[clevermax]

Originally Posted by DerAlte

Oh-oh! I need to fish them out and figure out the mount first.
They are MF lenses, so no hassle of AF adaptation. IIRC I have a 28mm, a 50mm and another large non-zoom longer focal length - never liked zooms in those days (actually zooms were too costly ). Most of the time, I have used the wide for family functions (small house!) and tourism, and the 50mm for portrait / close up. The longer focal length I didn't get to use much.

I see that the camera you had is an MD mount (from a picture in the internet). So these lenses can't be used directly in the Alphas. However, the second option is valid, we can use them in Alphas or Nex series with suitable adapters. I have a friend using Nex with old MD mount lenses with adapters. Even a cheap adapter will do, since they are manual lenses.

[travelwriter]

I am sure many members have asked this question before but searching 675 pages seems a Herculian task hence asking this question here.

I plan to buy a digital SLR (first time buy although I have a Minolta manual SLR). I came across Canon 1100D with 18-55 stock lenses and also 55-250 lens free at Rs.38,000. Is this a good buy for a beginner? Should I consider Nikon alternatively? I believe Nikon is a better name in cameras or am I wrong?

Please help out

Travelwriter

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by travelwriter

I am sure many members have asked this question before but searching 675 pages seems a Herculian task hence asking this question here.

I plan to buy a digital SLR (first time buy although I have a Minolta manual SLR). I came across Canon 1100D with 18-55 stock lenses and also 55-250 lens free at Rs.38,000. Is this a good buy for a beginner? Should I consider Nikon alternatively? I believe Nikon is a better name in cameras or am I wrong?

Please help out

Travelwriter

Just read through the above few posts and check if you want to keep your Minolta lenses (if any) and continue to use them with a digital camera

1100D + 18-55 now comes for around 22.5K. I am not sure if 38K is a good price for body + 18-55 and 55-250 both!

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by travelwriter

I plan to buy a digital SLR (first time buy although I have a Minolta manual SLR). I came across Canon 1100D with 18-55 stock lenses and also 55-250 lens free at Rs.38,000. Is this a good buy for a beginner? Should I consider Nikon alternatively? I believe Nikon is a better name in cameras or am I wrong?

Please help out

Either Nikon or Canon - you cannot go wrong.

You can go in for a Canon 1100D kit or a Nikon D3200 kit. Of the two, the D3200 is the newer model and was released in June '12.

[travelwriter]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Just read through...18-55 and 55-250 both!

Thanks Clevermax and R2D2 for the response.

I checked the prices at both Canon store and at Croma and they quoted the same price.

On using Minolta lenses, I am not sure they will fit in. If they do, that will be good. I think they are 28-200 (I could be wrong here).

I will check on Nikon before taking a final call and once i do, I will take pictures and get your feedback too! Thanks again

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by zoombiee

Sony Alpha 35 is not a SLR. It is a SLT. SLR has a mirror that reflects light to the View Finder. When you click, the mirror moves out of the way and the CMOS chip is exposed to the light. In SLT there is a semi-transparent lens, that reflects light to the view finder and to the CMOS chip at the same time.

SLR advantages -
1) Picture quality is better than SLT as SLT has some light loss

SLT advantages -
1) There is not shudder (SLR have inbuilt corrections for the same)
2) Good for quick succession pictures. Entry level SLRs are about 3 clicks per sec while SLTs do 7-8
3) What you click is what you see which may not be true with SLRs
4) Very light weight and lesser number of moving parts.

I did quite a bit of testing from my end and ended up buying a Cannon 1100D as the picture quality was simply much better than the Sony Alpha.

On the contrary, On any DSLR WHAT YOU see is WHAT you get. And IQ will always be better on a DSLR than a SLT.

Originally Posted by clevermax

1100D made it a bit warmer in AWB, I don't know why. Otherwise, I don't know what makes it richer.

Pretty much every Canon DSLR I have used over the years makes jpeg a bit warmer (reddish tinge) while pretty much every Nikon makes then a bit cooler (blueish tinge).

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by rajb3125
And IQ will always be better on a DSLR than a SLT.

I think we cannot generalize like that.
I can only think of two factors which are not present in a DSLR's light path.

1) The translucent mirror induced light loss
2) The light path always has the mirror - any distortions introduced because of that.

