| Posted By |
Message |
| spideyj Sat 13th Dec 2008 13:39
|
Hiya everyone,
I'm looking to change my camera and don't know what to buy. I have to film 35mm SLR's that I think I going to trade in, but my digital is a Samsung D85. This little camera is great but I'm severly limited to what I can do with it.
I tend to do quite a bit of wildlife photography as well as the stuff that you see on my postings.
Having two kids, a mortgauge and a job that I love, but doesn't pay much I am restricted on my choice of camera budget.
My question is this; do I go for a DSLR kit then save up for extra lenses or do I go for something like a super zoom prosumer camera?
I've been looking at both and my mind is boggling! Some of the super zoom seem really well priced have decent focal lengths and high megapixel values. But is the image quality as good as a DSLR or is it just an improvement on a digital compact?
Has anyone any thoughts they would like to share?
Thanks,
Lee
|
| lettatj Sat 13th Dec 2008 15:45
|
one of the downsides of the super zoom camera's are the delayed shutter time (I've got an older one myself so I know how irritating that can be) but a positive side may be that some can actually be still quite compact. and it's just easiers to take a small camera, I think.
I do think that DSLR give better quality, but I'm not entirely sure (depends on the cam as well, i guess)
|
| Captivelight PRO Sat 13th Dec 2008 16:22
|
Is the image quality as good? ... on the whole no, due to the smaller sensor sizes usually found in the Prosumer cameras the SLR's have the edge.
As has been mentioned shutter lag time can be a problem, especially with fast moving wild life like birds... Half a second may not seem like a long time until you find you keep missing your subject!
As you said the SLR's are expensive, plus extra for a good lens etc. A friend of mine has a Prosumer with a zoom up to something like 500mm with a good pixel count and it costs about the same as the batteries and battery grip on my SLR.
My feelings about Prosumers is that on the whole they will do so long as you are willing to make compromises... limited action shooting, and not the BEST quality images. I am quite impressed with the newer ones, but still not as good as an SLR.
|
| megmet PRO Sat 13th Dec 2008 16:45
|
I have a DSLR and also a couple of super zooms... which I much prefer, they give you far more versatility, no more changing lenses or carrying them around.
In the New Year I intend to treat myself to yet another new camera, as after being dropped my Canon Powershot S3 IS zoom lens now tends to stick as I turn it on....so I suspect it will eventually break the drive mechanism.
I have in mind the Canon SX 10, it is a 10meg image stabilised 20X wide angle zoom, and is priced around £260 at Amazon.
Complete with the 2.5” vari-angle LCD II with wide viewing angle it makes it possible to get even the most difficult overhead shots, a feature that I have always likes on two of my cameras!
With the 20X zoom lens it would be an ideal camera for those wildlife shots, you can take the shot without having to get close and don't have to worry about having the right lens fitted on camera at the time.
It's a joy to be able to go from long distance shots to super macro mode in an instant, it makes it much less likely that you miss a shot.
The only down side I can see is that there is a noticeable delayed shutter time, but you get used to that!
These super zooms have come a long way in the last few years, they are fine used on auto but are fully capable of being used in full manual mode too....you get the best of both worlds for often less than the price of one lens!
Take a look here…..
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091703canon_sx1is_sx10is.asp
|
| spideyj Mon 15th Dec 2008 09:09
|
Thanks everyone! Looks like it's going to be the prosumer! The shutter lag I'm not too worried about. When shooting wildlife I tend to work in contiuous shooting mode that way I have a selection of pics that I can get rid of and keep the best. Thanks for all your help. It's much appreciated!
Merry Christmas to you all. Hope you have a good one!
Lee
|
| PhotoPro PRO Tue 16th Dec 2008 20:45
|
Originally posted by megmet:
I have in mind the Canon SX 10, it is a 10meg image stabilised 20X wide angle zoom, and is priced around £260 at Amazon.
