| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/13/2005 11:42:05 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
I think CMOS technology is fundamentally better than CCD, hence the D2X now uses a CMOS sensor. The 20D is simply newer technology, producing a cleaner shot as well as more resolution. |
Going with that line of reasoning the sigma SD-10 would be the best choice since it has the most sophisticated sensor one the market. The Nikon has more than enough quality for any type photography.
30% sounds like a lot, but itâs not. At 300 dpi the canonâs print size in inches would be 11.68âx7.78â and the Nikonâs would be 10.03âx6.67â hardly a deal breaking difference.
In fact, IMHO, the best deal Iâve seen for a around $1000 digital SLR is the Nikon D1x refurbished unit that Camedia camera has been selling through e-bay. At 5.47mp it is more than enough resolution for 98% of most photographerâs needs. Any more than that you might as well go to medium format film.
Message edited by author 2005-07-13 11:44:01. |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 12:28:44 PM · #77 |
Being a Nikon owner, I almost hate to disagree with the "No significant Difference between 6MP & 8MP". I agree that the difference doesn't make a lot of difference if you use the entire frame, however, how does that difference correlate if you crop down to 30% of the frame? Granted, I haven't run into any real issues with cropping my D70 frames, but I have always wondered. Anyone ever do the math on this?
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 01:35:50 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
That said, it's not all about pixel count. I think CMOS technology is fundamentally better than CCD, hence the D2X now uses a CMOS sensor. The 20D is simply newer technology, producing a cleaner shot as well as more resolution. |
My understanding is that you need to look at the whole system rather than just one part of it. The sensor is not the only part of the chain. The image has to be captured and then the picture has to be processed. My understanding is that processing CMOS images is more complicated so it's not automatically the case that a "better" CMOS capture results in a better picture output. That would be just like saying that a better carburettor is all that is needed to make a car run better/faster/etc.
I've come to the conclusion that for 99% of people, it really doesn't matter what system you choose - they all produce output that is as good as any of us will ever need. What matters more is how the stuff feels in your hands and how comfortable you are using it.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 02:40:07 PM · #79 |
WOOT.
Been at the store. Fallin' in LOVE with the Canon 10-22. Whatta lens... Got introduced to a Tamron 24-135, brought some test shots home. Seems to be well-regarded from the input I can find online. That's nice coverage, 10-135, eh?
Trying to figure how to fit all this together.
I can get an XT, a Canon 100 Macro, the Canon 10-22, the Canon 70-200 4.0L, and the 24-135 Tamron within my budget. Can get the Canon 200mm 2.8 prime for about the same price as the 70-200. Have to sacrifice something to get the 20D. REALLY like the 20D controls, plus the LCD on top instead of back, and the general feel of the cam...
But the XT will take the same picture, given that I don't need the speed...
Help!
R.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 03:09:49 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Have to sacrifice something to get the 20D. REALLY like the 20D controls, plus the LCD on top instead of back, and the general feel of the cam...
But the XT will take the same picture, given that I don't need the speed...
Help!
R. |
Get what you feel most comfortable with, otherwise you will be "shoulding" all over yourself for a very long time. The "should have" disease is evil and will eat you up inside. :)
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 03:14:39 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
.....plus the LCD on top instead of back, and the general feel of the cam...
R. |
While the XT was too small for me I thought the LCD on the back was a great improvement not having to flip the camera back and forth. I find the flipping to be inconvenient on the D70. I was going to write Nikon and suggest they do the same.
Personally, while I don't like the feel of the XT, as a camera it really packs a punch.
Message edited by author 2005-07-13 15:20:46.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 03:23:36 PM · #82 |
Robert, with regard to the 20D vs. XT dilemma, I suggest that you do a side-by-side comparo over at DPReview, and also scour through both reviews for a couple hours. Before you do though, write down all the creative options you consider important, rank them. While poring over the reviews, keep referring to the list. At the end, the decision should be more clear. At this point, IMO, the decision is wholly based on your ranking of your needs.
Lens-wise, I know little or nothing about the 24-135... the 10-22 is definitely a well-regarded lens but do you really have use for something that wide?? I find the distortion in ultra-wide rectilinear lenses (wider than about 16mm) to be unattractive. People look positively gross at the edge of the frame, stretched horribly wide.
