Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:03:43 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera
and a
: : long
: : period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a
cheap
: : super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital
revolution
: : was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to
go
: : DSLR.
: : I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to
: : photograph
: : the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I
can see
: : the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh).
: :
: : Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or
Canon)
: : you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump
from one
: : to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why
people
: : stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place.
I know
: : there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick
to
: : those
: : two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come
to
: : mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of.
: :
: : One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point
in time
: : and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other
point in
: : time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in
their
: : line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is
no
: : intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time
their
: : systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the
: : catalog.
: :
: : Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the
systems. As
: : neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists
it
: : seems
: : to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose.
Is
: : there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer
is
: : attracted to one or the other?
: :
: : I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy
always used
: : Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer
didn't
: : really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions.
: :
: : There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another.
What?
: :
: : Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?
: :
: : I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not
from
: : sales
: : brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested
in the
: : reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different
needs
: : and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I
have no
: : axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.
:
: I'll give you my experience, for what it's worth. And I suspect that
there are
: others in the group whose experience is not radically different.
:
: My wife and I were Nikon users in the film days. I had an F-2 and she
a
: Nikkormat. We had a couple of 50mm lenses, a 28mm WA, and a 135mm
tele. But
: because film photography was so expensive and time consuming, we had
largely
: fallen away from photography when the digital era arrived.
:
: In 2003 we decided that we needed digital cameras to take pictures of
our
: grandchildren. Our daughter spoke highly of her Canon S50 P&S, so we
went
: along. Martha chose an S50 and I a G-5. But like all non-SLR digitals
of that
: era, those cameras had a high lag time between what you saw in the
viewfinder
: and what you got on the card.
:
: no, definitely not all, and it was very easy to reduce lag to
: imperceptible amounts on cameras that did have lag.
:
: the real problem with a lot of those cameras is that the overall speed
: was slow, such as time from power-on to taking a photo, how long it
: took to achieve focus, how long it took to write out an image to the
: card, etc. those can't be changed.
:
: That mattered a lot as the kids got more active,
: and by late 2006 we had become so frustrated that we decided we had to
go
: DSLR. That was a decision point, as we had no investment in removable
lenses.
:
: what happened to the couple of 50mm lenses, the 28mm and 135mm you said
: you had ?

We still have them. But all predate AE and AF, so would not have met our
needs
and had no effect on our decision.

: We decided to stick with Canon because 1) they do a good job of
providing
: superficially similar controls over most of their product line, which
I hoped
: would reduce our learning curve,
:
: nikon does the same.
:
: and 2) the XTi (400D) had just come out, and
: it appeared to possibly be a better value than Nikon's entry-level
equivalent.
:
: could be, depending on what you needed to do with it. two features that
: particular canon slr didn't have but nikon entry level cameras did was
: auto-iso and spot metering.
:
: (We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of
laziness as
: for any other reason.)

I think that the initial choice of system is critical as replacing lenses,
dedicated flashes etc. is not something you want to do very often (or at
all!)
Laziness is not something I'd suggest, but Canon and Nikon are the most
likely to still be in business for years to come.


: back then there weren't any other manufacturers worth considering. now
: there are quite a few.

You don't think Olympus qualified?

No. Having used the OM system for many years, when faced with the choice of
going digital, I wanted a manufacturer that would still support their system
for years to come. Canon and Nikon are the obvious options, the rest seem to
come and go unfortunately.



: Then as we started to accumulate lenses and multiple camera bodies, we
did get
: hemmed in. As you point out, switching systems when you have a lot of
: equipment is a major step. But we soon realized that both Canon and
Nikon are
: in the game to stay and that whenever one of them pulls ahead in any
: significant way, the other soon catches up. That's not to say there
aren't
: differences, or that one or the other isn't actually a better choice
for a
: given individual at a given time. That's as true today as it's ever
been, with
: some conspicuous differences in approach (to high-resolution sensors,
for
: example) between the two companies. But those differences are of more
: significance to a professional specialist than they are to the average
user.
:
: everyone is in the game to stay.

They may think they are, but many fall by the wayside.


unfortunately, not all win at that
: game. nikon and canon won't be going away anytime soon, but the others
: are not so clear.

Exactly.

I'd still choose Nikon or Canon, assuming I had no useful legacy lenses.

And then Canon is probably the best option as adapeters at least allow you
to use many old lenses manually.


