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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
Many thanks for all your replies...gave food for thought.
JB "David J Taylor" wrote in message k... Jürgen Exner wrote: [] Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S camera? jue Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it all day long is no problem.... |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote: Jürgen Exner wrote: [] Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S camera? jue Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it all day long is no problem.... If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here, there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra bulk, lenses, etc? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
Rich wrote:
On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor" [] Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it all day long is no problem.... If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here, there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra bulk, lenses, etc? It is not necessary to have the "best quality" all the time - for example, if all you print is 7 x 5 inch images, or your main display device is an HDTV with 2MP resolution. The quality of the image need only be good enough for the intended purpose. The composition or exposure of a image depends more on the photographer using his equipment appropriately than on buying a particular brand or style of camera. Both the S3 IS and the D40 are capable of producing excellent results. Better to actually get an image than to be without because your equipment was too heavy or bulky to carry or too valuable to take with you. David |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
On Apr 29, 11:33 am, "David J Taylor" -
this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote: Rich wrote: On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor" [] Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it all day long is no problem.... If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here, there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra bulk, lenses, etc? It is not necessary to have the "best quality" all the time - for example, if all you print is 7 x 5 inch images, or your main display device is an HDTV with 2MP resolution. The quality of the image need only be good enough for the intended purpose. The composition or exposure of a image depends more on the photographer using his equipment appropriately than on buying a particular brand or style of camera. Both the S3 IS and the D40 are capable of producing excellent results. Better to actually get an image than to be without because your equipment was too heavy or bulky to carry or too valuable to take with you. David It has the horrible 1/2.5" sensor. I don't care how good a photog you are, that is going to be the biggest limitation to quality. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
Rich wrote:
[] It has the horrible 1/2.5" sensor. I don't care how good a photog you are, that is going to be the biggest limitation to quality. You seem to be saying that it is impossible to take good quality pictures with the Canon S3 IS - I'm sure that many of the camera's users would not agree with you. David |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
David J Taylor wrote:
Rich wrote: [] It has the horrible 1/2.5" sensor. I don't care how good a photog you are, that is going to be the biggest limitation to quality. You seem to be saying that it is impossible to take good quality pictures with the Canon S3 IS - I'm sure that many of the camera's users would not agree with you. David I've had an S3 IS about a month (on retirement income I couldn't afford a DSLR right now but I hope there's one in my future) and I've been very happy with it except for one thing. One of the reasons I bought it were to take sports pictures of my grandson--soccer and basketball. It does a great job on soccer (no basketball until the fall). The other reason was to take pictures of wildflowers, insects, etc. Now comes the unhappy part: both the viewfinder and the LCD are too dim outdoors on a sunny day. The viewfinder is so dim that it is rather hard to follow action, and the LCD is just about useless for flower pictures. I might also mention that the zoom control is very, very fast until you learn how to control it; cropping in software is my friend because of that. Otherwise, I like everything about it. I think I should say that I have been using film SLRs for about 45 years and I do enjoy being able to go out and take 100-200 exposures in an afternoon without bankrupting myself on film and processing cost. Allen |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
"Rich" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor" -this- bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote: Jürgen Exner wrote: [] Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S camera? jue Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it all day long is no problem.... If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here, there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra bulk, lenses, etc? This is exactly what interests me....can you say without doubt that all slrs such as the d40 will not have burned out detail, noise etc too.These problems are hardly just found in point & shoots. I don't know because I'm on a learning curve but dpreviews seem to have plenty of "cons" to go with all the "pros" where all dlsrs are concerned too. JB |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
Just thought I would pass on my experience after 3 happy years
shooting a Pana FZ5, I had no problem with image quality up to A4. And the size/convenince factor is right up there. That is why I still own and use it. But I have recently acquired a dslr, and the handling and usability is light years ahead (and yes, the detail in the images is waaay ahead). Biggest single thing I like is being able to zoom with the lens barrel - particularly good for sports where those subjects just wont stay still. Closely followed by speed of autofocus. Now I get pretty reasonable results off the FZ5, but using the dslr is in another dimension, it is just a thousand times easier to get the photo I want. Cheers Steve |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
On Apr 30, 2:27 am, "Jackson Bryan" wrote:
"Rich" wrote in message oups.com... On Apr 29, 3:44 am, "David J Taylor" -this- bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote: Jürgen Exner wrote: [] Ever tried to mount a 400mm tele with build-in tripod (aka vibration reduction) or a 10.5mm fisheye or a f/1.2 ultrafast lens to a P&S camera? jue Both my wife and I have cameras which already include a 36 - 432 mm image stabilised telephoto lens, and mine only weighs about 300g so carrying it all day long is no problem.... If you are satisfied with cameras that produce poor quality images due to lack of dynamic range, noise control, etc, then there is no reason to switch to a DSLR. Some people don't care that their people shots have the heads dead centre of the frame, or that huge expanses of ligher areas are burned out of detail. If that is the case here, there is no need to switch from a P&S. DSLRs are for people looking for the best quality images, otherwise who would put up with the extra bulk, lenses, etc? This is exactly what interests me....can you say without doubt that all slrs such as the d40 will not have burned out detail, noise etc too.These problems are hardly just found in point & shoots. I don't know because I'm on a learning curve but dpreviews seem to have plenty of "cons" to go with all the "pros" where all dlsrs are concerned too. JB I would suggest to check the Fuji, while the Sl provide nice hype, the Fuji provide a 28 mm lens, a zoom ring (like SLR ) and a CCD sensor that give the DSLR a real pain ! Until iso 400 there is no much diffrent! check the Fuji S6000 and the Fuji s91000 amazing camers, the only real prob is the Stabilizer there.. (doesn't really exist , they have some trick there,, bu tnot real stabilizer.. ) I would wait For the next Fuji model. and won't touch the canon, it doesn't oofer 28MM lens, which means that altough it has nice zoom, it can not produce amazing landscapes l;ike the DSLR . also the ISO noise in canon is not as good as Fuji AMAZING sensor. check it out. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon D40 v Canon S3 IS
On Apr 29, 3:42 am, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-part.co.uk wrote: Rich wrote: [] In every aspect of image quality, it will stomp the Canon P&S. Try them both at 800 ISO, it'll make you cry. .. but try holding a 400 mm eq. image-stabilised lens on that D40 for any period of time, or try shots where you need the swivel LCd, or try doing movies. Getting good pictures isn't just about image quality. David All true, and completely irrelevant if your goal is high quality images in any of those areas. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D80 or Canon 30D? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 25 | November 9th 06 06:47 AM |
TESTS; Nikon D80, Canon Rebel XTi, Sony A100, Canon 30D | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | October 14th 06 02:53 AM |
Images; Sony A100 ver Nikon D80 ver Canon Rebel XTi ver Canon 30D | Rich | Digital Photography | 0 | October 13th 06 07:45 PM |
comparison photos - Canon 20D, Nikon D70s, Canon 1DMkII, Nikon D2X with FILM | gnnyman | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 5th 05 12:09 AM |
Canon Elph SD110, Kodak EasyShare CX7430, Canon Powershots A75 and A80, and Nikon CoolPix 3200 | Shannon | Digital Photography | 8 | August 19th 04 10:03 PM |