snubbr.com

A Budget of $900~, question.
I am looking to upgrade from a point and shoot to a dSLR before my trip to Europe so I have done a lot of reading. I basically limited it down to the Oly E-510 and the Revel XTI..

Only issue was that each one was lacking a feature I felt I needed. The XTi didnt have Spot and came with a crappy lens and no IS where as the E-510 came with IS but in the camera itself (meh) but it had Spot. There were a couple other issues I had as well but don't bear mention..

So I go to the store to demo these and the sales men mentions the XSi coming out in a month. Went home a read up on it. Seems like all the issues I had with the Canon were resolved..

So my basic question is, for a beginner that is willing and wants to learn and is looking at spending no more that $900 (before tax) would the XSi be the best investment? If not can the users here please recommend something else? And why would you take this over the XSi?.

I plan to mainly do outdoor shooting and I'de hope to be able to handle light well for night shots and sunrise/sunsets...

Comments (56)

The XSi would be a good place to start. The new EFS 18-55 kit lens with IS is a winner, with great image quality. Plus Canon has the largest collection of lenses available..

I've been using the outdated RebelXT for 3 years and it's done me no wrong..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.edwardintoronto.com-=Ed=-..

Comment #1

Efface wrote:.

Only issue was that each one was lacking a feature I felt I needed.The XTi didnt have Spot and came with a crappy lens and no IS whereas the E-510 came with IS but in the camera itself (meh) but it hadSpot. There were a couple other issues I had as well but don't bearmention..

I think you're obsessing over spot metering, which really isn't nearly as useful as a histogram for digital cameras- while there are times that having a spot meter function is important, they're mostly minimized by having a histogram..

So my basic question is, for a beginner that is willing and wants tolearn and is looking at spending no more that $900 (before tax) wouldthe XSi be the best investment? If not can the users here pleaserecommend something else? And why would you take this over the XSi?.

Your camera body is going to be replaced in 2-3 years on average, so getting the cheapest body you can live with is the best answer. Newer, lower-end bodies are gaining features with each release. I'd take advantage of the price drop the XSi should provide to get the XTi at a lower price..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #2

I would go for the E510 in a heartbeat. The Oly has better kit lenses. Better range with the kit lenses. In body IS. Live View. Sensor dust removal that works.



The ONLY thing that the XTi has over the Oly is high ISO performance. No arguement out of the camera Canon is better. After Post Processing and printing I can't tell the difference between the high ISO performance..

Here is a link to my E510 test shots..

Http://www.pbase.com/maddogmd11/tests.

But feel free to look around the site. All shots were taken with an E500 or E510. Don't get me wrong the XTi is a good camera. The E510 is a better value overall..

JimOlympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it...

Comment #3

Paul, another concern with the Canon XTi was the lack of IS and from what I read one of the poorest kit lens..

Is it worth it to get the XTi at a lower price if the lowest IS lens I can buy for it is an additional $5-600?.

That I felt was part of the appeal of the XSi, good kit lens with IS...

Comment #4

Yea I noticed in comparison shots that the Oly had more noise at higher ISO, but wasn't the hugest concern for me as I don't think I will be doing gigantic prints..

As for the in body IS I've read that it's not as good as having an in lens IS, is this true or false?.

I also kept reading that the Oly has a cleaner that "works" do these Canons dust system fail in some way? Please explain...

Comment #5

Efface wrote:.

As for the in body IS I've read that it's not as good as having an inlens IS, is this true or false?.

Depends who you talk to. There is only 1 "system" that has an in lens IS and in body IS. That is the 4/3s which Oly uses. Here is a link to a YOUTUBE video done by camera labs which compares in body vs in lens which I believe provides an independent and fair evaluation..

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPdy52mR6Io.

I also kept reading that the Oly has a cleaner that "works" do theseCanons dust system fail in some way? Please explain..

I honestly can't comment on the Canon's new dust protection because I have not used the camera. I can say I know that Oly's works. Yes I am careful but I have never had an issue with dust on the sensor in over 2 years of using the cameras..

JimOlympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it...

Comment #6

Efface wrote:.

Paul, another concern with the Canon XTi was the lack of IS and fromwhat I read one of the poorest kit lens..

Lens selection is a completely different story- part of it depends highly on what you expect to need lens-wise. Kit lenses are generally good deals, but getting a body only and a couple of lenses may be a better overall choice..

Is it worth it to get the XTi at a lower price if the lowest IS lensI can buy for it is an additional $5-600?.

That I felt was part of the appeal of the XSi, good kit lens with IS..

A good kit lens is important. I've never really bought into the IS uber alles thing- I shoot Nikon, but I only own one lens that has VR, and I very, very rarely use that lens. If the delta between what you'd otherwise get is higher with the XTi, then get the XSi- spend as little as you can up front, as your priorities and needs will evolve as you get more experience. I think a tripod is a better choice than IS, but then I've shot a lot of large and medium format film over the years and I think there's more to be gained by slowing down and composing shots than off-the-cuff handheld shots, but part of it depends on what you shoot- if it's events, or from a boat, then IS might be more important..

For wide angle, it seems like it's overkill anyway..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #7

Thank you very much for that youtube link. Answered my question regarding in body or lens IS as a choice...

Comment #8

Well some good news, my friend that works at the local Best Buy called me and they JUST got the 450d in (month early?) So I think I'm going to go check it out after dinner ..

Comment #9

Well I'm disappointed .

Guess it was too good to be true. Guess they just got the Nikon D60...DOH!!!.

My buddy got what I wanted mixed up ..

Comment #10

Hi,.

I just recently bought me a dslr too for a vacation that I am planning and after careful deliberation I went with the e-510. An important reason for that was, that it's just smaller, lighter and has really small and light kit lenses too..

Since I am new to dslr and used to carry a p&s around I didn't want too much of extra weight to lug around each day and the e-510 is really excellent in that regard. It took some time, practice and playing with the different settings to get the pictures the way I like them but now I wonder how I could ever have managed without..

I knew that soon new models of other manufacturers would be released but looking at the typical prices means that I would have to pay twice as much and that I might have to buy extra lenses beause of bad kit lenses too and who knows how they really would perform without a decent review that would certainly also take some time until it would be released..

There are less lenses for the 4/3rd system but as far as I can see that only means that there are less bad lenses ..

Since the e-510 has the inbody IS and the great kit lenses and is really very cheap right now I am good to go for my vacation and a whole lot after that and have some money left that I can use on accessories or spend on my vacation..

All I need is maybe a flash and a couple more cf cards (you might have to calculate those not so cheap accessories in too) ....

But in the end I recommend you go to a store and really play with the dslrs you intend to buy for some time. It was a real eyeopener for me.....

Comment #11

Good read, thanks for your input!.

Hopefully you might put up some of your pictures so I can see how you did with your new cam ..