I agree with Meg on this - a very fine camera. Another to consider is the Nikon P80:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sx10is%2Cnikon_cpp80&show=all
Once you get to 400 ISO you start to notice the noise - pushing the ISO to the limits makes the noise very intrusive on your photo. The shutter lag on the P80 is not to bad (I normally shoot a DSLR) - the best approach to handle shutter lag is to anticipate the shot - often shooting before the "moment". Once you get used to the lag on your camera it becomes almost 2nd nature to anticipate.
|
| spideyj Wed 31st Dec 2008 13:46
|
Hiya everyone,
Well the decision was taken out of my hands! My kids bought me a Fujifilm Prosumer for Christmas and very happy I am too!
The shutter lag doesn't seem to be a problem. In fact it is very quick compared to my compact. The image quality and colour is excellant (I've always been a fan of Fuji film in my 35mm SLR). Photopro is right. As the ISO gets higher the noise becomes more intrusive.
At the moment, I'm still playing with it but will post some shots when I've got something worth posting.
Thanks for all your advice. Happy New Year to you all,
Lee
|
| megmet PRO Fri 6th Feb 2009 01:45
|
Just bought myself the Canon Powershot SX10 IS.... now all I need is for it to stop raining for a short while then I can try it out. :-))
|
| biggles Wed 11th Feb 2009 12:53
|
I'd go out with that budget and look for a second hand Nikon or Canon, something like the D70 or Rebel models, then you get the shutter speed, noise performance, and the ability to upgrade your kit of lenses as time goes on. Plus you can then shoot in RAW format and get greater flexibility and control over your final results. Once you start with RAW you won't look back...
|
| megmet PRO Fri 13th Feb 2009 22:56
|
Originally posted by biggles:
Once you start with RAW you won't look back...
No sorry, I have never been a fan of using RAW, why go through all that when the camera does a pretty good job all on it's own. Get it right first off in the camera and there is no need to mess with the results.
.
I already have the DSLR and the fancy lenses, they sit in the boxes unused and unloved !
I much prefer the flexability of the super zooms and not having to carry all the related gear around, and I don't miss the weight of the DSLR and huge lens either.
There is of course the added bonus in the fact that I never get caught out with the wrong lens on the camera... for that once in a lifetime shot that otherwise I would miss. :-))
|
| biggles Thu 19th Feb 2009 13:51
|
RAW allows you complete control over the process of making your photograph. JPEG fixes the white balance of your image and therefore control over exposure, colour, contrast, noise...all aspects of the image.
I can underexpose by a stop or more to keep blown whites down, then make everything the way I want in the Adobe Bridge stage of PS.
I agree that digi cameras do a good job in the main, but I just prefer the option of being able to do my own work.
|
| DavidNewland PRO Thu 19th Feb 2009 21:27
|
I've never seen any difference in RAW than in my JPEGS - I did a test with photoshop CS3 and found there was nothing I could do in RAW that I couldnt do in JPEG ( and shooting 10FPS the 8gb CF card does fill up in RAW mode !! )
But I am using a Canon EOS-1D Mark III !!
I think RAW is like ISO : Subjective and defined by what's inside the camera you're using.
Before I went to a canon 20D I used a canon powershot pro.
ISO 50 = usable
ISO 200 = snowstorm
then on 20D
ISO 100 - 400 = noise free
800 = noticable noise
1600 = lots of noise
3200 = useless
Now using a Mark III
ISO 50-2500 = amazing
IS0 3200 = Still very usable.
So my guess is there is no definitive " RAW "
|
| megmet PRO Thu 19th Feb 2009 21:54
|
Originally posted by DavidNewland:
I've never seen any difference in RAW than in my JPEGS
Thank you David, you have said what I was meaning....but you did it far more eloquently than I could ever do!
*Big curtsy*
Also like I said, if you get it right in the camera in the first place..... ;-)
|
| biggles Thu 19th Feb 2009 23:41
|
So that's why every single professional photographer on the Planet uses RAW is it?
|
| megmet PRO Thu 19th Feb 2009 23:45
|
Originally posted by biggles:
But they don't, I know quite a few that never use RAW. :-)
|
| biggles Thu 19th Feb 2009 23:53
|
I'm outta here. I'm only a shit photographer I'm afraid.
|
| DragonSpeed PRO Fri 20th Feb 2009 01:37
|
An interesting thread about this and sports photographers: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=559002
|
| biggles Fri 20th Feb 2009 08:56
|
I can see where this comes from. The buffer must be part of it. From my experience, sports photograpers take hundreds of shots to get the right body attitude/ ball position.