If image quality is paramount, even without seeing any samples from the Tamron 24-135, I will bet it doesn't hold a candle to the 70-200/4. And slower on the long end as well. Everything depends on how much you use the "hole" between about 40mm and 70mm.
How about this (B&H prices):
20D Body, $1329
17-40/4 L $679
50/1.4 $299
100/2.8 Macro USM + hood $509
70-200/4 L $579
Canon TC80N3 wired Timer/Remote Controller $133
Total: $3528
There are few compromises with these choices, with exception of that durn hole, LOL.
Edit:
If the hole is of too great a concern, but you realize that the XT will do everything you anticipate needing it to do, then substitute the XT for the 20D and add in the Tamron 28-75, the total becomes $3387.
Message edited by author 2005-07-13 15:40:22.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 03:23:41 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
...
I can get an XT, a Canon 100 Macro, the Canon 10-22, the Canon 70-200 4.0L, and the 24-135 Tamron within my budget. Can get the Canon 200mm 2.8 prime for about the same price as the 70-200.
...
R. |
I have 3 zooms and 3 primes. The more time I spend with them, the more I realize just how much better a prime is than a zoom, - no matter what the reviews say about the zooms. I may soon be trading my 70-200L for the 200 prime you mention.
Message edited by author 2005-07-13 15:24:35. |
|
|
|
07/13/2005 04:08:29 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
How about this (B&H prices):
20D Body, $1329
17-40/4 L $679
50/1.4 $299
100/2.8 Macro USM + hood $509
70-200/4 L $579
Canon TC80N3 wired Timer/Remote Controller $133
Total: $3528 |
This might be redundant but I did work for 6 years at The Department of Redundancy Department.
You'll save big $ on the 50mm 1.8 which goes for around $100 and still get a helluva lens. Personal fave of many DPCers. Manny Librodo uses the Nikon version (practically the same lens) for many of his portraits...can't beat that.
 
Message edited by author 2005-07-13 16:39:57.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 04:10:20 PM · #85 |
The 70-200/2.8L is the zoom lens, and a staple in most pro's bag. There's only one fixed 200mm pros use, and it's the f/1.8. :-)
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 04:25:19 PM · #86 |
Thing of it is, I'm a retired acrhitectural photographer/landscape photographer. I REALLY miss my super-wide angle lenses. I have a whole way of workign with them. The 10-22 is a HELL of a coverage. The 24-135 Tamron gets very nice reviews, and it feels good. That's a lot of range right there, 10-135 in 2 decent lenses (the 10-22 better-than-decent I think). Here's some out-of-the-cam tests to show you what I mean:
10 mm outside: 
22mm outside: 
10mm inside: 
24mm outside: 
135mm outside: 
See what ya'll think...
*************
IF I get a 50mm prime, it will assuredly be the 1.8, for price alone. I can't afford the 200mm 1.8, but I can maybe afford the 200mm 2.8. Is there that much of a difference? I can probably eat the gap between 135 and 200 if the 200mm 2.8 is that much better than the 70-200 at 200mm. There's a LOT of overlap between between 70-200 and 24-135... But the 70-200 is a little better of a lens than the 24-135... Hell what do I know?
R.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 04:44:16 PM · #87 |
Robert, again, I've no personal experience or even experience-by-proxy from looking at examples and reviews on the 24-135, but with that range and that price, there is more than a little difference between that and the 70-200/4. As PaulMDX stated, the 70-200/2.8 is THE zoom lens, and as an owner of that lens I will concur. The f/4 version is byvirtually all accounts at least the optical equal, if not slightly better, than the 2.8 version. That's REALLY saying something.
If the 24-135 meets the need, wonderful! I know you are a critical judge of quality, and you initially stated that you wanted to stay with the higher quality lenses, so do a lot of testing since you won't have the opportunity to change your mind...
With regard to the 50/1.8 vs. 1.4 debate, the 1.4 will definitely have the edge in sharpness at like aperture openings; ey will be almost impossible to tell apart at f/4 or smaller, but you buy the 50mm prime for the speed, no? The bokeh will be quite a bit better on the f/1.4 as well. IMO it's a toss-up. I have the 1.4, but if I had the 1.8, I don't know if I'd upgrade it :-P
Sounds like you have a lot of application for ultra-wide rectilinear. Maybe the 10-22 is for you! I know it's not for me. If I need really wide, I do the fish (15mm or 8mm peleng) or stitch a pano if I need rectilinear.