Comment #12

You could buy the body only for about $500 now, then add a 50mm 1.8 for about $85 for great speed and low light. The 18-55 IS ($175) I hear is much better than the regular 18-55 which I agree is not a very nice lens. You could have the XTi body, 50mm 1.8, and 18-55 IS for about $750-800 total. Enough left for a nice big CF card..

If you can eek out a couple hundred more than your budget I think you can pick up a 17-40L for about $600. The XTi body and the 17-40L would give you an effective range of about 27-65mm which is very useful and with great image quality. You could have that combo for about $1100..

Efface wrote:.

Paul, another concern with the Canon XTi was the lack of IS and fromwhat I read one of the poorest kit lens..

Is it worth it to get the XTi at a lower price if the lowest IS lensI can buy for it is an additional $5-600?.

That I felt was part of the appeal of the XSi, good kit lens with IS..

I don't know anything about photography. I just like to press the shutter button and hear that sound...

Comment #13

Avaron wrote:.

There are less lenses for the 4/3rd system but as far as I can seethat only means that there are less bad lenses ..

Lots of people say this and I don't understand why. I counted the available lenses on the market now for 4/3 cameras. There are 31 and there will be 2 more from Sigma in the next couple of months..

I can't say if this is more or less then Nikon or Canon or anyone else. I can say that there are more then I will ever need, buy, or use..

JimOlympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it...

Comment #14

If your serious about pursuing photography I would recommend Canon over Olympus. For one the Oly has a crop factor of 2x, which you will miss out on imo. Pls be aware that a crop factor ONLY influences the field of view NOT the focal lenght..

2. Olympus/Zuiko lenses are more expensive and harder to come by, especially second hand or if you need to rent one.3. In the end Oly only offers 1 pro body, which is real decently prised though..

I'm shooting Olympus and a really happy with the camera and lenses but for the above I can't wait to switch to Canon, hopefully this summer!When the power of love conquers the love for power the world will know peace..

Comment #15

Pauluminous wrote:.

If your serious about pursuing photography I would recommend Canonover Olympus. For one the Oly has a crop factor of 2x, which you willmiss out on imo. Pls be aware that a crop factor ONLY influences thefield of view NOT the focal lenght..

Totally true however I have not noticed that big an issue. Certainly wide angle shots are not as wide. But how many times doe that really hurt one of your shots. Lastly lets look at the kit lens. The oly comes with a 14mm and the Canon with (one of it's many) 18mm at the wide end. The end result is darn near equal..

2. Olympus/Zuiko lenses are more expensive and harder to come by,especially second hand or if you need to rent one..

Lenses of equiv quality are NOT more expensive. In fact I would argue that the low end OLYs are quality wise equiv to the mid range lenses from canon. The Sigmas that fit both canon and 4/3 are identically priced. Additionally the Oly will have IS on all lenses so don't forget to factor that in as well..

3. In the end Oly only offers 1 pro body, which is real decentlypriced though..

Why do you need more then 1? And actually I don't consider the E3 to be a true pro camera. It competes with the D300 or the E40D not with the top of either the Nikon or Canon line. Of course they don't compete in price..

I'm shooting Olympus and a really happy with the camera and lensesbut for the above I can't wait to switch to Canon, hopefully thissummer!.

If you are happy with the Oly why change? What lenses do you have now?.

Jim.

When the power of love conquers the love for power the world willknow peace.

Olympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it...

Comment #16

Maddogmd11 wrote:.

Lots of people say this and I don't understand why..

Tbh, me neither....

I never bothered to really count all the oly, nikon, canon, whatever lenses. It doesn't really matter anyway, since the available lenses *are* excellent in quality and the range they cover...

Comment #17

Maddogmd11 wrote:.

I'm shooting Olympus and a really happy with the camera and lensesbut for the above I can't wait to switch to Canon, hopefully thissummer!.

If you are happy with the Oly why change? What lenses do you have now?.

So that he *could* upgrade to a body that he probably is never going to buy anyway and wouldn't bring *that* much of an improvement either..

Ah well, to each his own... I like my e-510...

Comment #18

Maddogmd11 wrote:.

Pauluminous wrote:.

If your serious about pursuing photography I would recommend Canonover Olympus. For one the Oly has a crop factor of 2x, which you willmiss out on imo. Pls be aware that a crop factor ONLY influences thefield of view NOT the focal lenght..

Totally true however I have not noticed that big an issue. Certainlywide angle shots are not as wide. But how many times doe that reallyhurt one of your shots. Lastly lets look at the kit lens. The olycomes with a 14mm and the Canon with (one of it's many) 18mm at thewide end. The end result is darn near equal..

Shooting mainly landscapes I do miss the wider point of view, especially since the OP is using it firstly on a trip, the wider the better, imho..

When you only look at the kit lenses then yah but further down the road a wider point of view is again, imho, better. Compared to a 40D you're missing about 25% POV. (1.6 vs 2 x).

2. Olympus/Zuiko lenses are more expensive and harder to come by,especially second hand or if you need to rent one..

Lenses of equiv quality are NOT more expensive. In fact I wouldargue that the low end OLYs are quality wise equiv to the mid rangelenses from canon. The Sigmas that fit both canon and 4/3 areidentically priced. Additionally the Oly will have IS on all lensesso don't forget to factor that in as well..

Agreed zuiko lenses are better quality, third party lenses are similar priced but to gain equal quality at higher end lenses Canon produces the same quality pictures at lower cost. ie canon's 70-200 IS 4L goes for under $1000, Zuiko's 50-200 F2.8-3.5 goes for just over $1000. Both have IS, the Oly is more then twice a heavy (5 lbs vs 2 lbs) and a couple of hundred more expensive plus again (it is a big issue for me  )you'll a quarter of the POV  In this case you'll benefit on both from IS and the 40D is capable of producing decend photos at over ISO 1600 while Oly doesn't seem to do so over ISO 400 so bumping you ISO will result in the same thing..

3. In the end Oly only offers 1 pro body, which is real decentlypriced though..

Why do you need more then 1? And actually I don't consider the E3 tobe a true pro camera. It competes with the D300 or the E40D not withthe top of either the Nikon or Canon line. Of course they don'tcompete in price..

Agreed, though a point that speaks more for Canon then for Oly. Eventually I would like to shoot and till some extend already shooting for money  A back up/2nd camera is a must, then preferably a crop and a full frame body..

I'm shooting Olympus and a really happy with the camera and lensesbut for the above I can't wait to switch to Canon, hopefully thissummer!.

If you are happy with the Oly why change? What lenses do you have now?.

I'm still using the kit lenses and after researching my options between Oly (with which again I'm very happy), Canon, Nikon etc etc I decided for myself that a Canon system would benefit me more, hence the statements before and I decided not to pump money into my existing Oly system but save up and switch systems altogether. And not with kit lenses either..