I shot at the National Indoor Hockey finals recently and the guy next to me (D3) was shooting continuously. Hockey moves pretty fast and to get a good shot you need to appreciate when a potential good shot is coming along, then fire a burstto cover the period of action. I was advised by the guy who got me the pass for the event that as light levels were low it was best to shoot in RAW to be able to remove noise effectively afterwards.
Imagine at a cricket match, there are 540 balls in a day, and there could be an eye catching photo at each one- that's a lot of images to process! JPEG might be the way to go in that case.
|
| PhotoPro PRO Fri 20th Feb 2009 09:31
|
Originally posted by DavidNewland:
I've never seen any difference in RAW than in my JPEGS - I did a test with photoshop CS3 and found there was nothing I could do in RAW that I couldnt do in JPEG ( and shooting 10FPS the 8gb CF card does fill up in RAW mode !! )
Look closer David - it's there.
I can't find the source, but my understanding is that jpgs are compared to a database (at least on the good cameras - sorry I mean the Nikons) of 10 of 1000's of photos and are adjusted to match - regardless of what settings you choose.
I went to the link that Brian posted and spent about 5 hours reading the blog postings and comparing the blog with the respective authors photos on THEIR websites. With all the insistence on how absolutely right they were and how important seconds are for these high profile images, I was quite frankly a little disappointed to find that the ones screaming loudest were shooting primarily amateur events, high school events and the occasional non-sanctioned/non-pro marathon (both running and bike). Of course opinions by definition are subjective but I wasn't very impressed with any of the action shots I saw. The WB on 90% was off, and 99% conveyed no action or urgency.
When a shooter for the Super Bowl or the World Series, or any other sports event that usually garners >50mm tv viewers says jpg is the way to go - I will listen. I read an article last year by one of the photographers that would be shooting his 12th Super Bowl for SI. He does NO PP. He shoots raw, has 2 runners for the memory cards and the editors sit in a trailor outside. They choose the keepers, batch process and transmit as they process.
This is an argument that could go back and forth forever. I think personal preference probably will play the biggest part in a decision for most shooters. IMHO - anyone interested in "real" action photography will find a method that they feel most comfortable with. I just hope that those without the experience don't automatically dismiss one or the other and are willing to try both and see what they are most comfortable with.
This thread certainly got off track quickly, didn't it?.:-)
|
| DavidNewland PRO Fri 20th Feb 2009 13:21
|
PhotoPro - Although it might be " there " at the top level DSLR's am guessing this would be under laboratory conditions / things the human eye cannot see - I've done a LOT of testing since 8gb is still big enough to use RAW but the tonality and colours in the JPEGS is always identical to what I see.
I've seen RAW on some mid range DSLR's and yes compared to their JPEG counterparts there is a noticable difference to the human eye. I always do WB manually - auto WB even on the Mark III is a guessing game at the best of times ;) That's the one thing they havent quite perfected ( yet ;) )
Rent a Canon Mark III, crank the JPEG setting up to maximum and have a fiddle with photoshop CS3 - you'll be amazed !!!! I doubt there's much in the colour matrix in a JPEG PS CS3 couldnt fix anyway, you have every spectrum under the sun.
And biggles - I know plenty of professionals who shoot JPEG, but again they are using higher end DSLR's although their reasoning for doing so is different to mine : They told me it's too time consuming converting and editing .RAW in the middle of a job where they have to get the photo's edited and uploaded on the fly.
So again RAW / JPEG / ISO / CCD / PIXEL COUNT and many other variables are all subjective to the hardware inside each individual camera.
|
| |
173,284 members
2,597,189 photos
6,996,284 comments