: The bottom line is that your own subjective judgement is probably as
good a
: guide to making the "right" choice as any other. Try to get your hands
on a
: couple of models of each manufacturer that you're considering, and
make sure
: that the overall feel and the layout of the controls won't be an
irritant. And
: read the user manuals, both for a comparison of the cameras' features
and to
: see how well those features are explained. After all, if you do buy a
given
: camera, you want the manual to be useful for its intended purpose.
:
: since the original poster has pentax lenses, his first stop should be
: to look at pentax slrs. they're quite good and the old lenses will
: work.

A valid suggestion, on the face of it. But it's not entirely clear that
the OP
still has his Pentax lenses.

: he also should consider mirrorless. slrs are big and bulky.

And mirrorless has it's own disadvantages. Make your own choice wisely.

Trevor.

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:41:23 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:
: On 1/28/2013 4:21 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
: What really matters is where the systems are going in the next few
: years/decades. Today, you'll be fine with either Nikon or Canon.
:
: It wasn't always so. Around 2005-2007, it seemed to me that Nikon had
: lost the fight: Canon had the 1Ds Mark II and the 5D, both
: high-performing full-frame (35mm) digital cameras, and Nikon had
: nothing comparable. I was seriously worried that Nikon had given up
: trying, and I'd have to abandon a bagful of Nikkors. Some
: professionals were reported to have done exactly that.
:
: Thankfully, it wasn't to last, and Nikon woke up. I now use a Nikon
: D800.
:
:
: so Nikon is ahead in that area at the moment. But ... it won't last.
: Canon will come out with a competitive offering soon, and will beat
: Nikon in some other area.
:
: The obvious need now is a mirrorless and (mechanically) shutterless camera
: with a really really good autofocus system that takes images continuously,
: say at 16 or 24 or 60 Hz, and stores the exact one that happened when you
: pressed the button, plus a few on each side. Zero shutter lag.

Also a sensor of at least APS-C size, a high-resolution eye-level viewfinder,
a built-in flash, a battery that can handle it all without having to be
changed out every half hour, and backwards compatibility with the
manufacturer's existing lenses. I'd like to suppose that the Canon M-2 would
be that camera, but it's probably a forlorn hope.

Bob

David Hare-Scott wrote:
I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a long
period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap
super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution
was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go DSLR.
I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to photograph
the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see
the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh).

Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon)
you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one
to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people
stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know
there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to those
two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to
mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of.

One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time
and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in
time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their
line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no
intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their
systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the
catalog.

Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As
neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it seems
to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is
there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is
attracted to one or the other?

I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used
Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't
really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions.

There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What?

Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?

I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from sales
brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the
reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs
and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no
axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.

Do you want to join a local camera club? If you're lucky you'll find
both the old-fashioned sort with a darkroom and a membership fee, and
the looser new fangled assocations of local photographers who arrange
their meetings and outings in cyberspece, often based around a photo
sharing social newtwork such as Flickr.

If so, then it makes sense to get whatever kind of camera most of them
have got. That way you'll find it easiest to get advice, borrow
lenses, try out other cheap Chinese accessories, etc..

(I personally went for Sony because IMHO they'll be the first to come
out with a really good well-engineered new fully electronic inheritor
of the SLR/DSLR photography tradition. And because although most of my
local photographer friends are Nikon or Canon users, if you like to
experiment and learn all about the technology in your hands learn more
if what you have is different from the rest of your travelling
companions in the rapidly evolving digital photography journey.)

--
Chris Malcolm

Doug McDonald wrote:
On 1/28/2013 4:21 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
What really matters is where the systems are going in the next few
years/decades. Today, you'll be fine with either Nikon or Canon.

It wasn't always so. Around 2005-2007, it seemed to me that Nikon had
lost the fight: Canon had the 1Ds Mark II and the 5D, both
high-performing full-frame (35mm) digital cameras, and Nikon had
nothing comparable. I was seriously worried that Nikon had given up
trying, and I'd have to abandon a bagful of Nikkors. Some
professionals were reported to have done exactly that.

Thankfully, it wasn't to last, and Nikon woke up. I now use a Nikon
D800.

so Nikon is ahead in that area at the moment. But ... it won't last.
Canon will come out with a competitive offering soon, and will beat
Nikon in some other area.

Probably: this kind of leapfrog has happened a couple of times in the
digital era. However, there are some signs of diminishing returns.
The D800's quantum efficiency is supposedly ~ 55%, so there's not very
much scope for improvement there. Its sensor resolution already
requires the best Nikkors. I suspect that whatever comes along next,
it isn't going to a huge jump in image quality.