PaulWhen the power of love conquers the love for power the world will know peace..

Comment #19

I would suggest a new / used Rebel XT. the MP you won't miss unless you're printing over 20x30 and the features you use losing the XT instead of a better camera don't even compare to the better the shots you'll have with quality glass.good luck.

Canon Gear.

Http://www.pbase.com/twestjust getting started .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #20

Avaron wrote:.

Maddogmd11 wrote:.

I'm shooting Olympus and a really happy with the camera and lensesbut for the above I can't wait to switch to Canon, hopefully thissummer!.

If you are happy with the Oly why change? What lenses do you have now?.

So that he *could* upgrade to a body that he probably is never goingto buy anyway and wouldn't bring *that* much of an improvement either..

Ah well, to each his own... I like my e-510..

Dunno where that sarcasm's coming from. but indeed to each his own. I stated that I wanted to get a Canon setup this summer if that doesn't happen, no biggy! It would be nice and so far with how summer's looking for work it should be ok, I would be happily shooting with my Oly after that, if it doesn't happen..

And for all the reasons I gave and that are important to me in a camera system it'll be a huge improvement. But those are my opinions and the OP wanted our thoughts on this matter, so I don't see the need to shoot somebody down who doesn't agree with your pov!.

And just to top it off; one more minus point for Oly, hence this is my opinion , it's mine and only an opinion!!  Besides loosing vow on a 2x crop body, obviously Oly also gets you 4x3 files, which are pretty uncommon in print as well as on the web so that would mean cropping even more..

When the power of love conquers the love for power the world will know peace..

Comment #21

Pauluminous wrote:.

Dunno where that sarcasm's coming from. but indeed to each his own. Istated that I wanted to get a Canon setup this summer if that doesn'thappen, no biggy! It would be nice and so far with how summer'slooking for work it should be ok, I would be happily shooting with myOly after that, if it doesn't happen..

There are a bunch of brand-fans who seem to need to validate their brand choices to feel good about themselves. Worse than people who won't pile in with them are people who abandon their favorite brand- it's almost amusing that they don't tend to own stock in the brands they like- at least then they'd be getting some gain from their fervor..

And for all the reasons I gave and that are important to me in acamera system it'll be a huge improvement. But those are my opinionsand the OP wanted our thoughts on this matter, so I don't see theneed to shoot somebody down who doesn't agree with your pov!.

The camera is a tool, different tools often have different characteristics. Having shot everything from 5x7 down to actual APS, I'll happily choose the right tool for the job. I wish you the best of luck in getting a Canon system- I'm sure you'll get the images you want from it..

Just ignore the fanboys and their blind brand loyalty..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #22

LOL.

Thanks Paul!.

Yea it's just like anything else in the consumer world. You can find pro's and con's for anything and will always have fans..

My local store just got the Nikon D60 in....I'm feeling really impatient and want to get that instead of the 450d (who really needs live view? ) But for all I know it might be better to buy the D40, e-510, or 400d and spend the saved money on a lense..

I am honestly torn at this point since I know that my body will be a several year investment and knowing myself and the way I pursue things...I will really get into my camera and photography. Scared to make the wrong purchase..

I Probably won't notice a differance between all these choices so I am wondering if I should just boil it down to who's interface I like the most (the Nikon) or who's body I like the most (The Canon) or which comes with the most bang for the buck (The Olympic with two kit lenses)...

Comment #23

Just going by body for 20x30 print's, would you still go with the XT? I am honestly not too concerned with MP on a entry level dSLR as I know that number of MP != a quality picture...

Comment #24

Efface wrote:.

LOL.

Thanks Paul!.

Yea it's just like anything else in the consumer world. You can findpro's and con's for anything and will always have fans..

My local store just got the Nikon D60 in....I'm feeling reallyimpatient and want to get that instead of the 450d (who really needslive view? ) But for all I know it might be better to buy the D40,e-510, or 400d and spend the saved money on a lense..

Seriously, get a D40- you may *think* you'll shoot the body for a while, but unless the economy dive really hurts a lot, you'll have a new body in 2 years..

Alternately, a 350D, D50 or D70 in good condition might be a good first step, though the D40 will have a slight ISO advantage for high-ISO..

I am honestly torn at this point since I know that my body will be aseveral year investment and knowing myself and the way I pursuethings...I will really get into my camera and photography. Scared tomake the wrong purchase..

The "secret" is that it's really, really difficult to make a "wrong" purchase. You can make a more or less advantageous purchase, but it's difficult to make a wrong one..

I Probably won't notice a differance between all these choices so Iam wondering if I should just boil it down to who's interface I likethe most (the Nikon) or who's body I like the most (The Canon) orwhich comes with the most bang for the buck (The Olympic with two kitlenses)..

With Oly, you're buying into a 4/3rds sized sensor, with Canon or Nikon you're not- in my world, that'd be a deal-killer, but for you it may not be. If a smaller camera means you'll actually have it with you, that could make the others a non-issue..

I'm slightly biased towards Nikon (been shooting small-format Nikons since about 1989) but I'd be happy with either Canon or Nikon, and I could use an Olympus, but I'd be less happy (for my type of photography it's sub-optimal.).

I've shot Canons, and gotten as good results as out of Nikon. I have no practical experience with Olympus because 4/3rds is a non-starter for me..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #25

Pauluminous wrote:.

Totally true however I have not noticed that big an issue. Certainlywide angle shots are not as wide. But how many times doe that reallyhurt one of your shots. Lastly lets look at the kit lens. The olycomes with a 14mm and the Canon with (one of it's many) 18mm at thewide end. The end result is darn near equal..

Shooting mainly landscapes I do miss the wider point of view,especially since the OP is using it firstly on a trip, the wider thebetter, imho.When you only look at the kit lenses then yah but further down theroad a wider point of view is again, imho, better. Compared to a 40Dyou're missing about 25% POV. (1.6 vs 2 x).

Wait a sec, you are saying that Olympus can't do wide angel? Not true. The crop factor doesn't exactly matter. Canon doesn't have anything to compare to Oly's 7-14mm lens (14-28mm in FF). They have an excellent 11-22mm (22-44mm) and later this year are releasing a 8-16mm lens..

Agreed zuiko lenses are better quality, third party lenses aresimilar priced but to gain equal quality at higher end lenses Canonproduces the same quality pictures at lower cost. ie canon's 70-200IS 4L goes for under $1000, Zuiko's 50-200 F2.8-3.5 goes for justover $1000. Both have IS, the Oly is more then twice a heavy (5 lbsvs 2 lbs) and a couple of hundred more expensive plus again (it is abig issue for me  )you'll a quarter of the POV  In this caseyou'll benefit on both from IS and the 40D is capable of producingdecend photos at over ISO 1600 while Oly doesn't seem to do so overISO 400 so bumping you ISO will result in the same thing..

