| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Callunna
Revolving Grey Blob
3044 Posts
|
|
 Posted -
08/09/2011
:
18:15
|
... more like dreaming if I'm being truthful but say I had £800 - £1000 to spend on a new camera, what would I buy?
I've narrowed it down to the Canon EOS 600D or Sony A55 but there may be other models out there which are better.
I would want just one zoom lens to cover a wide range, because I can't be doing with faffing about changing lenses and probably dropping them, although I'm aware such a lens will adversely affect the picture quality to a small degree. But I'm not going to be turning professional photographer so it doesn't matter too much.
I would also need to include a good bag/case, plenty of memory and battery power in that price, perhaps even with a tripod thrown in.
And would I dare buy it on tinterweb or should I play safe by going to a local shop?
=================== www.sheldrickrose.co.ukwww.bernulf.co.ukwww.bernulfsplace.co.uk
|
|
| Replies |
| Author |
|
|
Bradders
|
 Posted - 18/09/2011 : 00:33
I think Nikon have got it right , in terms of continuity. (buttons in the same place etc....and they are ).
The fact that they have continued to use the same bayonet lens fitting , when other makers "abandoned" their old customers , is to be commended .
When Ernst Leitz made his first 35 mm cameras available to the public , it had a fixed lens . Subsequent models were offered with a range of interchangable lenses . Within a very short time (a year or two) , a standard was adopted whereby all subsequent Leica Lenses would be "in register" on all Leica Range -Finder Cameras........That is still the case today. (they did the same with SLRs ...their first bayonet fitting is still in use , today )
Early Nikon cameras followed the Zeiss Contax design.... (metallic vertical focal plane shutter and a bayonet mount lens) ..Canon followed Leica (Horizontal cloth blind focal plane shutter , and 39mm screw -fit lenses )...Each offered very fine equipment , but I have to say that from the introduction of the SLR , Nikon "got it right " and Canon have been playing "catch-up" ever since.....
PS Having said that ....It's a bit like comparing a Bentley and Royce........eh !
Edited by - Bradders on 18/09/2011 12:58:34 AM
BRADDERS BLUESINGER  |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 18/09/2011 : 05:47
I agree Brad. Now then, I have a technical question and have been unable to get a clear answer despite a search on tinternetwebthingy. In the days when my beard was black we all knew that there was a penalty incurred with faster film caused by grain size. I'm sure you remember the acres of arguments in the journals about grain size and the arguments pro and con. With the D200 I can go up to I think it's 1600 ASA (ISO now of course) but have set it to 400, the same as my beloved Tri-X because I know the settings off by heart.
My question is: Is there still a penalty in terms of image quality incurred by using the faster ISO settings. Obviously grain size doesn't come into it of course but is some other factor at work? In other words, will an image at 100ISO be better quality than one at 1600ISO?
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Bradders
|
Posted - 18/09/2011 : 09:53
I'm not sure on that one , so I try to keep below 800 ASA .......and mostly use 200/400......I think there is something called "Noise" which interferes with quality when you go higher......
Having said that , the higher settings are very useful in very dark situations (obviously !) but you tend to get a false "daylight " effect .
I always thought XP-2 was funny stuff ....under expose it and the grain got finer !
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Big Kev
|
Posted - 18/09/2011 : 09:56
quote:
Stanley wrote:
I agree Brad. Now then, I have a technical question and have been unable to get a clear answer despite a search on tinternetwebthingy. In the days when my beard was black we all knew that there was a penalty incurred with faster film caused by grain size. I'm sure you remember the acres of arguments in the journals about grain size and the arguments pro and con. With the D200 I can go up to I think it's 1600 ASA (ISO now of course) but have set it to 400, the same as my beloved Tri-X because I know the settings off by heart.
My question is: Is there still a penalty in terms of image quality incurred by using the faster ISO settings. Obviously grain size doesn't come into it of course but is some other factor at work? In other words, will an image at 100ISO be better quality than one at 1600ISO?
In a word, yes. It's called noise now, rather than grain. Do yourself some test shots using the different ISO settings and then compare using your Image Manipulation program of choice. You'll notice a degredation in image quality the higher the ISO (to be expected) but this can be reduced, within your program of choice...
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Bradders
|
Posted - 19/09/2011 : 00:00
For years I've been using a big Metz (45CT 4) flashgun with a straight forward coax cable ...(and not bothering about the Auto /TTL functions).....
Yesterday it started "playing up" so I cut the cable and re-soldered a fresh plug on it....Sorted !
