Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: dkff49 on February 17, 2010, 09:21:51 PM
-
My wife and I are in the market for a digital camera. Our budget is around $200, we can go a little over but don't want to go much over that.
Some of the things we would like to have:
Li-Ion battery (no "AA") this is a must
I would prefer to have the "old style" type camera (not the card looking type, these seem to breakable"
optical zoom would like to have at least 10x but I'm not too picky
built in flash
not sure what it is called but a quick picture taking time (doesn't take too long after pushing button to take the picture (my wife can't stay still ong enough to not get a blur)).
I have been looking at 2 different ones so far, Sony Cybershot DSC-H20-B and Kodak Z950, but I would appreciate any suggestions you have.
-
Here's what I would suggest.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/643182-REG/Canon_3634B001_PowerShot_SX120_IS_Digital.html
My wife uses one of these because my professional cameras intimidate her. It has been a good little point and shoot for her.
It does however use AA batteries. You could buy a set of rechargeable AA batteries if you want. Personally, I prefer it to use regular AA batteries. You can pick them up almost anywhere in a pinch.
Personally I don't like the Sony cameras, I feel they are overpriced. And I would never buy a Kodak. I used to sell cameras once upon a time, and the Kodaks were junk. But, admittedly that was quite a few years ago.
Here is what I carry when I do sports...
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_6944.jpg)
-
. nevermind I didn't read properly and it doesn't suit your needs wrong battery type
-
I just got myself one of these for work.....nice and easy,nice pics and it was only a couple of hundred NZ so maybe cheaper still over there....You do need a SD card though
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/images/upload/Fuji-FinePix-S5100.jpg
Don't think they make that one anymore. The 5100 is several years old I think.
-
I appreciate the advice dave but i am hoping to get a little longer battery life out of the li-ion battery vs the "AA" batteries. My camera now uses them and we have rechargeables and unfortunately it eats them up. The "AA" rechargeables seem to develope a memory way too fast which makes them drain even faster. I am really hoping that a battery pack will last longer between charges and hoping the battery will last longer before it needs replaced. I usually carry extra battery packs for any equipment I carry anyway including the camcorder.
-
Here's what I would suggest.
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_6944.jpg)
WoW! this toys worth over 15,000$, and only "L"lenses, what are you shooting? professional or just hobby? I got a T1i last year, but now they have the T2i on the pipe.
Canon and Nikon are the best brands, for P&S digital also.
-
WoW! this toys worth over 15,000$, and only "L"lenses, what are you shooting? professional or just hobby? I got a T1i last year, but now they have the T2i on the pipe.
Canon and Nikon are the best brands, for P&S digital also.
Professional. I do some freelance sports for the news rags and a few weddings a month.
-
I looked into the Sony model you mentioned. B&H is selling it for $225, which seems to be a pretty good value. It is probably your best bet considering your battery needs.
I'd still stay away from the Kodak.
-
Don't think they make that one anymore. The 5100 is several years old I think.
aye they do...I got one about 2 mths ago
-
thanks dave
I appreciate you taking the time to look into that for me. There is no way i could have looked at those specs and been able to desipher them to figure out if it was worth it or not.
:salute
-
Forget about all the other stuff.
I've done extensive testing on the latest point and shoot digital cameras. EXTENSIVE.
This is what you want, period. $244 should be the price once you add it to your cart.
It out performs everything in just about every way up to the $500+ range.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-ZS3-Digital-Stabilized-Black/dp/B001QFZMCO/ref=pd_cp_p_0
-
"the Kodaks were junk. But, admittedly that was quite a few years ago."
Still are. After what looked like a decent run with their p&s pocket cameras only a
couple of years ago they've gone back to being junk. I regret buying a C713 and
C813 fro my wife. They're crap. Unless you actually LIKE your cameras taking the
picture well after you press the shutter button.
-
Canon and Nikon are the best brands, for P&S digital also.
<- Resiting urge to rant against brand fan boys... ... ... ...
... Failed.
Do you have anything to back up that claim, besides fanboyism. Remember its the brain that's behind the camera, that counts a whole lot more then the camera itself. Truth is different brand have their own strengths and weaknesses, but in the end the camera is just a tool to help you create the image you want/need. Different kind of tools work best for different people. Sure Canon, and Nikon are great, but Sony, Pentax and Olympus also make great p&s as well.
(http://www.whattheduck.net/sites/default/files/WTD95_0.gif?1254280425)
True story, I was in Best Buy a few weeks ago helping my parents pick out a P&S camera for my sisters birthday. The sales girl was trying to sell my parents a $130 Canon, meanwhile I was looking at everything they had in our price range. I found a Nikon model with the same specs, except for IS, and a viewfinder, (but the VF was so small on the Canon nobody would use it anyhow) for only $85
I asked the salesperson (she didn't know that I am a photographer) about it, and she said:
"Oh no, you don't want that, Canon's take better pictures."
me, " 'Just take better pictures' Why? How? They've got the same lens specs, same resolution, shutter lag seems the same."
her, "Well.. uh... ummm.. they just do, trust me."
me, "Is it the IS, cause she will be using it in daylight 90% of the time so that won't make a difference."
her, "No even in daylight Canon just takes better pictures."
me, "Better how? are they sharper? better color? better metering? White balance? JPEG processor?"
her, "I don't know really, they're just better."
me, "Really.. Umm... OK then, thanks for the help"
her, "Ummm... I'm gonna go help this gentleman now. Let me know it you need anything" walks away.
Anyways out of the 2 you mentioned I would go with the Sony over Kodak as well. Kodak makes GREAT sensors, (they make the sensor for the new Leica M9 which is amazing from the opinions I've read) but I'm not to confident in the quality of their overall products.