Misleading. First they aren't lens, the canon 112mm to 320mm doesn't have the reach of the Oly, 100mm to 400mm. Second, you are only comparing the depth of field for the lens. The Oly at 2.8-3.5 is faster then the Canon at all zooms. Third, 5lbs? No, 2.2 lbs. http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/telephoto.html#50-200swf It weighs almost 1 kg.

The depth of field is larger, but that can be good or bad depending on what you are looking for. Check samples in the Oly forums to see if it meets your needs. If you need less DoF, the 70-200 L4 probably isn't going to do it either...

Comment #26

I admit I'm a little biased since I just picked up my E-510, but I spent a couple months reading up on all the options before deciding and I'm happy with the choice..

First, I don't think you can make a wrong purchase. Any brand puts out a wonder camera and all have decent lenses. Depending on what you want, some brands may be better suited. Think about the system as a whole and look at which meets those needs better..

What drew me to Olympus was the excellent lenses and great coverage from ultra wide angle all the way to telephoto. The telephotos tend to be smaller and lighter for the same speed lenses in other systems. The depth of field is larger, but I actually prefer that, especially for wide angle. You may or may not. Oly's dust buster is the best available and the in body IS is effective and works on all lenses..

For travel Oly tends to come out lighter too. The small kit lenses are extremely good and the other lenses tend to be smaller or equal to other brands. They also tend to cover a lot of zoom, so the 14-54 and 50-200 cover 28mm to 400mm with only two good lenses. Out of their three ranges of lenses, the top two are all weather sealed which may be nice down the road..

Another big point for me was that their lenses work on all their camera. If you buy digital only lenses for canon they won't work on the FF bodies. Even if you buy lenses that work on both the crop factor changes. That was a down side for me, as I'd like to pick a small body sometimes and maybe a weather sealed E-1 or E-3 later..

Oly's ISO performance is a bit worse then Nikon/Canon, but in another few years and technology advances they are going to be good enough for most photographers and keep getting better. Even now the differences don't matter to many users. You'll have to decide if it matters for you..

4/3s pictures are more square, maybe a little better for portraits where the wider pictures from the Canon might be nicer on landscapes. I like the 4/3s more for street and city photography. One of these might appeal more to you...

Comment #27

Cjlacz wrote:.

Pauluminous wrote:.

...Shooting mainly landscapes I do miss the wider point of view,especially since the OP is using it firstly on a trip, the wider thebetter, imho.When you only look at the kit lenses then yah but further down theroad a wider point of view is again, imho, better. Compared to a 40Dyou're missing about 25% POV. (1.6 vs 2 x).

Wait a sec, you are saying that Olympus can't do wide angel? Nottrue. The crop factor doesn't exactly matter. Canon doesn't haveanything to compare to Oly's 7-14mm lens (14-28mm in FF). They havean excellent 11-22mm (22-44mm) and later this year are releasing a8-16mm lens..

Didn't not state that it' s impossible to go wa with Oly, having a lens @ 7mm will probably give you a lot of distortion, almost like a fish eye. It's stll "only" 14 mm at the wide angle not 7 and cost $1500.

....

Misleading. First they aren't lens, the canon 112mm to 320mm doesn'thave the reach of the Oly, 100mm to 400mm..

Yeah well unfortunately it doesn't work like that the size of your sensor (crop body) does in NO way influence your reach or zoom. having a 200mm on an Oly, an 1.6 crop or FF will still only give you a range of 200mm only the field of view changes, it gets smaller the bigger the crop factor hence the name crop body.

Second, you are onlycomparing the depth of field for the lens..

How that?.

The Oly at 2.8-3.5 isfaster then the Canon at all zooms. Third, 5lbs? No, 2.2 lbs.http://www.four-thirds.org/en/products/telephoto.html#50-200swf Itweighs almost 1 kg..

My misstake!.

You get a lens that is faster, with a biggerzoom range, weighs less, costs less then the 70-200 4L IS and it'sweather sealed..

Dunno but last time I checked the Oly's still more expensive then canon's.

The depth of field is larger, but that can be goodor bad depending on what you are looking for..

Depth of field depends on a lot more then just the difference in aperture and from 3.5 to 4 would under the same circumstances be probably a few mm.

Check samples in theOly forums to see if it meets your needs. If you need less DoF, the70-200 L4 probably isn't going to do it either..

When the power of love conquers the love for power the world will know peace..

Comment #28

Pauluminous wrote:.

Dunno where that sarcasm's coming from..

Sorry if I expressed myself a little bad there. What I meant was the op who only wanted to spend 900$. If somebody buys into a whole system and intends to spend alot of money in the future then things look very different of course and the upgrade paths that are available have to be taken into consideration too..

And just to top it off; one more minus point for Oly, hence this ismy opinion , it's mine and only an opinion!!  Besides loosing vowon a 2x crop body, obviously Oly also gets you 4x3 files, which arepretty uncommon in print as well as on the web so that would meancropping even more..

Well, I think that depends on what you intend to do with the photos but it's also something everybody has to decide on his own. I for one don't print many of my photos (only a few) and those are usually 57" or 810" so it's no problem for me...

Comment #29

This is just my opinion so take it for what it is worth. What I sense is that you are a lot like me. The camera bug has hit you hard and you want to start playing with the equipment. I totally understand this..

I urge you not to jump at what is new, available, in fashion. Handle all the cameras. If you have a local camera club you might want to check it out and see what other people are using. This may allow you to borrow lenses etc and get some addtional input..

As for the D60 it replaces the D40x. It is or will be the same price as the D80. If you must go with the Canikons the D80 is a better camera and can use all the Nikon lenses..

My advice is to calm down and do some more research into all the entry level or entry level+ cameras. Think about how you will use it and handle each and every camera you are looking at buying WITH the lens/es that you are thinking about and if possible take some shots. Memory cards are cheap. Most good camera shops will let you take some shots on your memory card. Then compare the shots, comfort, cost, and features. THEN make your decision.



JimOlympus E-510 and a bunch of stuff to hang on it...

Comment #30

What I was saying was you won't get a better picture in my opinion with a XTi or XSi as compared to getting a XT with a couple better lenses than the kit. I believe an 8 MP sensor can produce just as high quality prints up to around 20x30Canon Gear.

Http://www.pbase.com/twestjust getting started .

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Comment #31

Thanks for all the wonderful feedback guys! Unfortuantly it's just made me have more questions, haha..

Something I've found out about and I am really interested in doing is HDR. Looks like the XSi will be a good choice cause it has bracketing for 3 shots and -3+3 where the e-510 has -1+1 and I'm not sure of bracketing. And the D40 has no bracketing..

This true? Any feedback on HDR photography with this price point of a camera? HDR needed features will be a body issue and not a lens issue, so it should help me choose!..

Comment #32

I haven't read all the posts but spot metering, in camera, or with a separate meter, is over rated. Digital sensors don't have the dynamic range (the number of stops from brightest to darkest - 9 stops is typical) that film, particularly black and white did. Spot metering was popular with the "zone" system..

With in camera historgrams, over exposure warnings, and image preview, the requirements aren't as critical as they once were when your only weapon of choice was in camera metering and/or carrrying and relying on a sperate spot meter..

The issue with digital sensors is to stop over exposures - all to easy to do - and preferably have part of the image to dark (where you can "save" it) rather than having washed out white highlights - where you can't save it..

I would go for the XSi if I were in your shoes:.

Http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGvoE_SmCMsRationally I have no hope, irrationally I believe in miracles.Joni Mitchell..

Comment #33

Paul Robertson wrote:.

Seriously, get a D40- you may *think* you'll shoot the body for awhile, but unless the economy dive really hurts a lot, you'll have anew body in 2 years..

THIS is the non-starter imo. It lacks a critical tool, Exposure Bracketing, excellent for HDR images where one can combine multiple images. Also, you lose AF on any non-AF-S lenses..

Alternately, a 350D, D50 or D70 in good condition might be a goodfirst step,.

Good advice..

I am honestly torn at this point since I know that my body will be aseveral year investment and knowing myself and the way I pursuethings...I will really get into my camera and photography. Scared tomake the wrong purchase..

The "secret" is that it's really, really difficult to make a "wrong"purchase. You can make a more or less advantageous purchase, butit's difficult to make a wrong one..

Very true. Hard to make a wrong choice, as all DSLR's are very capable and turn out fine images..

I Probably won't notice a differance between all these choices so Iam wondering if I should just boil it down to who's interface I likethe most (the Nikon) or who's body I like the most (The Canon) orwhich comes with the most bang for the buck (The Olympic with two kitlenses)..

With Oly, you're buying into a 4/3rds sized sensor, with Canon orNikon you're not- in my world, that'd be a deal-killer, but for youit may not be. If a smaller camera means you'll actually have itwith you, that could make the others a non-issue..

The 4/3rds sized sensor is a non-issue, this coming from somenone (me) who shoots both Olympus AND a Nikon D50. I find that the 3:2 ratio is optimal ONLY for 4x6 photos, whereas the 4/3rds is optimal for 5x7 and larger..

I'm slightly biased towards Nikon (been shooting small-format Nikonssince about 1989) but I'd be happy with either Canon or Nikon, and Icould use an Olympus, but I'd be less happy (for my type ofphotography it's sub-optimal.).

I've shot Canons, and gotten as good results as out of Nikon. I haveno practical experience with Olympus because 4/3rds is a non-starterfor me..

Key point here, no practical experience..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

Shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #34

Pauluminous wrote:.

Shooting mainly landscapes I do miss the wider point of view,especially since the OP is using it firstly on a trip, the wider thebetter, imho.When you only look at the kit lenses then yah but further down theroad a wider point of view is again, imho, better. Compared to a 40Dyou're missing about 25% POV. (1.6 vs 2 x).

I shoot mostly landscape as well. With 4/3rds, this is a non-issue..

2. Olympus/Zuiko lenses are more expensive and harder to come by,especially second hand or if you need to rent one..

Lenses of equiv quality are NOT more expensive. In fact I wouldargue that the low end OLYs are quality wise equiv to the mid rangelenses from canon. The Sigmas that fit both canon and 4/3 areidentically priced. Additionally the Oly will have IS on all lensesso don't forget to factor that in as well..

Agreed zuiko lenses are better quality, third party lenses aresimilar priced but to gain equal quality at higher end lenses Canonproduces the same quality pictures at lower cost. ie canon's 70-200IS 4L goes for under $1000, Zuiko's 50-200 F2.8-3.5 goes for justover $1000. Both have IS, the Oly is more then twice a heavy (5 lbsvs 2 lbs) and a couple of hundred more expensive plus again (it is abig issue for me  )you'll a quarter of the POV .

1 lens does not make the case. And, some would argue that the Oly is a better lens..

PaulWhen the power of love conquers the love for power the world willknow peace.

No truer words have been spoken.shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #35

Efface wrote:.

Thanks for all the wonderful feedback guys! Unfortuantly it's justmade me have more questions, haha..

Something I've found out about and I am really interested in doing isHDR. Looks like the XSi will be a good choice cause it hasbracketing for 3 shots and -3+3 where the e-510 has -1+1 and I'm notsure of bracketing. And the D40 has no bracketing..

The E-510 goes to =or - 3 as well..

This true? Any feedback on HDR photography with this price point ofa camera? HDR needed features will be a body issue and not a lensissue, so it should help me choose!.

Only an issue with the D40/40x. Don't remember about the D60..

Shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #36

And that's what most CanFans say. Though to Canon's credit, THEY (finally) realized it isn't over-rated.shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #37

Shinndigg wrote:.

Paul Robertson wrote:.

With Oly, you're buying into a 4/3rds sized sensor, with Canon orNikon you're not- in my world, that'd be a deal-killer, but for youit may not be. If a smaller camera means you'll actually have itwith you, that could make the others a non-issue..

The 4/3rds sized sensor is a non-issue, this coming from somenone(me) who shoots both Olympus AND a Nikon D50. I find that the 3:2ratio is optimal ONLY for 4x6 photos, whereas the 4/3rds is optimalfor 5x7 and larger..

It's only a non-issue for some folks- others either want to protect the option of submitting to choosy stock agencies, going up in size to a 35mm sensor or simply don't want the smaller sensor (diffraction or noise preferences) or the aspect ratio- at the moment Canon or Nikon offer different sensor sizes, and they're about to be joined by Sony and perhaps others. While 4/3rds fits traditional print sizes, it's not optimal for today's inkjet paper sizes. As galleries do more and more digital printing, that's going to become an issue..

The fact that 4/3rds is such a market niche isn't likely to help that over time. The last professional camera store I went to for paper only had *one* 8x10 and 11x14 paper brand in stock- and that didn't work well with my printer- I have a small stash of traditional-sized frames I'm trying to use up and so far my options for 8x10 and 11x14 have been to print on larger paper. I saw lots more 3:2-friendly paper sizes, that seems to be a trend even from folks like Ilford..

Also, it seems that the APS-C manufacturers have gotten things down to smaller bodies like the D40, while Olympus's E-3 seems to be almost as large as the D300..

I'm slightly biased towards Nikon (been shooting small-format Nikonssince about 1989) but I'd be happy with either Canon or Nikon, and Icould use an Olympus, but I'd be less happy (for my type ofphotography it's sub-optimal.).

I've shot Canons, and gotten as good results as out of Nikon. I haveno practical experience with Olympus because 4/3rds is a non-starterfor me..

Key point here, no practical experience..

