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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Questions on Canon 300D and etc. questions regarding digital photography
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
[] 2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality? Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the quality of the photo. Mike, that's another of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions. If you have a good non-DSLR, and you use it at its minimum sensitivity setting, sensible lens settings etc. you might be hard pressed to tell the difference on an A4 print (for example). You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one camera or the other far better, and get a different answer. At higher ISO settings DSLRs win, but with a size, weight, bulk and cost penalty. If quality is your prime concern, some would say to forget 35mm. Where are /you/ going to draw the line? David |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
[] 2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality? Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the quality of the photo. Mike, that's another of those "how long is a piece of string?" questions. If you have a good non-DSLR, and you use it at its minimum sensitivity setting, sensible lens settings etc. you might be hard pressed to tell the difference on an A4 print (for example). You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one camera or the other far better, and get a different answer. At higher ISO settings DSLRs win, but with a size, weight, bulk and cost penalty. If quality is your prime concern, some would say to forget 35mm. Where are /you/ going to draw the line? David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
Progressiveabsolution wrote: 2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality? Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the quality of the photo. The Epson RD-1, certainly, especially given that it can use rangefinder lenses, which are often optically very good indeed. Apart from that, probably not. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article .com,
Progressiveabsolution wrote: 2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality? Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the quality of the photo. The Epson RD-1, certainly, especially given that it can use rangefinder lenses, which are often optically very good indeed. Apart from that, probably not. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one
camera or the other far better, and get a different answer." Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision one way or the other. I like taking photos of flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus C4000 were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks for your comments/help! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
"You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one camera or the other far better, and get a different answer." Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision one way or the other. I like taking photos of flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus C4000 were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks for your comments/help! For example, the swivel LCD finder on many cameras allow you to place the camera at ground level and makes flower photography much easier - you don't need to have your eye also at ground level. DSLRs can't have such a swivel finder (but they may offer an angle attachment for the eyepiece). The Nikon Coolpix range have a reputation as the best non-DSLRs for macro photography. Action and perhaps low-light level candids might suit the DSLR. With night photography, the higher sensitivity of the DSLR might help, but with both cameras you can use long exposures on a tripod (and dark-frame subtraction to remove fixed-pattern sensor noise). DSLRs and heavier and bulkier - maybe that matters to you. Cheers, David |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Progressiveabsolution wrote:
"You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one camera or the other far better, and get a different answer." Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision one way or the other. I like taking photos of flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus C4000 were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks for your comments/help! For example, the swivel LCD finder on many cameras allow you to place the camera at ground level and makes flower photography much easier - you don't need to have your eye also at ground level. DSLRs can't have such a swivel finder (but they may offer an angle attachment for the eyepiece). The Nikon Coolpix range have a reputation as the best non-DSLRs for macro photography. Action and perhaps low-light level candids might suit the DSLR. With night photography, the higher sensitivity of the DSLR might help, but with both cameras you can use long exposures on a tripod (and dark-frame subtraction to remove fixed-pattern sensor noise). DSLRs and heavier and bulkier - maybe that matters to you. Cheers, David |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
1) This question pertains to photo quality ONLY. [...] In
other words, is there a limitation to this camera's body that would make someone "upgrade" now or ever? No obvious limitation according to Moore's law that states "all Si chips will go better and better, saecula saeculorum, amen"... A external limitation could then be that the aforementioned body could at some moment fulfill your needs, so that you wouldn't benefit of any more quality progress (btw, sorry for my English if that's not grammatically correct). For MY particular needs (I can't afford printing A3 sorry 11x17", neither expensive killing "L" lenses) I feel I've reached that point with my rebel/300d. Hard to answer for you anyway, you'd better give it a try! 2) Can any non-dslr camera compete with a dslr in image quality? Again, another image quality question since I'm only interested in the quality of the photo. Except for the (somewhat peculiar) Epson RD1, the much smaller size of the sensor in a typical compact camera produce much more noise, and that makes a very visible difference at high ISO settings, and a just-a-bit-more-than-tiny one at ordinary 100ISO, (speaking of a A4 unprocessed print and according to MY taste - I really don't like noise). Anyway there are good noise reduction software on the market but we might go slightly off-topic? 3) I have been recently made aware that older lenses can mount on the 300D. What's your criteria for being old? You can use any canon EF lens on the 300d, with the 1.6x focal length magnification (a lens with "50mm" written on it will give you the field of view of a 80mm, but will keep the depth of field of the 50mm). I've also heard of a few problems with 3rd-party lenses (but not many). Speaking of the manual FD lenses, no they won't work, but I've heard of an adaptator existing somewhere on Earth, although being cumbersome and not really practical (???or was it a 42mm adaptor???). 4) Lastly, is the "hack/Wasia" firmware a good "upgrade" or is this something debatable based on personal use and preference? Once again, hard to tell it for you if YOU need the additional features. The only caveats are - a slight limitation in language choice (I've understood that if it's not English you will miss the "mirror lock up delay" item), - and a possible void of warranty (BUT there is at least 1 reported case of someone sending his/her 300d to canon with the hack installed, that has been accepted in warranty with no complaints). Speaking of image quality, the mirror lock up can help it if you're a resolution junkie (less shaking blur). It's up to you! With many apologizes for my poor english, Nicolas |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
David J Taylor wrote:
Progressiveabsolution wrote: "You could equally contrive photographic situations which suited one camera or the other far better, and get a different answer." Hi David. What situations would both be equal at and in what situations would one excel over the other? I'm trying to get a clear idea for my own personal use with photography to make the decision one way or the other. I like taking photos of flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography if that is possible with P&S cameras, etc. For example, MOST of my photos with my Olympus C4000 were of the sunset. I don't do any action photography. Thanks for your comments/help! For example, the swivel LCD finder on many cameras allow you to place the camera at ground level and makes flower photography much easier - you don't need to have your eye also at ground level. DSLRs can't have such a swivel finder (but they may offer an angle attachment for the eyepiece). The Nikon Coolpix range have a reputation as the best non-DSLRs for macro photography. Action and perhaps low-light level candids might suit the DSLR. With night photography, the higher sensitivity of the DSLR might help, but with both cameras you can use long exposures on a tripod (and dark-frame subtraction to remove fixed-pattern sensor noise). DSLRs and heavier and bulkier - maybe that matters to you. + It is more difficult to restrict depth of field with a (smaller-sensor) non-dSLR. -- Frank ess |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Frank ess wrote:
[] + It is more difficult to restrict depth of field with a (smaller-sensor) non-dSLR. + it is easier to get a large depth field with a P&S and focussing is less critical. A valid difference, thanks for bringing it out, but with "flowers/nature/landscapes/night photography" as the OP's intended use, which would you think more suitable? Cheers, David |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|