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 04:52:17 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
$3,500 approved!
...If Canon, 105mm macro set in stone....
Robt. |
I thought that the 100 macro was the one set in stone (Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro)
|
|
|
|
07/13/2005 04:59:43 PM · #89 |
Oh the agony of it all!!! LOL.
This is a great thread that tells the tale that we all go through with camera purchases. Damn budgets!!
For what it is worth I have been slowly changing out my lenses. I recently bought the Nikon 12-24 and love it for landscape. Next up will be Nikon's version of the 70-200 2.8 VR and then on to the Nikon version of the 105 Macro. I may then be happy, for wahile anyway.
Sorry Bear - I'm no help. |
|
|
|
07/14/2005 01:58:26 AM · #90 |
Beginning to look something like this:
Canon 20D
Canon 10-22 f/3.5
Canon 28-105 f/3.5
Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon 70-200 f/4.0
I can bring this package in, with rebates and tax, for around $3,550.00; they're going to throw in a nice LowePro bag also. I've opted to deal with my very knowledgeable local store because I prefer supporting good camera stores and they'll be there for me when/if things go wrong. The prices are in line with what's charged, on average, online. I could save maybe 10% if I shopped around, but that's not easy for me to do the way this deal is set up.
The 60mm macro, btw, from what I can see is optically as good as the 100mm, costs 100 dollars less, and is much smaller and lighter, so much so that it can far more easily be handheld steadily. It seems like a better fit, and it's a fine walkaround lens too.
I'll report back in tomorrow :-)
Robt.
Message edited by author 2005-07-14 02:00:29.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:03:47 AM · #91 |
Sounds like a deal Robert and I like your local shop support. They are there for us when we go out looking and testing so we should actually buy from them. I have been doing more and more buying locally and it is a nice feeling.
Is there going to be enough space to display all your ribbons after this?
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:08:52 AM · #92 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Beginning to look something like this:
Canon 20D
Canon 10-22 f/3.5
Canon 28-105 f/3.5
Canon 60mm f/2.8 Macro
Canon 70-200 f/4.0
I can bring this package in, with rebates and tax, for around $3,550.00; they're going to throw in a nice LowePro bag also. I've opted to deal with my very knowledgeable local store because I prefer supporting good camera stores and they'll be there for me when/if things go wrong. The prices are in line with what's charged, on average, online. I could save maybe 10% if I shopped around, but that's not easy for me to do the way this deal is set up.
The 60mm macro, btw, from what I can see is optically as good as the 100mm, costs 100 dollars less, and is much smaller and lighter, so much so that it can far more easily be handheld steadily. It seems like a better fit, and it's a fine walkaround lens too.
I'll report back in tomorrow :-)
Robt. |
Only thing I'd recommend is switching the 28-105 with a Tamron 28-75mm XR Di, it would be a much nicer walk around lens. If you need to make up the difference, you can do so by switching the Canon 10-22 for a Tokina 12-24 or Tamron 11-18.
As you noted, if you are into wide angles and macros then you should consider an 8mm fisheye from Sigma, perhaps a 105mm or a 150mm macro lens from Sigma, a Flash Ring, and I'd skip the 70-200 and the 28-105. The 150 macro could also serve your telephoto and macro needs as well.
Message edited by author 2005-07-14 02:14:36.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:10:21 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Sounds like a deal Robert and I like your local shop support. They are there for us when we go out looking and testing so we should actually buy from them. I have been doing more and more buying locally and it is a nice feeling.
Is there going to be enough space to display all your ribbons after this? |
Dude, I only wish... My shortage of ribbons is not due to my equipment; just check out highest rated shots for 5700 Nikon and be amazed. it's due entirely to my own, quirky, way of seeing, and of approaching challenges, and I take full responsibility for that and promise not to change it.
HOWEVER, I'm by nature an extreme wide-angle shooter, and a macro shooter, and the 5700 is deficient in both those areas for me. Plus, I am used to carefully controlling my DOF and that also was hard to do with the little sensor. So, hopefully, when I've completed my climb up the learning curve, we'll see more of the real me.