Key point here- it doesn't work for my types of photography, while pretty-much anything from Canon or Nikon does. The OP may or may not have the same sorts of issues in the future, but if they're going to purchase significant or costly glass, then it's a consideration they should be aware of..

While some of my customer's requirements dictate my choice of body, the fact that Olympus doesn't work means it has more limitations. I own 5x7, multiple 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 and multiple 645 film cameras, so it's not like I can't evaluate a camera or like I haven't already dealt with different aspect ratios..

Let me know when Getty puts a 4/3rds camera on their list of approved cameras..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #38

Efface wrote:.

This true? Any feedback on HDR photography with this price point ofa camera? HDR needed features will be a body issue and not a lensissue, so it should help me choose!.

Three shots really aren't enough to do an optimal HDR picture (yes, you can do it, no, it won't be as good as a larger range.) Michael Riechman says this on Luminous Landscape:.

"Most cameras provide an auto-bracketing capability of just 3 exposures. This was appropriate for film, but is inadequate for the needs of digital HDR shooting..

What photographers now need is the ability to set auto-bracketing in any increment, and in a user selectable range of exposures. So, for example, I should be able to set auto-bracketing in 1.5 stop increments both + and - the base exposure, over a user settable range; say 4 increments in either direction.".

AFAIK, you have to go up to a pro body like the D2x/D3 to get 9 steps of bracketing (base expsoure and 4 in each direction.).

Now, of course it depends a lot on the DR in the original scene, but I find that my HDR images go from 5 to 14 shots in general, so even though I have a D2x, I end up manually bracketing anyway. I tend to find myself using 5 down and 3 up most times except indoors with ambient light where I find I need to go higher than outdoors most times..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #39

Shinndigg wrote:.

And that's what most CanFans say. Though to Canon's credit, THEY(finally) realized it isn't over-rated.shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg.

I don't routinely shoot Canon, but it is overrated in digital. You shoot digital just like we used to shoot positives- you put the exposure as far to the right as you can and let the shadows fall where they do. The only time that spot metering is relatively useful is when you're going to crop a large part of the image out so that the histogram isn't representative of the image you're going to use. In that case, mostly you've got the wrong lens or you're at the wrong spot. Unless that's how you routinely shoot, it's simply not that big an issue (and it's one that's easily overcome with a spot meter in your pocket if it's that big a deal.).

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #40

Paul Robertson wrote:.

Shinndigg wrote:.

Paul Robertson wrote:.

With Oly, you're buying into a 4/3rds sized sensor, with Canon orNikon you're not- in my world, that'd be a deal-killer, but for youit may not be. If a smaller camera means you'll actually have itwith you, that could make the others a non-issue..

The 4/3rds sized sensor is a non-issue, this coming from somenone(me) who shoots both Olympus AND a Nikon D50. I find that the 3:2ratio is optimal ONLY for 4x6 photos, whereas the 4/3rds is optimalfor 5x7 and larger..

It's only a non-issue for some folks-.

For MANY folks. Oly has sold a lot more DSLR's in the last year.others either want to protect.

The option of submitting to choosy stock agencies, going up in sizeto a 35mm sensor or simply don't want the smaller sensor (diffractionor noise preferences) or the aspect ratio-.

Bunk...at the moment Canon or.

Nikon offer different sensor sizes, and they're about to be joined bySony and perhaps others. While 4/3rds fits traditional print sizes,it's not optimal for today's inkjet paper sizes..

I see PLENTY of traditional sizes...ie...8x10, 11x14... available for inkjet printers.As galleries do.

More and more digital printing, that's going to become an issue..

Again a non issue....

The fact that 4/3rds is such a market niche isn't likely to help thatover time. The last professional camera store I went to for paperonly had *one* 8x10 and 11x14 paper brand in stock- and that didn'twork well with my printer- I have a small stash of traditional-sizedframes I'm trying to use up and so far my options for 8x10 and 11x14have been to print on larger paper. I saw lots more 3:2-friendlypaper sizes, that seems to be a trend even from folks like Ilford..

See above....

Also, it seems that the APS-C manufacturers have gotten things downto smaller bodies like the D40, while Olympus's E-3 seems to bealmost as large as the D300..

And did you see the JSUT announced E420??? Smaller than the D40/d40x/D60...And it has MANY features that the Nikon's DON'T have. ExposureBracketing, Pixel Mapping, The most effective dust-buster....

I'm slightly biased towards Nikon (been shooting small-format Nikonssince about 1989) but I'd be happy with either Canon or Nikon, and Icould use an Olympus, but I'd be less happy (for my type ofphotography it's sub-optimal.).

I've shot Canons, and gotten as good results as out of Nikon. I haveno practical experience with Olympus because 4/3rds is a non-starterfor me..

Key point here, no practical experience..

Key point here- it doesn't work for my types of photography,.

Again, YOUR experience. It seems to work for MINE, just as well as my D50 works.while.

Pretty-much anything from Canon or Nikon does. The OP may or may nothave the same sorts of issues in the future, but if they're going topurchase significant or costly glass, then it's a consideration theyshould be aware of..

No more costly than Canikon. For equivalent glass. Oly's Kit glass beats both Caniokn out of the gate..

While some of my customer's requirements dictate my choice of body,the fact that Olympus doesn't work means it has more limitations. Iown 5x7, multiple 4x5, 6x7, 6x6 and multiple 645 film cameras, soit's not like I can't evaluate a camera or like I haven't alreadydealt with different aspect ratios..

Let me know when Getty puts a 4/3rds camera on their list of approvedcameras..

Whatever....

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

Shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #41

Paul Robertson wrote:.

Shinndigg wrote:.

And that's what most CanFans say. Though to Canon's credit, THEY(finally) realized it isn't over-rated.shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg.

I don't routinely shoot Canon, but it is overrated in digital. Youshoot digital just like we used to shoot positives- you put theexposure as far to the right as you can and let the shadows fallwhere they do. The only time that spot metering is relatively usefulis when you're going to crop a large part of the image out so thatthe histogram isn't representative of the image you're going to use.In that case, mostly you've got the wrong lens or you're at the wrongspot. Unless that's how you routinely shoot, it's simply not thatbig an issue (and it's one that's easily overcome with a spot meterin your pocket if it's that big a deal.).

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

My only question is, then why did Canon, Nikon et al.. have spot metering in all of their pro DSLR bodies? If it's so unnecessary.shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #42

...for a budget of $900, you have a plethora of choices. As was mentioned, one can get excellent images from ANY of the DSLR's currently available, aswell as from older models. My advice is to handle each of the cameras you have in mind, narrow your choices down to 2 or 3 (if possible), then post in the respective forums for opinions about that specific camera. Look for images taken with those cameras at photo-sharing websites like pbase.com, flickr, etc....