Otherwise, the way images are casted on a DSLR and SLT's sensor just in the same way.

1) Light loss - studies on the light loss have shown that there is about 1/3rd stop loss at the maximum, due to the translucent mirror directing light towards the phase detection AF mechanism The permiability will be less than 80 according to tests done on A55's translucent mirror.

Now, take two cameras in the same league - a DSLR and SLT with similar lenses. Click the same frame with the same shutter speed, same aperture and same ISO speed - you will notice that there is no lack of exposure on the SLT's picture compared to the DSLR's. Why? Ideally there should be a difference because there is light loss of about 0.3EV. The images appear same because the ISO calibration on an SLT is slightly above that in a DSLR. This increased sensor gain compensates for the light loss. There is no big difference in the ISO calibraration. It will be like ISO120-ish when you set ISO at 100 in an SLT and in a DSLR it will be true ISO100 itself. Having said that, the image quality should now be a tad bit less on the SLT because of the slightly higher ISO.

But... an improved sensor with better ISO capabilites can easily suprass the miniscule problem that we're talking about. So a mid/high range SLT with improved sensor will be much better in IQ than a entry level DSLR, just in the same way a mid/high range DSLR is.

2) Lack of image detail due to the mirror in the light's path (aditional air-glass-air surfaces)
There are photographic tests with samples available in in various places, which shows thelack of image deatil is hard to recognize even in the 100% crops. I can post samples from my own camera to show this.

In my opinion, it is not the image quality that an SLT user needs to be worried about. In fact, this is not a thing to worry at all in my opinion. It is the issues with the EVF that can be a 'real' problem though the imapct is limited to only certain shooting conditions:

EVF simulates your photo before clicking and when flash is used (in camera) it takes some time to adjust the gain before shutter is released. Secondly, when you use external flashes which the camera doesn't know about, the simulation goes wrong.

DSLR will be obsolete, SLT is a stop gap arrangemnt and mirror less will be the way to go..

Originally Posted by rajb3125
On the contrary, On any DSLR WHAT YOU see is WHAT you get.

In OVF you get to see the real scene, but a picture can be over exposed or underexposed depending on your settings, but in EVF, what you see on the EVF will be pretty much what you get, since it already simulates the scene based on your exposure settings. This is what zoombiee meant - I am sure!

[vaibhavdalal]

Has anyone tried tamron B008 18-270 lens?, am planning for my canon 550d

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

Thats exactly it, we are assuming D400 and then we are assuming D400 with AF from D4 while we all know D300/D300s exists and it has same AF as D3/D700 which is nothing to sneeze about

Yes, I am hoping that the D400 gets released later this year, and that it is a significant improvement over current DX bodies and sets a new standard for DX.

And what is the problem with that?

There are plenty of folks like me who need/want a proDx from Nikon incorporating the latest tech that Nikon has to (or wants to) offer.

The Fortuner too took its time coming to India

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by rajb3125

Pretty much every Canon DSLR I have used over the years makes jpeg a bit warmer (reddish tinge) while pretty much every Nikon makes then a bit cooler (blueish tinge).

For years I have been hearing, mostly on DPreview reviews and forums that Olympus has the best jpeg engine out there. But then I almost always use RAW, so I can't vouch for that.

[rajb3125]

Originally Posted by clevermax

I think we cannot generalize like that.
I can only think of two factors which are not present in a DSLR's light path.

1) The translucent mirror induced light loss
2) The light path always has the mirror - any distortions introduced because of that.

Otherwise, the way images are casted on a DSLR and SLT's sensor just in the same way.

1) Light loss - studies on the light loss have shown that there is about 1/3rd stop loss at the maximum, due to the translucent mirror directing light towards the phase detection AF mechanism The permiability will be less than 80 according to tests done on A55's translucent mirror.

Now, take two cameras in the same league - a DSLR and SLT with similar lenses. Click the same frame with the same shutter speed, same aperture and same ISO speed - you will notice that there is no lack of exposure on the SLT's picture compared to the DSLR's. Why? Ideally there should be a difference because there is light loss of about 0.3EV. The images appear same because the ISO calibration on an SLT is slightly above that in a DSLR. This increased sensor gain compensates for the light loss. There is no big difference in the ISO calibraration. It will be like ISO120-ish when you set ISO at 100 in an SLT and in a DSLR it will be true ISO100 itself. Having said that, the image quality should now be a tad bit less on the SLT because of the slightly higher ISO.

But... an improved sensor with better ISO capabilites can easily suprass the miniscule problem that we're talking about. So a mid/high range SLT with improved sensor will be much better in IQ than a entry level DSLR, just in the same way a mid/high range DSLR is.

2) Lack of image detail due to the mirror in the light's path (aditional air-glass-air surfaces)
There are photographic tests with samples available in in various places, which shows thelack of image deatil is hard to recognize even in the 100% crops. I can post samples from my own camera to show this.

In my opinion, it is not the image quality that an SLT user needs to be worried about. In fact, this is not a thing to worry at all in my opinion. It is the issues with the EVF that can be a 'real' problem though the imapct is limited to only certain shooting conditions:

EVF simulates your photo before clicking and when flash is used (in camera) it takes some time to adjust the gain before shutter is released. Secondly, when you use external flashes which the camera doesn't know about, the simulation goes wrong.

As you said, it does not matter what one does, in the end of the day its similar to adding the filters to a lens, another piece of glass will always be there and it will always be reducing 1/3 stop of light. Of course we can always compensate but in the end we are still compensating.

Originally Posted by clevermax

DSLR will be obsolete, SLT is a stop gap arrangemnt and mirror less will be the way to go..

I think we cannot generalize like that

I doubt DSLR's will be obsolete, dx bodies might get affected in terms of sales but FF bodies will remain, but then again there is more to it than just sensor size, shooting a full wedding with something smaller than D3/1D is a killer on hands, especially when using pro lenses.

Originally Posted by clevermax

In OVF you get to see the real scene, but a picture can be over exposed or underexposed depending on your settings, but in EVF, what you see on the EVF will be pretty much what you get, since it already simulates the scene based on your exposure settings. This is what zoombiee meant - I am sure!

OVF and EVF is a completely different discussion and has nothing to do with DSLR vs SLT discussion as both are OVF

And when one says what you see is what you get, its more about image composition and DOf than exposure. There is bar in every DSLR I have owned that shows if image in over/under exposed. Once we get into image exposure settings well, none of the viewfinders matter in that respect, for example, I could be doing star trails and not a single viewfinder will be able to show me the final image, be it OVF or EVF. Similarily I could be doing panning and again not a single viewfinder will be able to show me the final image, be it OVF or EVF.

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Yes, I am hoping that the D400 gets released later this year, and that it is a significant improvement over current DX bodies and sets a new standard for DX.

And what is the problem with that?

There are plenty of folks like me who need/want a proDx from Nikon incorporating the latest tech that Nikon has to (or wants to) offer.

The Fortuner too took its time coming to India

Please read what I said, At this stage we are assuming what D400 will be and when it will be released and what D600 will be and when it will be released. Then we are assuming what AF both of these bodies will have.

I never said there is a problem with a Dx body with AF from D4/D800. D300/s was/is certainly a bit hit, even looking at canon camp, 7D is a big seller and it has been selling like hot cakes.

The issue is rumors, Nikon rumors state D600 will have 39 point AF and not the AF from D4/D800 and a price point of $1500. Sure that is awesome, there is a huge demand for cheap FF body with less bells and whistles, I myself know few landscape shooters who will go nuts with a new cheap FF body.

But what does that mean for a high end Dx body, it would need to be around $1300 price point and AF cannot be better than D600, yet rumor is AF will be from D4/D800, that is not possible at $1300 price point. Otherwise it would undercut D600 sales, or D600 would undercut D400 sales.

But in the end of the day its all speculation and rumors only. Nothing can be guaranteed till Nikon raises the curtain.

Yes fortuner was not released in India till late, but it was released everywhere and its specs were well known before it came to India, not the same case with Nikon, Nikon/Canon release products in JAPAN, then its individual Nikon company in the respective country that buys it off them and gets the shipment. Nikon Japan has no control over what Nikon India decides to bring to India, or so I have been told by few guys in trade here.

Originally Posted by Samurai

For years I have been hearing, mostly on DPreview reviews and forums that Olympus has the best jpeg engine out there. But then I almost always use RAW, so I can't vouch for that.

