Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Gadgets, Computers & Software (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/)

-   -   The DSLR Thread (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/gadgets-computers-software/11582-dslr-thread-36.html)

Olympus E-620, the latest dSLR from Olympus camp has been receiving raving reviews. Some are calling it baby E3.

Olympus Photo Safari Group - Announcements - Focus On Imaging - we're preparing our report*now...

huh... even at base ISO its a no match.

Canon and Nikon users get a lot of help from the forums.

The pics are specially for you my friend.:thumbs up

Yes sir, here are your questions answered.

@ Navin

Well the R1 was a revolutionary camera on it's own. It's known as one of the first prosumer (Bridge) camera's around. Let's not keep our conversation limited to just Sony. Sony otherwise is very popular for its cybershot series which is infact a good compact camera for it's price and variety of models available. There are other brands like Canon/Nikon/Kodak & Panasonic. Infact some of the prosumers which are making very good camera's. I'm posting a few photographs taken by a very close friend of mine who's also a photographer "by choice" and uses a Prosumer Lumix Panasonic FZ-18 which inherits its optics from the legendary Leica. Which is now pretty outdated as well. But, please take a look at the quality of the photographs. One of them has infact been featured in an Italian fashion magazine. I've taken his permission for posting the photographs from him.

Fuji made films not camera's. Let's not get confused. Today every company is making digital camera's just because they were somehow involved with
photography and now their core business is out of business. Like Fuji closed it's film production.

As mentioned above. You can check Canon S5IS, Canon Sx10IS, Lumix FZ-18, Nikon coolpix L100, Nikon Coolpix L90. All these camera's are good ones which are both value for money as well as will solve most needs for a normal person not wanting more than a good shot. Yes, for those who desire that extra kick there's the DSLR's to pick from.

Dear sir, If investing in the cheapest full frame DSLR was really the case then well the obvious choice should've been Canon 5D and not Nikon D700!! If prices are to be compared check these links Canon in South and Southeast Asia and scroll down to Canon 5D which costs INR 124995.00 while on Camshot :- importing & distributing high quality Photographic goods | Digital Camera(s) Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Panasonic Digicam | Digital Camera Accessories | Buy Digital Camera Nikon D700 is listed with bill (In RED) as INR 155000.00/- Maybe my maths was too weak in school but I definitely find 5D much cheaper! You might say that Nikon D700 is a much newer camera and hence the higher price. Isn't the Nikon D40 an old camera hence the low price tag? And lol Nikon doesn't even display the MRP prices on their official websites. And well lets not be a brand fanboy. When we are talking about cheap camera's then lets be unbiased about it.

I'll reply in the same terminology. Please kindly notice I'm not a motorhead by choice but by option while I'm a photographer by choice not by option. So, to compare a Canon 5D with a Canon 20D is like comparing Honda Civic with Honda City. Both, belonging to the same stables but from different class. So, with due respect to Mr. Bob Atkins I am sorry to state that had they compared it with some other full frame sensor camera then it'd have made some sense. Right now it doesn't.

One more thing which Mr. Atkins failed to point out is that there's a 3rd size of sensor too. APS-H size (Not considering the 4/3'rd sizes which are followed by some few manufacturers). From which only the Canon 1D MKIII belongs to.

Each camera is built for a purpose and clientele. While the APS-c size is for the amateurs who want to start with photography using a DSLR in the basic entry level segment. And it also goes into the camera's meant for action photography like wildlife and sports. Because of a simple reason that APS-C size offers a natural 1.6x FOV crop which gives the picture a bit larger than it was already. APS-H size goes in for exclusively high speed action photography again for wildlife and sports. And the full frame 35mm goes in for landscapes and portraits (Fashion)etc. Each segment has a top of the line camera from both Canon/Nikon and both brands are very capable of pulling out excellent photographs.

Totally agree to that. No, wonder Sigma is so popular with their camera's. That even their Indian flagship retailer Shetala Camera doesn't even display it on their site. With 8 pages of different digital camera's (Compact/Prosumers) only 1 Sigma is featured there. Let's face the reality. Sigma is NOT known for its camera's but for it's lenses.

No wonder it's not listed on Camshot.in which is one of the major suppliers for Professional DSLR's in India and JJ Mehta has it listed as "Limited Stock". FYI it's not being imported by Nikon India Pvt. Ltd. anymore. You can call up dealers around your place and see how easily Nikon D40 is available. One more proof for that is Nikon D40 digital camera specifications: Digital Photography Review under the affiliate merchants section it's clearly mentioned "No merchants currently list this product". It's almost a 3yr old model!! How long would one drag it around?:deadhorse Even being a Canon user myself I'd never suggest anyone to go buy a Canon 350D which is not easily available anymore.