My recommendations at cameras worth looking at, in no specific order, Nikon D80, Canon XT/XTi, Pentax K100D, K10D, Olympus E410/510. If you can wait a little longer, check out the Oly E420, Pentax K200D as well as the Canon XSi. I wish you the best in your quest.shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #43

Shinndigg wrote:.

I don't routinely shoot Canon, but it is overrated in digital. Youshoot digital just like we used to shoot positives- you put theexposure as far to the right as you can and let the shadows fallwhere they do. The only time that spot metering is relatively usefulis when you're going to crop a large part of the image out so thatthe histogram isn't representative of the image you're going to use.In that case, mostly you've got the wrong lens or you're at the wrongspot. Unless that's how you routinely shoot, it's simply not thatbig an issue (and it's one that's easily overcome with a spot meterin your pocket if it's that big a deal.).

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

My only question is, then why did Canon, Nikon et al.. have spotmetering in all of their pro DSLR bodies? If it's so unnecessary..

Because pro bodies cater more to the corner-cases than amateur ones do. A spot meter is useful for some things (though a meter with memory is a much better choice when you need one.) I can count the number of times I've used spot metering on my digital bodies over the last 5 and a half years- that's how unnecessary it is. I use mirror lock-up way more than spot metering- some pros never use MLU, but all the pro bodies have it because there are enough folks who use it..

With film, it was useful outside of zone system shooting to know the total dynamic range in a scene so you could select a film type or developer. In the digital world, it could be useful to check the total dynamic range for an HDR exposure, but you can do as well just shooting a couple of extra shots or chimping the histogram..

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think it's so important compared to using the histogram?.

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #44

Efface wrote:.

So my basic question is, for a beginner that is willing and wants tolearn and is looking at spending no more that $900 (before tax) wouldthe XSi be the best investment? If not can the users here pleaserecommend something else? And why would you take this over the XSi?.

A poster suggested the Canon XT and it seems a good camera at a really good price now (an XT with the improved 18-55 IS lens is going for $600), but you will be working with an 8MP sensor... and that size does matter (with apologies to Ken Rockewell)..

We get caught up in the camera, but IMHO the camera is never more than a pipeline to the printer (unless you're just saving/showing on the web), so printed output should be part of the buying decision..

Assuming they all have comparable IQ, if you want a high quality print you're looking at8MP camera @300dpi = 7.75x11.5"10MP E-510 @ 300dip = 9x12"..

Basically, a print bigger than 8x10" will have to go down in resolution as the size increases (say to 11x14") on either but the 10MP less so. It's a trade off, and if you don't plan to print larger it is a non-issue..

Brian..

Comment #45

BLawson wrote:.

A poster suggested the Canon XT and it seems a good camera at areally good price now (an XT with the improved 18-55 IS lens isgoing for $600), but you will be working with an 8MP sensor... andthat size does matter (with apologies to Ken Rockewell)..

Size really doesn't matter that much....

Assuming they all have comparable IQ, if you want a high qualityprint you're looking at8MP camera @300dpi = 7.75x11.5"10MP E-510 @ 300dip = 9x12".Basically, a print bigger than 8x10" will have to go down inresolution as the size increases (say to 11x14") on either but the10MP less so. It's a trade off, and if you don't plan to printlarger it is a non-issue..

The viewing distance goes up the larger you go as well, so for the appropriate viewing distance for an 11x14" print, I doubt you'll see much practical difference between 200dpi and 300dpi, let alone the native images uprez'd well..

I get very good 11x14s from heavy crops of less than 8MP with my nose up to the glass on a print. In fact, at Super A3+ the image just starts to fall apart upon close inspection, but still looks very good at the correct viewing distance..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #46

Paul Robertson wrote:.

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

My only question is, then why did Canon, Nikon et al.. have spotmetering in all of their pro DSLR bodies? If it's so unnecessary..

Because pro bodies cater more to the corner-cases than amateur onesdo. A spot meter is useful for some things (though a meter withmemory is a much better choice when you need one.) I can count thenumber of times I've used spot metering on my digital bodies over thelast 5 and a half years- that's how unnecessary it is. I use mirrorlock-up way more than spot metering- some pros never use MLU, but allthe pro bodies have it because there are enough folks who use it..

With film, it was useful outside of zone system shooting to know thetotal dynamic range in a scene so you could select a film type ordeveloper. In the digital world, it could be useful to check thetotal dynamic range for an HDR exposure, but you can do as well justshooting a couple of extra shots or chimping the histogram..

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think it's so importantcompared to using the histogram?.

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

Would you ccare to provide explicit proof that Stock agencies won't except images from 4/3rds cameras?shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #47

Paul Robertson wrote:.

The viewing distance goes up the larger you go as well, so for theappropriate viewing distance for an 11x14" print, I doubt you'll seemuch practical difference between 200dpi and 300dpi, let alone thenative images uprez'd well..

I get very good 11x14s from heavy crops of less than 8MP with my noseup to the glass on a print. In fact, at Super A3+ the image juststarts to fall apart upon close inspection, but still looks very goodat the correct viewing distance..

I take your point. The rule I'm getting from posters here is 300/150dip (or 360/180 for Epsons) for best IQ, using the lower resolution for prints more than 8x10. But I've just printed the same 6MP 6x8 image on my Epson R1800 at 360dpi and 11x14 at 180dpi and there's a significant difference...there isn't a appropriate viewing distance for the 11x14 that gives it the same image quality as the 6x8. It is the case, however, that I'm using a small-sensor image (Panasonic FZ7), so should I assume the larger 6MP sensor on the D40 or Pentax K100 would increase the quality enough to make the 11x14 a "good" print?Brian.

BrianBrian..

Comment #48

I may not agree with Paul on other things, but on this I do. From practical experience, I get wonderful 11x14 from my 6mp Nikon D50 as well as from my Oly E300. The look great 'with my nose pressed up to the glass' as Paul said.shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #49

BLawson wrote:.

6x8. It is the case, however, that I'm using a small-sensor image(Panasonic FZ7), so should I assume the larger 6MP sensor on the D40or Pentax K100 would increase the quality enough to make the 11x14 a"good" print?Brian.

Brian,.

All other things being equal, a larger sensor will produce a less noisy image than a smaller one, and at least with my larger prints from crops (and I don't tend to crop so severely that often) it's noise that hurts detail and tonality. I'm much happier with an 11x14 from an APS-C sensor than I was with a color print from 35mm film from an enlarger in my darkroom..

Naturally, things aren't always equal, but I don't think I'd have problems selling 11x14s shot with either a D40 or K100. I'm pretty sure that I could sell even larger prints, but I wouldn't be happy doing it- most of my customers aren't nearly as picky as I am..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #50

Shinndigg wrote:.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think it's so importantcompared to using the histogram?.

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

Would you ccare to provide explicit proof that Stock agencies won'texcept images from 4/3rds cameras?.

