, which can be applied automatically if your lens has been profiled, are pretty amazing. They can make a mediocre lens look allot better. Same with DXO though I have never used it.
I normally use shift lenses which are profile proof, but my Canon 80-200 F4 L which suffers some barrel distortion, with LR3, on import, it is cleaned right up.
I normally use shift lenses which are profile proof, but my Canon 80-200 F4 L which suffers some barrel distortion, with LR3, on import, it is cleaned right up.
I didn't use LR2. I went from 1 to 3, But I don't find LR3 slow at all now, occasionally it bogs down very briefly. If you read widely on the web about this issue you will see that it is not a universal complaint and most problems were fixed after the first update.
As I use this as my primary processor for my multitude of commercial files, I wouldn't use it it were slow.
read this link:
Dead Link Removed
And preferably the whole Thom Hogan website on Nikon.
Canon should be equally good but I know nothing about the line.
If you have a D200 my advise would be to keep it (or get one if your boss wont let you use it). The slight changes everbody talks about today, will be historically irrelevant IMO.
Would anyone see any difference in your pictures ? Maybe in low light, but Id rather let the lens do the job. An iso 128.000 photo looks different from a photo using a decent f/1.4 lens or better, no matter how good the noise reduction etc etc.
Building a system you could focus on lens choice first. A lens you can use now, and possibly on a future affordable FX camera.
The D300 (and even the s) is supposed to be eclipsed by the new D7000 and the D700 is up for replacement this year.
The danger is that many people go the DX route without realizing, or buying the same camera over and over and over.
For my vast collection of nikkors, I have a D60 which I hardly ever use (and 4 F90xs, one FM10, al five used all the time). A friend of mine upgraded from D40 to D300. Very neat machine, but his pictures are just as excellent as they have always been. Can't tell which camera made which picture. I had him upgrade to a Kiev medium format film camera. That made a difference, technically and artistically.
Another friend won a D300 but after a week put it back in the box and sold it, not enough difference with his old D200 for him.
For now, if you need higher quality, you can always put your lens on a film nikon.
Dead Link Removed
And preferably the whole Thom Hogan website on Nikon.
Canon should be equally good but I know nothing about the line.
If you have a D200 my advise would be to keep it (or get one if your boss wont let you use it). The slight changes everbody talks about today, will be historically irrelevant IMO.
Would anyone see any difference in your pictures ? Maybe in low light, but Id rather let the lens do the job. An iso 128.000 photo looks different from a photo using a decent f/1.4 lens or better, no matter how good the noise reduction etc etc.
Building a system you could focus on lens choice first. A lens you can use now, and possibly on a future affordable FX camera.
The D300 (and even the s) is supposed to be eclipsed by the new D7000 and the D700 is up for replacement this year.
The danger is that many people go the DX route without realizing, or buying the same camera over and over and over.
For my vast collection of nikkors, I have a D60 which I hardly ever use (and 4 F90xs, one FM10, al five used all the time). A friend of mine upgraded from D40 to D300. Very neat machine, but his pictures are just as excellent as they have always been. Can't tell which camera made which picture. I had him upgrade to a Kiev medium format film camera. That made a difference, technically and artistically.
Another friend won a D300 but after a week put it back in the box and sold it, not enough difference with his old D200 for him.
For now, if you need higher quality, you can always put your lens on a film nikon.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm actually having a little trouble finding one at a local store. I don't mind mail order in principle; but in this case, I want to hold one in my hand before buying.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2006
- Messages
- 283
- Format
- 35mm
I have only owned one DSLR so far. It's a D200 and I think it's a good camera. The dynamic range is a bit weak for landscape but for portraits and family pictures it's fine. Nice quality pictures depend on staying within the ISO 100-400 range which is fine for me. I have no problem using a flash or pod. I guess I do not enjoy the digi snapper camera's that much and doubt I will ever purchase another one. I figure I will just shoot my F100/D200 for a few more years and see if anything changes. That Sony looks like a good way to shave a few dollars off the Nikon pricing for someone that is not invested in a system already. I do not know about the lenses or anything. I have never even seen a Sony DSLR in real life. Since we as a group decided to get rid of the local camera stores I do not really see any of the new models anymore.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |