Which DSLR system to buy into?

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Andy Hewitt, Sep 11, 2006.

  1. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    [Snipped Text]
    Sorry, that was my mistake, I meant to write depth of field - not so
    much the lack of, but the inability to reduce it.
    Indeed, an ND filter (I actually used a polariser quite succesfully)
    helps at the longer exposure end, but nothing at all can be done for the
    higher speed shots.

    Hmm, yes 2 more stops doesn't sound much, but it was about the amount I
    needed. However, it's the wider apatures I'm more interested in, getting
    below F2.8 (F3.3 at full zoom) would really help - my Olympus 500mm
    Zuiko lens goes to F1.4. The other end can be managed a little with ND
    filters, but even then only a stop or so is worthwhile.

    I do have Olympus OM mount lenses that go down to F22 as well, so yes,
    I'm used to having that range to hand. Obviously the long zooms don't
    widen much, F3.4 I think, but they aren't used as much.
    Thanks for asking :)
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Andy Hewitt

    Tony Hall Guest

    Wow! What diameter is the front filter, and do you get a free crane to
    lift it?!?

    :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)

    Tony Hall, Sep 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    LOL, cheeky git.
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 12, 2006
  4. Yup. I'm planning to get ND, for that reason.

    Best of luck. I'm trying not to be tempted (so shouldn't be reading all


    [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
    Michael J Davis
    Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
    the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
    Michael J Davis, Sep 12, 2006
  5. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    Yeah yeah, sod off ;-)
    I'll just use the polariser for now.
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 12, 2006
  6. Andy Hewitt

    Luke Bosman Guest

    Olympus lenses have a 2x multiplier on the Four Thirds system.

    Luke Bosman, Sep 13, 2006
  7. Andy Hewitt

    Trev Guest

    Because the sensor is smaller than 35 mm film, more like 8mm. The depth of
    field at any F stop and distance will allways be greater then what you would
    get on 35mm film. No amount of nd filters will change that
    Trev, Sep 14, 2006
  8. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    I wasn't using ND filters to gain depth of field, just shutter speeds.
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 14, 2006
  9. Andy Hewitt

    Alfred T B Guest

    IMHO, currently film does still offer better picture quality than digital.
    However the market determines which format one should use. Sports/newspaper
    photography seems to have gone over completely to digital for obvious
    reasons but fashion and advertising seem to want medium format film.
    Weddings and social event photography seem to have gone digital. Fine art
    photography utilises large format film. However, it seems that some fine art
    photographers are scanning their images for digital printing. In any case I
    would dump the 35mm SLR for pro/semi-pro work.

    In the context of this query, my option would be to opt for Nikon a they
    have standardised on the APS-C sensor across their range of DSLRS including
    the D2Xs. Canon uses the APS-C sensor for amateurs (and enthusiasts) and a
    full frame sensor for pro and semi-pro photographers.

    I currently use a Pentax 35mm film camera, but I would not recommend Pentax
    digital for anyone with asperations to turn professional. The *ist DL and
    the new K100D are squarely aimed at the beginner. I am similar asperations
    to Andy and hopefully, within the next year I will be purchasing a DSLR
    system also. Unless I can afford the Canon 5D with a couple of lenses, I
    will be purchasing Nikon.

    Alfred T B, Sep 17, 2006
  10. Andy Hewitt

    Alfred T B Guest

    Both Charlie Waite and Joe Cornish use large format 5"x4" film cameras for
    their landscape work. Charlie Waite scans his images and digitally prints on
    fine art paper. Or least that was the case some six months ago. If you plan
    to specialise in landscape I would seriously consider a medium fomat film
    SLR or large format view camera.
    Alfred T B, Sep 17, 2006
  11. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    [Snipped Text]
    Thanks for that, I'm looking more at the entry level stuff for now. My
    plan is to get a step up onto the DSLR ladder, but I'll need to start
    again with all my kit, unless the Olympus system works well enough with
    my existing lenses, it does mean a really big starting over.

    My findings so far:

    From a VFM point of view the Olympus E500 twin lens kit is offering the
    best value at the moment. An 8MP SLR with two lenses covering 28-300mm
    (eqv.) at £519 gives me a package the exactly matches what I have
    already. If I use my existing lenses, I get up to 600mm of lens.

    The Canon EOS350 is still being reviewed very high in tests, and I am
    favouring this at the moment because of the better sensor over the
    contemporaries. However, it's another £130 over the Olympus for similar
    performance and kit.

    The Nikon D50 is also good value, but has a lower MP than the other two.
    It's a similar price to the Olympus though. However a magazine test I
    have here puts the D50 above the E500.

    The image quality test pics I've seen really show that any differences
    between these are quite negligible. The EOS came top, just above the
    D50, but I'm not sure it was the difference in price in extra quality.

    My plan for now is to buy a bargain camera kit (body and two lenses),
    just to get started, as the lenses don't seem to change much up the
    range (on the ready made kits). This will get me started on what I plan
    to do in a semi-pro way. I can then buy a body only further up the range
    if my business plans work out - as well as compliment the lens range if

    It's a very hard call I think, as far as image quality goes, there's
    nothing to worry about. It's the access to accessories and the
    specifications that really matter, and at the moment there still isn't
    much to choose there either.

    Thanks for your input Alfred. I do think you're right though, the Nikon
    is probably the favourable system to get into from a fresh start.
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 17, 2006
  12. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    At the moment, I really cannot afford to do that, I have to buy small
    and build up later. Besides, I'm not planning anything too big out of
    this, just a hobby that might earn a little with the equipment I have.
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 17, 2006
  13. Andy Hewitt

    harrogate3 Guest

    Don't be misled by the race for pixels - more pixels does NOT
    necessarily mean better resolution.