I asked first- how about holding up your end?.

FWIW,.

Getty:http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346.

All Canada: Uses Getty's list: http://www.allcanadaphotos.com/.../allcanada/sub/acp_contributor_summary.pdf.

Masterfile:Requires 12MP http://www.masterfile.com/info/artists/submissions.html.

Now, how about it- what's your assertion on spot metering vs. the histogram?.

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #51

Paul Robertson wrote:.

Shinndigg wrote:.

Perhaps you'd care to explain why you think it's so importantcompared to using the histogram?.

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

Would you ccare to provide explicit proof that Stock agencies won'texcept images from 4/3rds cameras?.

I asked first- how about holding up your end?.

FWIW,.

Getty:http://contributors.gettyimages.com/...workwithus/article.asp?article_id=1346.

I'm guessing this is what you're refering to:.

If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved camera from this list: Canon EOS: 1D(Mk1,2&3), 1DS(Mk1,2,2n&3) 5D, 30D and 40D; Nikon: D2X, D2Xs, D3, D200, D300 and the Leica M8. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us.Since when are the 40D. 30D, D200, D300 and M8 35mm digital cameras?Besides, this is JUST Getty....

All Canada: Uses Getty's list:http://www.allcanadaphotos.com/.../allcanada/sub/acp_contributor_summary.pdf.

Masterfile:Requires 12MP http://www.masterfile.com/info/artists/submissions.html.

No doubt referencing this point:Please note, we require images to be taken with a minimum 12 megapixel camera..

And this also rules out the 30D, 40D, D200 and M8 as well as theD70/70s , D60 and the D40/D40x, you have recommended..

Now, how about it- what's your assertion on spot metering vs. thehistogram?.

Simple: Fleeting moment where you only have time for ONE shot. Who wnats to mess with a histogram (probably repeatedly) and miss an opportunity..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com.

Shinndigghttp://www.pbase.com/shinndigg..

Comment #52

Paul Robertson wrote:.

All other things being equal, a larger sensor will produce a lessnoisy image than a smaller one, and at least with my larger printsfrom crops (and I don't tend to crop so severely that often) it'snoise that hurts detail and tonality. I'm much happier with an 11x14from an APS-C sensor than I was with a color print from 35mm filmfrom an enlarger in my darkroom..

Paul, this really is interesting. I take your word, you've been at it longer than I have, but isn't a 35mm negative larger by a factor of something than an APS-C? But a a smaller digital image has better printed IQ than the larger 35mm analog (film) image?.

You don't by any chance have the same image in each to compare? That would really be something to see..Brian..

Comment #53

Fleeting moments are by definition, well, "fleeting." You don't have much time to muck about. With spot metering, you can take one reading if you have lots of experience with it, it sounds like you don't. Don't take offence, there are fewer and fewer folks who are adapt at spot metering. The problem is that it's not good enough to get a reading, but to know what to do with it, and "it" in relation to other readings in the scene..

If you have only a "fleeting" amount of time, you are probably safer in the "evaluative" mode of metering, or centre weighted, but not spot metering...

Now lets talk HDR where you could use spot metering, but again, let me ask you the question - why? Lets shoot an HDR image I was just looking at in a Photo mag; it typifies the problem. The scene is a mountain valley with lake and boat floating on lake, at sunset. Now through taking many crappy photos I can say with experience, either you're going to get a great sky shot, or you're going to get a great lake shot (lake is almost but not quite dark at sunset), but not both..

You can spot meter for three items, the sky, the mountains and the lake; the entire image from top to bottom lighter to darker. But after make many many crappy photos I don't need to spot meter I know I should take three photos..

1) First photo only pays attention to the sky and acquiring all the wonderful colours of sunset without any blown highlights, not a big deal if I meter from the camera and check the histogram and preview for it..

2) Second photo of mountains, again easy enough to do with histogram, etc..

3) Third photo of lake, basically metering the lake for proper exposure..

Now in image editor, using HDR whizz bang stuff, stitch the three images together, sky from first, mountains from second, and lake from third. At and no time did I need a spot meter..

Now it's time for honesty. I too like you wanted and envied camera's that had spot metering, I wanted one, even though I had never used spot metering in my life. Well you know how it is, if the pros use spot metering then I should too. It wasn't until after I acquired my digital Canon that I realized that I would never really need one, I had all the tools I need in the camera and in the image editing software..

Rationally I have no hope, irrationally I believe in miracles.Joni Mitchell..

Comment #54

So today I purchased a XTi after much careful consideration. I chose it for the price point and features and I could take the money I would save from a D60/D80/XSi and buy a better lens..

I found a seller on craigslist that is selling a Canon 28-136 IS lens for $300 so with that and the $619 I paid for the XTi Kit(Couldn't find a local store with body only so I got a drastically reduced retail store price) , I'm sitting at about $900 (i purchased the accidental damage insurance for an additional $120).

The inadequateness's of the kit lens are evident already and I look forward to a lens with more zoom and IS..

I decided to care less about the body, and more on my lens as they maintain their value if I lose interest and if not then I have some great lens to carry over to my new body..

The XTi had the right features for my needs and the beginning quality I expected..

Thanks for all the wonderful information everyone provided on this topic. The response was great. The Forum as a whole was awesome as well as the reviews...

Comment #55

BLawson wrote:.

Paul Robertson wrote:.

All other things being equal, a larger sensor will produce a lessnoisy image than a smaller one, and at least with my larger printsfrom crops (and I don't tend to crop so severely that often) it'snoise that hurts detail and tonality. I'm much happier with an 11x14from an APS-C sensor than I was with a color print from 35mm filmfrom an enlarger in my darkroom..

Paul, this really is interesting. I take your word, you've been atit longer than I have, but isn't a 35mm negative larger by a factorof something than an APS-C? But a a smaller digital image hasbetter printed IQ than the larger 35mm analog (film) image?.

Yes, it's 1.5x. Folks scanning negatives or positives these days probably have an advantage over a purely analog print from say 10 years ago, but digital still seems to edge out film- grain tends to kill the difference in resolving power quite quickly..

Here's a head-to-head of a FF 35mm sensor and film:.

Http://www.photographical.net/canon_1ds_35mm.html.

I believe there's more difference between film and the FF sensor than there is between the FF sensor and my D2x..

This is an older Clarkvision report that still has valid data (and parts look to have been updated:).

Http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.summary1.html.

Here's an example of grain vs noise:.

Http://www.tawbaware.com/film_digital.htm.

Note that any modern comparison tends to scan the negative- my gut tells me that's an advantage..

You don't by any chance have the same image in each to compare? Thatwould really be something to see...

Unfortunately not, I was simply unhappy with 35mm results compared to even 645, so I didn't shoot much 35mm once I started shooting larger formats..

Paulhttp://PaulDRobertson.imagekind.com..

Comment #56

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.