P.S: Photography is an art. It's not limited by the equipment. Sometimes a simple pin-hole camera might produce the most amazing photograph which a Hassleblad might fail to take. After all the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

I think I've said enough. And If I've hurt someone's sentiments or feelings. I'm extremely sorry for that. I tried to keep the conversation extremely neutral.

Regards,

Anirban.

These are excellent images no doubt. However, it fails to address your original contention. By themselves these cameras are very good, but they don't give run for the money to any dSLRs. I still have my Sony Cybershot F-717, once considered the best prosumer camera, but it is no match for my old Olympus E-500. The E-500 with kit lens was cheaper than the F-717.

Dear Anirban,
Please follow the link and glean on the price to overall performance over different criteria.
Absolutely no hard feelings and no comments too from my side on your comments since I know now that photography/web designing is your passion/profession like orthodontics is mine.

Canon5D Mark2 comes close to the Nikon but its way more expensive than the NikonD700 and I am sure you would advice me to spend more on better lenses if I had deep pockets since I would never be using the 21 megapixel resolution of the 5Dmark2 which you would as a professional.

For now I can afford the 6 megapixel D40 and the 55-200 lens and am happy with it but my next purchase in a few years if I ever feel the need for it would be the future version of the D700 and I am praying they bring out a 6 megapixel version of the NikonD700 as the most resolution I require is to project patient cases onto a white screen in a dental conference and majority of the projectors do not resolve above 6 megapixels anyway; especially those rented for the conference.

Compare cameras

The projector mentioned below might be used in conferences in India in the future but I would be converted into dust by then.

10-megapixel JVC projector does 4X HD resolution

@nomad..... There is something called smearing of fine detail and it will only be visible if you see the full crops. A prosumer, even at base ISO is no where near a DSLR output and I still abide by my statement.

An average prosumer prints a full resolution @ 8MP which is a very normal norm on date will print about a size of 2448 x 3264 at 300 DPI will print a size of 8"x10". Tell me how often do you print such sizes? It's about regular use for which a prosumer was referred to. Not, for posters to cover walls. The defacto size of PC or 4"x6" is very much attainable and invisible to the naked eyes when printed by a prosumer or by a DSLR. Where the DSLR rules is when you need more control over the settings.

It's the practicality which was discussed as someone wanted to know which camera to buy at a reasonable price with which one could print regular photographs. So, full 100% crops are not the topic of discussion.

That's very nice of you sir to have taken this in the right light and mood.

Well by no means I was referring the 5D MK-II. I have clearly stated its the 5D. So, please don't confuse it with the new Canon 5D MK-II. The model I am talking about is the old Canon 5D which is a 12.7 MP camera and not a 21 MP monster! Canon EOS 5D digital camera specifications: Digital Photography Review Please refer to the details for that camera. This model is considered to be a benchmark for full frame sensor cameras. And is right now the cheapest full frame DSLR available in the market. The reference of the 5D/D700 came from you mentioning to invest in a better body than in better lenses. Which I don't agree to. It's not which full frame camera is better. Though the chart you provided shows nice results for the Nikon D700 but it fails to address the original question of why invest in a better body.

Well sorry sir my knowledge of projectors is completely nill. So, I'd not say anything about them at all and take your word for it.:)

Well that's the reason I had said don't get isolated to Sony alone. There are brands which are putting out better models. Ofcourse your Olympus E-500 would provide you better results. But, what I meant to say is that the gap is closing up between the entry level DSLR's performance and that of the Prosumer camera's. If my previous statement made you think otherwise then I admit my fault. But, the outputs are clearly visible. Prosumers are capable of producing fantastic images too at lesser prices.

How lesser price?? Here's the explaination. Your kit lens say it's an 18-55mm. Which translates to a 55/18 = 3.055. That makes it a 3X optical zoom lens. Now, that's nothing in compared to the prosumer's which have 12-25X zooms available on them on date. So, even if you wanted a simple 10X optical zoom on a DSLR that'll mean you'll need atleast 18-200mm lens. Which costs approx Rs. 40,000. Now, if you add that price to your existing DSLR price. Which one does cost more?

Please keep it in mind that I'm talking of total amateur photography and not professional or advanced photography as an advanced or professional photographer would go for quality over price.

The net outcome of the above comes out to that a prosumer can 'almost' attain what a DSLR does at lower price. Without burning a hole in your pocket. Why it was so confusing is because we usually fail to considerate extra lens costs into the DSLR setup. The kit lens is usually a cheap lens which is given away with the body. Otherwise, good lenses are rarely sold along with kits. That's the exact reason.