The obvious need now is a mirrorless and (mechanically) shutterless
camera with a really really good autofocus system that takes images
continuously, say at 16 or 24 or 60 Hz, and stores the exact one
that happened when you pressed the button, plus a few on each
side. Zero shutter lag.

That would be nice. Good AF of any kind on a mirrorless camera would
be a start. Personally, I'd like to see a pocket-sized camera with a
great 35mm-sized sensor and a viewfinder.

Andrew.

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I am well aware of bracketing stops. The only Nikon that has 2EV per
stop, is the D4.

The only Nikon I know much about is the D600.
It brackets with 2 or 3 shots spaced 0.3, 0.7,
1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 apart.

--bobl

On 1/29/2013 11:00 AM, BobL wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I am well aware of bracketing stops. The only Nikon that has 2EV per
stop, is the D4.

The only Nikon I know much about is the D600.
It brackets with 2 or 3 shots spaced 0.3, 0.7,
1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 apart.


I was not aware of that.


--
PeterN

BobL wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

I am well aware of bracketing stops. The only Nikon that has 2EV per
stop, is the D4.

The only Nikon I know much about is the D600.
It brackets with 2 or 3 shots spaced 0.3, 0.7,
1.0, 2.0, or 3.0 apart.

Wow. I had not looked at specs for the D600, and that
is fascinating! The D800 and D4 are very different,
with 2 to 9 steps that are 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 1 EV
apart.

As I noted previously, the D7000 has 2 EV steps for
bracketing, so it and the D600 are the only Nikon that I
know of that have increments larger than 1 EV.

But the size of the increment is not all that important
by itself, and the actual functionality also depends
on the number of shots that are in a bracketed set.

Because bodies like the D800 and D4 can shoot 9 shot
brackets, and in High Speed Continous mode the camera
can be set to stop at 9 shots, it is easy to actually
bracket at +/- 4 EV with those cameras. And that is a
greater spread than the D600 can get shooting three
shots with 3 EV steps.

With the D800 or D4, shooting a 2 EV brack can be done
by setting the limit at 3 shot and using 1 EV steps.
Each set would have a pair of shot 2 EV apart, and one
extra half way in between. Setting that to 5 shots
would give +/- 2 EV with a 0 EV too (and two other shots
that can be discarded).

The point of course is that the D800 and D4 (along with
all of the high end models that preceeded it) are more
versatile than the "lesser" models.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 1/29/2013 11:49 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Wow. I had not looked at specs for the D600, and that
is fascinating! The D800 and D4 are very different,
with 2 to 9 steps that are 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 1 EV
apart.

As I noted previously, the D7000 has 2 EV steps for
bracketing, so it and the D600 are the only Nikon that I
know of that have increments larger than 1 EV.

But the size of the increment is not all that important
by itself, and the actual functionality also depends
on the number of shots that are in a bracketed set.

The size of the increment can be quite important, especially if shooting
for HDR. It allows one to take fewer shots to achieve the same result,
with less chance of camera motion.




--
PeterN

PeterN wrote:
On 1/29/2013 11:49 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Wow. I had not looked at specs for the D600, and that
is fascinating! The D800 and D4 are very different,
with 2 to 9 steps that are 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 1 EV
apart.

As I noted previously, the D7000 has 2 EV steps for
bracketing, so it and the D600 are the only Nikon that I
know of that have increments larger than 1 EV.

But the size of the increment is not all that important
by itself, and the actual functionality also depends
on the number of shots that are in a bracketed set.

The size of the increment can be quite important,
especially if shooting for HDR. It allows one to take
fewer shots to achieve the same result, with less chance
of camera motion.

But as I said, and have shown, the size of the increment
is not all that important by itself. You certainly are
not going to claim, we might hope, that the D4 is not
more functional than the D600!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 1/29/2013 12:29 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/29/2013 11:49 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Wow. I had not looked at specs for the D600, and that
is fascinating! The D800 and D4 are very different,
with 2 to 9 steps that are 1/3, 1/2, 2/3, and 1 EV
apart.

As I noted previously, the D7000 has 2 EV steps for
bracketing, so it and the D600 are the only Nikon that I
know of that have increments larger than 1 EV.

But the size of the increment is not all that important
by itself, and the actual functionality also depends
on the number of shots that are in a bracketed set.

The size of the increment can be quite important,
especially if shooting for HDR. It allows one to take
fewer shots to achieve the same result, with less chance
of camera motion.

But as I said, and have shown, the size of the increment
is not all that important by itself. You certainly are
not going to claim, we might hope, that the D4 is not
more functional than the D600!


You must really be bored. Why owuld you even mention something that I
didn't say or imply.


--
PeterN