Today, I thought I'd see if I could find a spare on Ebay......
To cut a long story short , I've just bought a proper Metz SCA 344 Nikon TTL super-dooper module and cable jobby for 99p ! .....(+£2.50 p&p) .......
Now I'm going to have to learn how to drive the camera again....
Happy Days !
Edited by - Bradders on 19/09/2011 12:04:55 AM
BRADDERS BLUESINGER |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 19/09/2011 : 06:20
At one point in my career I decided I needed a 'proper' flash gun. Normally I hated flash and used available light, with TriX I always gave it a stop extra over exposure and under developed it. Roger and Daniel taught me that rtick and it worked. I forget what the brand of flash was but it needed a separate battery pack and on full output it was impressive! Roger had one as well and his description was 'That it would light Pendle Hill!' Favourite way of using it was to bounce the flash off a wall or the ceiling and it was a good tool but incredibly bulky! Another trick was to drape a white handkerchief over it, far cheaper that the expensive accessories and just as good a diffuser.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 19/09/2011 : 06:22
PS. I forgot to thank you both. I read about 'noise' in the destructions but didn't fully understand it. I have it set at 400 at the moment but will remember the higher setting for low light. Thanks for the advice.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Big Kev
|
Posted - 19/09/2011 : 09:15
quote:
Stanley wrote:
PS. I forgot to thank you both. I read about 'noise' in the destructions but didn't fully understand it. I have it set at 400 at the moment but will remember the higher setting for low light. Thanks for the advice.
Just keep playing with it. You'll find it will be consistent once you get used to it...
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Tizer
|
Posted - 19/09/2011 : 10:06
Having only just got my Canon 600D I can't comment on high ISO and noise in a DSLR but it's well documented in digital compacts because these suffer much more from high ISO noise than DSLRs . Here is a link to a 5-page article on High ISO in compact cameras - it delves into the background of ISO settings in general and so would be of interest to anyone with a digital camera, not just a compact. [LINK] It also show plenty of examples of noisy images. (I've found the DPReview web site and its forums very useful for everything to do with digital cameras.)
Have a look also at this page from the same web site. [LINK] It's the page in the D600 review which compares ISO settings and noise in this camera to those of three others. Scroll down to the line of ISO numbers just below the JPEG table then run your cursor across the ISOs and see the images change. I'm not sure what your camera is (other than a Nikon) Stanley, but if you put the name in the search box on this site you may find a similar comparison table for it.
Digital cameras often have settings for degree of noise reduction but many photographers seem to frown on this in-camera processing.
Edited by - Tizer on 19/09/2011 10:07:24
Edited by - Tizer on 19/09/2011 10:08:46
|
Big Kev
|
Posted - 19/09/2011 : 10:12
quote:
Tizer wrote:
Digital cameras often have settings for degree of noise reduction but many photographers seem to frown on this in-camera processing.
The in camera noise reduction can be useful but I prefer to shoot in RAW format as it keeps all the information the ccd "sees". I then use Photoshop to process the image. RAW images have been referred to as digital negatives, it leaves a lot more scope for manipulation and, if required, recovery of poor exposure...
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Tizer
|
Posted - 19/09/2011 : 15:58
Processing RAW images on the computer is fine for special shots but I probably won't be doing it for my holiday photos which usually run to a few hundred pics! I can't use the Canon RAW software on my Linux PC, though I have tried some free software called UFRaw. So far I haven't got anything better than my JPG images from it. But I'm probably using it the wrong way, it's not very user-friendly.
|
Big Kev
|
Posted - 19/09/2011 : 19:46
Main reason I'm still using Windows, I do like Photoshop. The RAW converter, for the Olympus, is very easy to use.
Big Kev
It doesn't matter who you vote for, you always end up with the government. |
Another
Traycle Mine Overseer
6250 Posts
|
|
Posted - 21/09/2011 : 07:46
What about this camera.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2039566/Worlds-smallest-camera-fits-fingertip.html
From the DM. Nolic
" I'm a self made man who worships his creator"  |
Tizer
|
Posted - 21/09/2011 : 09:29
I'd lose it in the first few days then find it later by treading on it!
|
Stanley
Local Historian & Old Fart
36804 Posts
|
|
Posted - 22/09/2011 : 05:55
I just weighed the D200 with the 20mm lens. 2lb 9oz in old money! Ridiculous but splendid!
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View
stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk |
Thinking of buying a new camera...