I think I explained to my level best and after this further discussion is only going to drag the argument further with no help to the original poster of the thread.

What I'd suggest is to stick to either of the bigger brands and spend wisely on the lenses rather than on a better body. As, it's NOT normal that you go out shooting at ISO 1600/3200. So, a better optical system bought now will be helpful later on when you upgrade to a better body.

Regards,

Anirban.

That's a moot point, I have printed 4ft X 3ft from 2048x1536 image shot in F-717.

Yes, but fantastic is not a relative term. dSLRs are still way ahead.

A dSLR user doesn't really talk in terms of zoom factor, none of my lenses exceed 5X.

If you are referring to total amateur photography, this is the wrong thread to discuss it. We are all here, in this thread, because we advanced amateurs. We want the ability to control every aspect of photography despite being non-professionals. Of course, there are people using dSLR in auto mode, but they are not the norm.

This will only apply to dSLR users who shoot jpg in auto mode. They could be out-done by prosumer camera used in manual control. For example, the excellent portrait of the lady you posted was probably shot using spot metering.

No, It's not. I clearly specified the resolution in DPI at which you can print such photographs without loosing the quality of the photograph. With low resolutions you can go ahead and print bigger photographs than what you have printed but then are not usable. Even with a DSLR like Canon 400D the max size you can go at 300 DPI (Which is the industry standard for printing photographs) is 9.4"x 6.3" or you can go to a lower resolution and print upto 39.1"x 26.1" at 72 DPI (Which is the general web standard) but photographs printed at 72 DPI are useless in terms of quality. If you happen to have a photograph and want it printed the printer would ask you to give a high res image not a 72 DPI. Please refer Megapixel Calculator: Canon EOS 400D (M) | web.forret.com for clarifications.

I totally agree to what you said. DSLR's don't talk in zoom factor but in actual MM's of focal length available. The X zoom factor is just a term to compare how a simple lens would relate to on a full 35mm sensor.

Well, I don't see where the advanced amateur photography came into this thread. All it was asked which camera one should buy because one user was confused in deciding. Which i believe was for someone who wanted to get into photography from a total amateur point.

About shooting photographs in auto mode. What does that have to do with shooting in jpg? I know a few professionals who shoot in jpg as per their needs. Does shooting in JPG classify them as amateurs? I don't think so. The only way you can differentiate an amateur from a professional is IF they earn from their photographs. Till they don't they all are amateurs.

Yes if the knowledge level is considered then yes I do agree that many advanced users are here present. But, then I'd not have expected comments saying that one camera is rubbish because it's not a Nikon or Canon. Well anyway. I don't think so that the point I was trying to convey has been picked up till now. Which was as simple as this that for someone who's not "very" serious about photography there's no need to jump into DSLR's. But, get a good prosumer and be happy and save a lot of money. For those who "are" serious DSLR's is the way to go:). It's nothing to do with full frame sensors or anything else. If you need top notch quality then it has to be a DSLR.

Regards,

Anirban.

Let's not forget one main factor here. And that's called viewing distance. A 4/3 ft image is not for viewing from close distance. Same applies for any billboard printing.

Totally agreed and accepted sir. But, anything printed with poor quality/low resolution will always pixelate and stand out as bad prints. You, being into prints and photography yourself will know that more than anyone here. So, irrespective of the distance, definitely a minimum resolution/quality is needed to maintain to make such blow ups. Otherwise Medium Format's would've been out of business long time back. Am I wrong sir?

Regards,

Anirban.

I agree.
The image Samurai is talking about wasn't really bad in terms of resolution. Over and above I remember re-sampling it.

What I think matters here is the magnificantion each pixel has to undergo. When I see the output of good Prosumer cameras on my laptop or desktop there is no visible difference but on a 46" LCD TV the differences are noticeable.

Medium Format digital backs offer even less magnification ratio than DSLRs.

Cough, cough, We have a pro who lurks around here who made it possible.:)



The exif for the above image is here, it was shot in auto, in jpg mode, in a P&S, before I got seriously into photography: SmugMug Photo Sharing. Your photos look better here.

I guess that is where we differ in our definition of professional. Most wedding photographers and press photographers in India use auto mode and jpg in their dSLR, and they are professional photographers. No, I didn't have them in mind. When I said professional I meant photographers who sell their photographs as artwork.

Finally you have conveyed your point. I fully agree, I too profess the same thing. One should grow out of prosumer camera before taking the plunge into dSLR. But many jump into dSLR just because the body+kit lens has become affordable. I have mentioned many times in this forum, dSLR is a money pit, one needs to tread carefully.