|
|
 |
|
05-26-2004, 11:23 AM
|
#1 of 43 
|
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 584
|
Ruined!
So I've been using the Nikon D100 lately. (6mp SLR).. It wasn't mine though.. Are there options out there which will produce similar quality for bargain price? (I've heard great things about Canon) I can't even look at the images from my 2MP camera anymore. 
|
|
|
|
05-26-2004, 11:37 AM
|
#2 of 43
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Local Time: 10:50 AM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 314
|
Check out the Canon Digital Rebel. 6.3MP, and very affordable as far as DSLRs go (~USD$900). I love mine!
//km
If you don't believe that ninjas have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
05-26-2004, 01:19 PM
|
#3 of 43
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 1,644
|
Nikon has an "entry-level" D70 digital SLR out.
It's a bit more expensive than the Rebel ($1300 with Nikon zoom lens, as compared to $1000 for the Rebel kit). Reviewers like it a lot, in part because they claim that it has very low lag.
There are a few eight-megapixel all-in-one digital cameras with flash shoes (e.g., Canon PowerShot Pro1, Sony DSC-F828(?)). They're about the same price as the Digital Rebel. One advantage is that you can use the LCD screen to compose the picture before a shot (this is not possible on a SLR). Another is that some offer very long zoom ranges (10x) with surprisingly fast lenses (by SLR zoom lens standards).
Disadvantages of the high-end all-in-one cameras include an inability to use interchangeable lenses, and smaller physical pixel sizes.
|
|
|
|
|
05-27-2004, 01:04 PM
|
#4 of 43
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 5,000
|
Careful with the zoom ranges listed by digital camera manufacturers...these are DIGITAL zoom, not optical zoom!
Typically non-SLR digital cameras offer 2x-5x optical zoom, with digital interpolation for the fake 10x-14x zooms...
Mahatma Gandhi, as you know, walked barefoot most of the time, which produced an impressive set of calluses on his feet. He also ate very little, which made him rather frail and with his odd diet, he suffered from bad breath. This made him...a super-callused fragile mystic hexed by halitosis.
Gameshow host: "Is taking Viagra kosher during Passover dinner?"
Whoopee Goldberg: "Not if it leads to pork."
Kermit the Frog: "Hey, that's my line!"
|
|
|
|
|
05-27-2004, 04:10 PM
|
#5 of 43
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 1,644
|
Quote:
Careful with the zoom ranges listed by digital camera manufacturers...these are DIGITAL zoom, not optical zoom!
|
I'm talking about digital cameras with long optical zooms. Most of the current 8 megapixel "prosumer" crop have zoom lenses with 7x to 10x optical zoom factors. I think that the Olympus has a smaller zoom range, but maybe a better-quality lens (going by the review on the dpreview site).
I'm pretty sure the zoom range comes from a combination of small sensor size (normally a BAD thing, but presumably it reduces the bulk of the required lenses) and "large" (for point-and-shoot) lenses. (The Sony looks and feels very much like a digital camera grafted onto a traditional 70 - 210 mm SLR zoom lens ... only the optical zoom is longer.)
One thing I have noticed about prosumer digital cameras that seems a bit odd is that you can't stop down smaller than f/8. |
|
|
|
|
05-31-2004, 05:59 PM
|
#6 of 43
|
|
John Rice
Member
Location: Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2000
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 8,329
|
Quote:
|
One advantage is that you can use the LCD screen to compose the picture before a shot (this is not possible on a SLR).
|
HUH?
So, you can't see what you are shooting with a digital SLR? I'm sure that's not what you meant to say, but it is what you seem to be implying. Digital SLRs either have an optical viewfinder or an electronic one, both of which certainly allow composition of a shot. |
|
|
|
|
05-31-2004, 10:59 PM
|
#7 of 43
|
|
Member
Join Date: Feb 1999
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 1,174
|
agreed. I HATE HATE HATE using LCD screens to compose shots. Totally unnatural if you're coming from a film SLR background. Electronic viewfinders generally look like crap as well. Also, I think a standard TTL viewfinder offers a very important feature that built in zoom/LCD screens doesn't -- depth of field preview. For this reason alone I would never buy one (I have a D70).
Quote:
Disadvantages of the high-end all-in-one cameras include an inability to use interchangeable lenses, and smaller physical pixel sizes.
|
Smaller sizes ? My dad's Sony F828 produces larger files (14MB 3264 x 2448 vs. 5MB 3008 x 2000 RAW) than my D70, which would be expected as it's a 8MP camera vs my 6.3MP.
|
|
|
|
|
05-31-2004, 11:54 PM
|
#8 of 43
|
|
John Rice
Member
Location: Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2000
Local Time: 08:50 AM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 8,329
|
Besides, generally the SLRs which have electronic viewfinders (I believe the Nikon D100 has one) also let you use the back LCD for composition, so there is no reason it is not possible with an SLR.
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
05-31-2004, 11:56 PM
|
#9 of 43
|
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 1,644
|
Quote:
HUH?
So, you can't see what you are shooting with a digital SLR? I'm sure that's not what you meant to say, but it is what you seem to be implying.
|
That's not what I said. I said: "One advantage is that you can use the LCD screen to compose the picture before a shot (this is not possible on a SLR)." The pronoun "this" refers to the option to use the LCD screen.
Quote:
Digital SLRs either have an optical viewfinder or an electronic one, both of which certainly allow composition of a shot.
|
The optical viewfinder functions because of the mirror/prism arrangement. This same mirror/prism arrangement prevents any light from getting to the electronic sensor while the picture is being composed. No light = no signal for the camera to display on the LCD monitor. Thus, in a review of a DSLR, one reviewer made note of how you did not get to see the picture on screen until after you had taken it.
This is very different from the operation of a camera like the Sony F-828 or the Canon Powershot Pro1, where you can use the LCD screen to show the view through the lens before the camera takes the picture. On that type of camera, the viewfinder and the LCD screen are alternative monitors for the same source of image data. A tradeoff is that there is no option to use an optical viewfinder to compose through the lens (and most EVFs are sub-VGA resolution).
Quote:
Smaller sizes ? My dad's Sony F828 produces larger files (14MB 3264 x 2448 vs. 5MB 3008 x 2000 RAW) than my D70, which would be expected as it's a 8MP camera vs my 6.3MP.
|
I said "physical pixel size", not file size.
Physical pixel size is a function of sensor area, divided by number of pixels. If your camera has a bigger sensor and fewer pixels than the F828, it has a bigger pixel size. From what I have read in reviews, bigger pixels are better pixels: they have higher signal-to-noise ratios. |
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
06-01-2004, 12:03 AM
|
#10 of 43
|
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 1999
Local Time: 10:50 PM
Local Date: 09-07-2008
Posts: 276
|
Quote:
|
Disadvantages of the high-end all-in-one cameras include an inability to use interchangeable lenses, and smaller physical pixel sizes.
|
Quote:
|
Smaller sizes ? My dad's Sony F828 produces larger files (14MB 3264 x 2448 vs. 5MB 3008 x 2000 RAW) than my D70, which would be expected as it's a 8MP camera vs my 6.3MP.
|
Non-SLR digital cameras oftentimes have a higher pixel count than dSLRs but their sensor size is smaller. The Sony 828 has a 2/3" CCD sensor (8.8 x 6.6 mm) while the D70 has a 23.7 x 15.6 mm CCD sensor, more than 6 times larger than the Sony.
Pixel count isn't everything....for now a 6.3MP dSLR beats an 8MP prosumer hands down. |
|
|
| |
