If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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) |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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) |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Choosing a system, the practical and the philosophical
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
iPad practical jokes | C J Campbell[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 5 | April 12th 10 07:20 PM |
Is looking at 100% crop practical? | Rod Williams | Digital SLR Cameras | 11 | September 6th 06 07:35 PM |
Deconvolution software, any practical value? | Rich | Digital Photography | 11 | March 7th 06 03:55 PM |
Practical Holography | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 9 | November 14th 05 11:42 PM |
Question about choosing contax system | Patrick Leung | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 53 | September 7th 04 03:59 PM |