    The Nikon is 6.1Mp, the Canon 8Mp, but they are different sized
    sensors - the Canon is bigger, so pro rata the difference is actually
    quite small.

    I know Bill Gates once famously said 640Kb is enough memory for
    anyone - phew! Unless the intention is to print very big or to crop a
    lot, 5Mp is plenty for any print up to A4. Generally speaking all that
    happens above that is that noise increases. The cell is made up of
    transistors which generate heat: put more transistors on the same
    sized cell and the transistors get hotter as there is less space for
    the heat to be dissipated. The result is (thermal) electrical noise
    which shows up in the picture as, well, noise or grain in saturated
    colours. Some in-camera software is better at removing the effects of
    that noise than others.

    At the end of the day there is little to choose between the different
    makes, particularly the likes of the Nikon, Canon, and the new Sony
    (formerly Konica-Minolta.) The final decision comes down to personal
    preference and how it feels. I have a D70s, my son has a EOS350D. Both
    cameras take similar quality pictures: the Nikon tends (on screen) to
    look under exposed but when printed is fine; the Canon looks better on
    screen but tends to be a little more colour saturated, but again
    produces good prints. The Nikon is heavier and a tad bigger, but it
    suits my hands; the 350 is just a little smaller and lighter but as I
    have fairly long fingers it is not quite so comfortable to hold.

    In the final analysis you pays your money and you takes your choice.
    harrogate3, Sep 17, 2006
  14. Andy Hewitt

    Liz Leyden Guest

    In message <av2Pg.31301$>
    And, as far as I can see, most/all big name wildlife photogs (for whom
    large format was never a serious option) have moved to dSLRs, mostly
    the top-of-the-range Canons.


    Liz Leyden, Sep 17, 2006
  15. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    [Snipped Text]
    Yup, I guess so.
    Cropping is probably something I will be doing, and printing to A4 (well
    10x8 anyway).
    I would prefer the slight larger size of the Nikon. However, I've just
    been over the Steve's Digicams, and used the sample shots to do a
    critical comparison between the EOS350, E500 and D50. As you say, there
    is very little to choose. For sure a little more saturation in the Canon
    shot. I'd actually put the E500 above the D50 though, there was
    definitely better definition in there, and more detail in parts (like
    wood grain). The EOS350 was just about the best of the three, but only

    Considering the cost of each, the choice becomes very unclear at this
    point. For a bang-for-bucks package I still think the Olympus stuff is
    very hard to beat - I've found a E500+twin lens kit for £480.

    Ho-hum. Next step is to go and handle some in the flesh, then I'll
    perhaps have a better idea.

    Andy Hewitt, Sep 17, 2006
  16. Have you considered the new K10D?

    See <http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxk10d/>.

    Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Sep 18, 2006
  17. Andy Hewitt

    Alfred T B Guest

    That's perfectly unstandable, as they were probably using top-of-the-range
    Canon film cameras. The TOTR Canon uses a full -frame sensor and therefore
    the lens characteristics will not have the multiplication factor to be
    considered. Its almost certain the pro-Nikon users will/have jumped to
    Nikon digital. My ex-tutor uses Hasselblad and still uses film as the price
    of a digital back is currently extortionate as is his investment in 'blad

    OTOH, starting from scatch gives one carte blanch to pick whatever system
    suits. For reasons stated in an earlier post, I think Nikon is probably best
    if one wants to eventually upgrade. Especially with the availabilty of the
    new D80.

    Incidentally, I don't know about Canon, but the Nikon, vibration reduction
    system is a joy to use. And I would guess that VR is an essential for
    wildlife photography.


    Alfred T B, Sep 20, 2006
  18. Andy Hewitt

    Alfred T B Guest

    Thats good news, I was not aware of this camera. I may be able to stick with
    Pentax afterall. I was actually expecting Pentax to skip 35mm digital apart
    from at entry level and jump to medium format digital where the market is
    still open.

    Alfred T B, Sep 20, 2006
  19. Andy Hewitt

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    [Snipped Text]
    Yes, I agree with you there, from a cost, performance and flexibility
    point of view, the Nikon system seems the best option. However, in my
    case the starting from scratch bit isn't so clear.
    That is something I do like on the Panasonic FZ7 I have, although it
    isn't by any means a feature I couldn't live without myself (this is the
    first time I've ever used it).
    Andy Hewitt, Sep 20, 2006
  20. Andy Hewitt

    Bandicoot Guest

    Based on those bodies, alas no, neither, probably, would I - though a
    student on the last course I taught was using a *ist DL2 and I did like the
    results it produced. Maybe the K10D, when it comes out, will be a very
    different animal to the current Pentax DSLRs - the spec. on the
    pre-production version looks good, and retains many of the features that are
    so nice in Pentax film bodies ("Hyper-Programme", for one).

    But I use Pentax for my 35mm work because of the lenses, and for anyone used
    to (spoilt by?) Pentax's best glass, an enforced move to Nikon might come as
    a shock, and a move to Canon, unless you are interested only in long lenses,
    could be a big disappointment. Nikon's glass has a very different look,
    that I like much more for B&W than I do for colour, while Canon's 'look' I
    don't like at all, and their wide lenses are awful. There's also the
    ubiquity of the Canon look in a lot of published pictures currently, and the
    different look of my work - partly because of style, partly because I use
    film, but also partly because of my lens choice - certainly helps sales.

    Bandicoot, Oct 6, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.