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
|
|||
|
|||
Now I see Nikon has a 10x, 8 megapixel ZLR w/stabilization for a
thousand dollars, the 8800. Also a wide angle variety w/IS, the 8400. Getting harder to choose ZLR or SLR if price is a consideration, since lenses can cost more than the camera. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Kitt wrote:
Now I see Nikon has a 10x, 8 megapixel ZLR w/stabilization for a thousand dollars, the 8800. Also a wide angle variety w/IS, the 8400. Getting harder to choose ZLR or SLR if price is a consideration, since lenses can cost more than the camera. Leaving price out of it (because you /know/ it will be cheaper next year...), the distinction between SLR and ZLR remains clear-cut. Even if you leave price in it, where is the SLR plus a 10:1 image stabilised zoom lens around 400mm focal length for the price of the Nikon 8800, let alone for the price of the Panasonic FZ20 or Canon S1 IS? And what is the weight comparison? Cheers, David |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
That was kind of my point. Assuming you call the Nikon 8800 a top of
the line ZLR, it gets a little harder to justify the SLR with IS lens to match the capabilities of the 8800. For example, the Canon 20D with a 300mm IS zoom will price out at around $2000 to $3000 or more, depending on lens/lenses. Is flexibility worth that? Especially when even that flexibility might be made obsolete in today's rapidly changing marketplace. Who knows what might replace the DSLR in two or three years as the next big thing? Think I'll stick with my S1 IS for a while longer. Just saw that Amazon has the 1.6 teleconverter lens/hood/adapter combo for $140. Maybe I can add the closeup lens for a few dollars more. That'll keep me happy for a few more months. ;o) |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
our community is now complete: the village idiot position is filled thank you, Chuck dirty job, but someone's got to do it damn your so funny, you should be a comedian, not. I dont know why you think Im an idiot, but your obviously a dumbass ... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Chuck wrote:
our community is now complete: the village idiot position is filled thank you, Chuck dirty job, but someone's got to do it damn your so funny, you should be a comedian, not. I dont know why you think Im an idiot, but your obviously a dumbass ... "Chuck wrote: Please do not post links to auctions or for-sale items here. The charter for this newsgroup does not welcome such postings. Thank you. and your the cop og this group ? " Three tries, three failures. You're the most qualified applicant. Could be that's why. Never mind. -- Frank ess |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Kitt wrote:
Assuming you call the Nikon 8800 a top of the line ZLR, it gets a little harder to justify the SLR with IS lens to match the capabilities of the 8800. For example, the Canon 20D with a 300mm IS zoom will price out at around $2000 to $3000 or more, depending on lens/lenses. Is flexibility worth that? And quality, I'd say. That depends on you and what you want to do. The 8800: - lighter, (much) cheaper!!, smaller - no extra lenses to buy and factor into the price - can do movies - twistable monitor - no dust on the sensor problems - no mirror slap noise, probably really silent - on-monitor view of all important parameters The 20D: - ISO 1600 (good) and 3200 (OK). Practically no noise at/below ISO 400. - 50mm (80mm equiv) Canon lenses available with f/1.8 ($70), f/1.4 ($300) and f/1.0 ($2500). They are very nice portrait lenses, too, giving a nice bukeh. (Cheaper 3rd party lenses exist.) - 70-200 (112-320 equiv) f/2.8 IS L lenses exist($1700), too. (though slower lenses, without IS, are much much cheaper) = low-light advantage of 3-7 steps. Even if you can use flash, you get less of the available light (and use more flash power), risking to drown the background in black. - fast lenses give you a _narrow_ depth of sharpness. You cannot get that in any other way, not with flashes or tripods or more light or any other tricks. - The lenses can be re-used for many years on many cameras. You can even switch to film, if you want ... - Lenses stop down to f/22. - moderately fast flash-sync of 1/250s allows you fill-in flashes at day to lighten shadows. - extensive tweakable white balance - 5 frames/s, with a deep buffer - switch on practically instantly (0.2s), just press the shutter button to be ready to shoot in any and all modes of the camera - probably higher quality (10x zoom lenses have to make 'some' concessions. Note how high quality lenses seldom have more than 3x zoom ...) - direct view in the searcher, no light-sensor-monitor-eye chain will slow things down. - most important settings can be reached without going through any menu, so you are faster 'on the draw'. - 8 point AF circle + center AF point, including predictive AF for moving targets. But then making great photos is not a function of your camera: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm so choose whichever camera fits best in your budget and Especially when even that flexibility might be made obsolete in today's rapidly changing marketplace. The lenses of an SLR, if quality lenses they are, can be used for decades. And the lenses for SLRs stay over much longer periods. Who knows what might replace the DSLR in two or three years as the next big thing? The 35mm format has been going for almost a century (since 1914, see http://www.leica-camera.com/unterneh...k/index_e.html for more information), so I wouldn't worry myself sleepless about the next 2 or 3 years, really. Think I'll stick with my S1 IS for a while longer. Just saw that Amazon has the 1.6 teleconverter lens/hood/adapter combo for $140. Maybe I can add the closeup lens for a few dollars more. That'll keep me happy for a few more months. ;o) Note that such a "teleconverter" does degrade quality. The question is: does it degrade enough for the 8800's sensor to see it, and if so, so much that you do care? -Wolfgang |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[] The lenses of an SLR, if quality lenses they are, can be used for decades. And the lenses for SLRs stay over much longer periods. Wolfgang, whilst you make some good points, lens mount formats can and do change, leaving you with an expensive set of obsolete lenses. Quality SLR image-stabilised lenses at f/2.8 (equivalent to the Panasonic FZ20) are very expensive and far to heavy to carry around for everyday photography. I do feel that the ZLR has enabled us to break away from the restrictions of last century's 35mm format, giving us an extra choice for what we buy. Cheers, David |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