I cannot say much about Olympus camp, never used a Olympus DSLR, but Olympus Pens (the ones I have given a go) have good jpeg output, but EVF was a killer for me.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by rajb3125
As you said, it does not matter what one does, in the end of the day its similar to adding the filters to a lens, another piece of glass will always be there and it will always be reducing 1/3 stop of light.

Ok, but how much is the impact, is the point - let the pictures speak. I'm gonna take few samples with and without mirror (it just takes 20 seconds to remove the translucent mirror!) and post the flickr links of full reslotution images. That will give everyone an idea.

Originally Posted by rajb3125
I doubt DSLR's will be obsolete, dx bodies might get affected in terms of sales but FF bodies will remain, but then again there is more to it than just sensor size, shooting a full wedding with something smaller than D3/1D is a killer on hands, especially when using pro lenses.

Emerging trends indicate that EVF is going to be the way, no matter full frame or DX. All I am saying is, flipping mirror is on its way out. That's defenite. EVF is going to improve and get rid of its limitations as it has today. There will be innovations in this area surely and future cameras will have EVFs which will make people realize how much they were missing out on OVF. DX or FX doesn't matter.

This is not going to happen immediately but will eventually happen, as the business intelligence say. We can mark this post and come back after several years.

Originally Posted by rajb3125
OVF and EVF is a completely different discussion and has nothing to do with DSLR vs SLT discussion as both are OVF

I know what you meant by both are OVF, but
Let's not make things unnecessarily complicated here for the readers. DSLRs have OVF - is a fact everyone knows. Of course they do have the light meter together with it. But what you see is the real world through the lens (optically) and what you click may not look like that because of the settings you are using. Example - looking through the OVF to a landscape during bright daylight and clicking a picture at 1/10s, ISO1600, f/5.6. Or looking through the OVF and clicking a picture with a wrong WB setting.

New gen SLT cameras doesn't have OVF, instead they have an electronic view finder. These view finders always show the live view based on all your shooting parameters set. It simulates the exposure settings, white balance, and any other creative settings you choose. So the EVF in an SLT shows you how the picture is going to look like, and it doesn't show a real view of the world through the lens, like in DSLRs.

[zoombiee]

There is a moment of blindness in SLRs. You focus on a subject and click. The mirror then moves up and the CMOS chip is exposed. This takes some time. Theoretically you would be blind during those fraction of seconds. This does not happen with SLTs as your view is never lost.
Clevermax, have you tried very dim light pics or pics in darkness with both of them. Would be interesting to know if there is any difference.

Also, the richness I was referring to is actually warmth (i am not good with these terminologies). I brought the DSLR primarily to capture my daughter's childhood. The skin textures were much better with the 1100D.

[gopinathann]

Originally Posted by zoombiee

There is a moment of blindness in SLRs. You focus on a subject and click. The mirror then moves up and the CMOS chip is exposed. This takes some time. Theoretically you would be blind during those fraction of seconds. This does not happen with SLTs as your view is never lost.
Clevermax, have you tried very dim light pics or pics in darkness with both of them. Would be interesting to know if there is any difference.

Also, the richness I was referring to is actually warmth (i am not good with these terminologies). I brought the DSLR primarily to capture my daughter's childhood. The skin textures were much better with the 1100D.

Have you tweaked any settings to get the best skin texture. I do have a 1100D and configured the contrast,saturation, sharpnes, tone it for objects which gives amazing results, and trying to do the same to get the best skin texture.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by zoombiee

There is a moment of blindness in SLRs. You focus on a subject and click. The mirror then moves up and the CMOS chip is exposed. This takes some time. Theoretically you would be blind during those fraction of seconds. This does not happen with SLTs as your view is never lost.
Clevermax, have you tried very dim light pics or pics in darkness with both of them. Would be interesting to know if there is any difference.

The blindness is there in my camera also - because it has a mechanical shutter, the first curtain closes the 'always exposed' sensor to prepare for exposure and then exposure happens based on the set shutter speed with the second curtain and then sensor is again left open or exposed. There is a moment of blindness during the shutter action, which is less than a DSLR.

In DSLRs, the moment of blindness starts when mirror flips up, and then shutter actuates, and the mirror flips down, restoring the vision in the OVF.

A77 doesn't have a mechanical shutter so there may not be a moment of blindness at all, in that camera.

Here is a low light shot off my A35
500px.com/photo/9308423