Whether this means more ribbons is anyone's guess...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:14:19 AM · #94 |
Hey, I like your quirky way of seeing things so glad you wont change. All that talent at DOF and wideangle combined with the new toys will come together in a challenge sooner or later. BTW - if I had gone Canon it would have been the 20D. It just feels so much better in the hand than the Rebels. Good luck.
Message edited by author 2005-07-14 02:15:31. |
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:18:30 AM · #95 |
Originally posted by yido:
Only thing I'd recommend is switching the 28-105 with a Tamron 28-75mm XR Di, it would be a much nicer walk around lens. If you need to make up the difference, you can do so by switching the Canon 10-22 for a Tokina 12-24 or Tamron 11-18. |
The Canon 10-22 has NO barrel distortion, nada, zip. This is critical to me for architecture. I'm in love witht hat lens.
I looked hard at the Tamron 28-75, because I like the constant f/2.8, but it's 100-odd dollars more money and when I read up on it in Fred Miranda it seems like hald the buyers got bad examples of the lens and had to get it replaced/adjusted. This scares me. Plus, from what I can see, the Canon 28-105 is at least as good optically, plus it's smaller and lighter. I'm not real concerened with "faster" lenses, though it's for sure nice when you can get it.
Robt.
Edit to add I just checked out the Tamron in the DPC lens list, and a LOT of pictures I really like/photographers I respect are associated with this lens, so I'll see what I can work out. I can always send it back if it is a bad exemplar of the breed...
Message edited by author 2005-07-14 02:35:02.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:36:00 AM · #96 |
Yup, the Tok has a lot of distortion, a bad idea for architecture. If you want no distortion, consider some tilt-shift lens. It's a must for architecutural photography. Look at Bob Atkins review of the Tamron, he compares it against the Canon 28-135 IS, which is optically a bit better than the 28-105, and you can see quite a bit of difference. I've heard of many people having problems with the Tamron, but don't buy it. I think it's just a bunch of people expecting way too much from the lens based on all the good reviews and just turning them in for service or returns. I've used my friends and it seems fine. Perhaps the early ones had problems, I can't really say.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:40:49 AM · #97 |
bit late to the party as you're probably already wildly throwing 20 dollar bills around your local camera spot, but we have a 350XT and a 20D in the office here. I prefer the XT as the body is a bit smaller and more comfortable to use, but the difference in noise at higher ISO between the two is quite extreme. The XT only goes to 1600 and the noise is quite bad. The 20D on the other hand goes to 3200 and the noise at that level is quite manageable. Depends if you need it or not, but if you prefer natural light, it may be a factor.
just my 12 ZA cents :) |
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:42:13 AM · #98 |
Forsaking the poor Nikon!? Are you aware that the D70's button setup is exactly the same as your beloved 5700? I know...it is what I stepped up from. :)
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:50:49 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by allankent:
bit late to the party as you're probably already wildly throwing 20 dollar bills around your local camera spot, but we have a 350XT and a 20D in the office here. I prefer the XT as the body is a bit smaller and more comfortable to use, but the difference in noise at higher ISO between the two is quite extreme. The XT only goes to 1600 and the noise is quite bad. The 20D on the other hand goes to 3200 and the noise at that level is quite manageable. Depends if you need it or not, but if you prefer natural light, it may be a factor.
just my 12 ZA cents :) |
I'm an old-school guy, used to cams like the F1 and F2 Nikons, and the 20D feels much more natural to me. I like mass in a camera. Plus, you're correct that noise is a factor in my decision. Thanx for the feedback.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/14/2005 02:55:11 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Forsaking the poor Nikon!? Are you aware that the D70's button setup is exactly the same as your beloved 5700? I know...it is what I stepped up from. :) |
I'm not in love with the button layout on my 5700. In fact, I intensely dislike it. I was much happier, ergonomically, with the Finepix 4900z. As to the D70/20D debate, the bottom like is that the store I want to deal with (I know the owner) is an authorized Canon dealer and doesn't even carry Nikon. It's a pretty small store. I live in the sticks, basically. There's a Ritz within driving distance, but the personnel turnover there is ridiculous. Never talk to the same person twice... It's frustrating.
At Ritz I handled the D70, the Rebel XT, the 20D, and the Pentax *ist. The 20D looks and feels best to me.
So, yes, I am forsaking Nikon, gawd help me, and going over to the other side...
Robt.
|
|