I am seeing a DSLR alternative that I like a lot, other things being
equal. The Konica Minolta Maxxum D7 has image stabilization built into the camera, so less expensive and lighter weight non-IS lenses are all that's required for the same job. Now, on the other side of the coin, it will cost twice as much for the body and one basic zoom lens as does the Panasonic or other stabilized ZLR's. The Maxxum seems to have a lot of unanswered questions hanging, so it's hard to say whether it's a great camera or not, but the idea is great. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
David J Taylor wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: The lenses of an SLR, if quality lenses they are, can be used for decades. And the lenses for SLRs stay over much longer periods. Wolfgang, whilst you make some good points, lens mount formats can and do change, leaving you with an expensive set of obsolete lenses. True, the last backwards incompatible shift was AFAIK mechanical to electrical contacts for lenses (e.g. for autofocus). This however does not happen all that often, does it? Quality SLR image-stabilised lenses at f/2.8 (equivalent to the Panasonic FZ20) are very expensive and far to heavy to carry around for everyday photography. True, but on a 20D even a f/4 unstabilized lens (or a stabilized lens stopped to f/8 or f/11) will give you equivalent or better performance: Light sensitivity[1]: FZ20 f/2.8, ISO 100 == D20 f/8, ISO 800 (or even f/11, ISO 1600), or f/4, ISO 1600 and +3 steps to counter a 'no stabilizer' claim.[3] Depth of field[2]: FZ20's f/2.8 ~= D20 @ f10 ~= 35mm @ f/16 FZ20 pros: - much lighter, several times cheaper(!), smaller --- taking pictures with a camera left home tends to be rather hard. - 12x zoom range without any lens changes, though very tele-biased. - inbuild macro mode - inbuild image stabilisator - good in medium-to-low-light large DOF situations (parties etc.) - a damaged camera won't hurt your purse as much by far. - web/computer friendly 4:3 format - movies (quarter-VGA only, though) - live histogram 20D pros: - much better shallow depth of field (portraits!) - much larger ISO range, giving better low-light performance even with stabilized slower lenses or similar performance even without stabilisation. - fast prime lenses[4] available - much more wide angle available - larger buffer, faster continous mode (sports!), orientation sensor - most important changes can be done without going through any menu. - no viewfinder lag, extreme viewfinder resolution, DOF preview I do feel that the ZLR has enabled us to break away from the restrictions of last century's 35mm format, giving us an extra choice for what we buy. And that is a Very Good Thing. I do use an even smaller 3MP P&S camera, and it does great things within it's limits. And I do carry it always, it's riding on my hip ... unlike some equipment who'se cost and weight are both one order of magnitude higher. -Wolfgang [1] http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/page9.asp "Visible noise at ISOs above 100" http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page28.asp "Very low noise levels even at high sensitivities, fully usable ISO range (100 - 3200)" [2] http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/ "1/2.5" Type CCD" - 5.760 x 4.290mm per http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...r_Sizes_01.htm http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page2.asp "22.5 x 15.0 mm CMOS sensor" According to http://www.wrotniak.com/photo/dof/ "The depth of field of a digital camera with a lens of the 1:N focal length equivalence ratio at a given F-setting is the same as that of a 35 mm camera with a lens closed down to the aperture number of F multiplied by N." [3] Note that AFAIK the 20D is currently the best DSLR when it comes to low noise at high ISO rates. [4] If you _really_ need low light performance, Canon's 50mm (80mm equiv. on the 20D) f/1.8 lens is 1.5 steps below f/2.8, 132g and $75: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...u=12142&is=USA and the f/1.4 is 290g and $300 (for that extra half-stop of light and shallow DOF). Even a Canon 50mm f/1.0 is out there for the rich. Of course these *are* prime lenses, no zoom there. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
[] I do feel that the ZLR has enabled us to break away from the restrictions of last century's 35mm format, giving us an extra choice for what we buy. And that is a Very Good Thing. I do use an even smaller 3MP P&S camera, and it does great things within it's limits. And I do carry it always, it's riding on my hip ... unlike some equipment who'se cost and weight are both one order of magnitude higher. -Wolfgang I found that I stopped carrying my SLR because it was so cumbersome and heavy with all the extra lenses. Just like you, I always carry my P&S. I miss fewer photos that way! Cheers, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Olympus 5060 and 8080 users group | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 0 | December 25th 04 11:14 PM |
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060 and 8080 online resources | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 1 | October 4th 04 02:53 AM |
Olympus 5060 and 8080 users group | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 0 | October 3rd 04 10:22 PM |
Olympus Camedia/ Flash Path vs XD | Jenna | Digital Photography | 5 | September 13th 04 10:22 PM |
Olympus 8080, CF v. xD media selection? | Alfred Molon | Digital Photography | 8 | July 25th 04 09:34 AM |