For P&S, I would say as long as you stick with any of the well known brands -Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus- that fit in your budget, and have the features you want would suit you fine. Though my brothers Canon p&s just crapped out on him after only 3 months, stripped the gears that drive the zoom, but that's probably a statistical anomaly (I hope).
Try them out, sometimes it's the subtle things that can make you love or hate a camera, like the shutter lag, or menu interface, or button placement, or grip.
-
Forget about all the other stuff.
I've done extensive testing on the latest point and shoot digital cameras. EXTENSIVE.
This is what you want, period. $244 should be the price once you add it to your cart.
It out performs everything in just about every way up to the $500+ range.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-ZS3-Digital-Stabilized-Black/dp/B001QFZMCO/ref=pd_cp_p_0
That looks like a great little camera too. I didn't meant to leave Panasonic off my list, sorry. I just forget about them since they're not really in the SLR game.
If you want a small camera and really great image quality go with the micro 4/3rds system ala Panasonic G1. I've never used one, but folks that have rave about them. You get SLR quality interchangeable lenses on a body about half the size. But they would be in the $500+ range.
-
I have the panasonic DMC-TZ7 (may be called DMC-ZS3 in the US) and its brillant!
I got it from my missus as a xmas present because i seldom want to haul the big SLR camera around. Below iso 200 and even 400 it rivals the nikon slr with the standard lens. Beacuse its so easy to carry i prolly wont use the SLR much anymore unless im taking pictures around the house.
-
I had a cybershot, it has a 3 second delay after you push the button to when the camera takes a picture and it really frustrated me. but this was a cybershot 4.1 MP a LONG time ago
-
Li-Ion battery (no "AA") this is a must
You do realize they make AA Li batteries some rechargeable, some not? Personally I have found them more convenient and cost effective than the battery "packs" built into devices...and I can have a set charging while using a set...as infrequently as we take pictures, a fresh pair lasts 6 to 8 months before needing to be charged.
Sony Cybershot DSC-H20-B
Very nice every day use camera.
-
cant really go wrong with a canon IXUS for that money :aok
having said that I bought a Panasonic DMC-LX3 recently and its awesome, so their lower end compacts might be worth a look too :)
-
I like the Panasonic that AKHog pointed out. B&H is selling it for $242.
As for the fan boyism mentioned by someone else. I agree that you shouldn't get cornered into a certain brand, simply for brand sake. Of course, I'm a Canon guy, and have been for twenty + years. So, naturally, any gear I purchase for my professional work will be Canon. For obvious reasons.
Really, pinning yourself into a brand shouldn't be an issue until you start getting into SLR and/or DSLR bodies. Then of course, you need to do the research and learn which systems most closely meet your current AND future needs. At that level, it's a huge decision that will impact your financial future.
As far as the comparison between Canon and Nikon (at least as far as the professional grade equipment is concerned), I personally feel that the Nikons do a very poor job of color rendition. Especially in less then favourable lighting, such as fluorescent. And especially with skin tones. I, personally, would not buy a Nikon (or recommend one really) for that reason alone.
But that is my opinion. Of course, I can say, that it is my "professional opinion", if that adds any weight to my comments.
-
I had a cybershot, it has a 3 second delay after you push the button to when the camera takes a picture and it really frustrated me. but this was a cybershot 4.1 MP a LONG time ago
Long delays like that are almost always related to Red-Eye reduction systems. Best advice, turn of the red-eye reduction (it is often ineffective on small point and shoots anyway), and simply correct the red-eye in Photo Shop (or similar software) after the fact.
That said, there used to be quite a few point and shoots in the early days that didn't actually focus the lens until the final push of the shutter button, which could cause those long delays, but I haven't seen a camera set up like that for quite a few years. (Not to say they don't exist, just saying that that type of system should be rather rare these days).
-
You do realize they make AA Li batteries some rechargeable, some not? Personally I have found them more convenient and cost effective than the battery "packs" built into devices....
I agree, plus I like to have the option to drop a set of regular alkaline batteries in that I grabbed at the corner gas stattion in a pinch. You just can't do that with the Li-Ion systems that pretty much all of the point and shoots come with.
Heck, I've even got a AA battery adapter that I can drop into my EOS1D if I get caught with the main batteries dead when I really need them.
-
I agree, plus I like to have the option to drop a set of regular alkaline batteries in that I grabbed at the corner gas stattion in a pinch. You just can't do that with the Li-Ion systems that pretty much all of the point and shoots come with.
Heck, I've even got a AA battery adapter that I can drop into my EOS1D if I get caught with the main batteries dead when I really need them.
I see both your point on this but the reason I would like to have the bettery pack is they carry higher voltage giving the camera a larger amount of energy. When we go on vacation my wife is the chief picture taker and she takes ALOT of pictures. To the point that the camera is pretty much turned on for the bulk of the day and prertty much only turned off in between sites and at meals and even during those times it my still be turned on depending on what's going on. It just gets a little old carrying around 10 or 15 batteries everyday and then trying to keep them straight as to which ones are charged and then spending every night trying to make sure all them get recharged for the next day.
-
I like the Panasonic that AKHog pointed out. B&H is selling it for $242.
As for the fan boyism mentioned by someone else. I agree that you shouldn't get cornered into a certain brand, simply for brand sake. Of course, I'm a Canon guy, and have been for twenty + years. So, naturally, any gear I purchase for my professional work will be Canon. For obvious reasons.
Really, pinning yourself into a brand shouldn't be an issue until you start getting into SLR and/or DSLR bodies. Then of course, you need to do the research and learn which systems most closely meet your current AND future needs. At that level, it's a huge decision that will impact your financial future.
As far as the comparison between Canon and Nikon (at least as far as the professional grade equipment is concerned), I personally feel that the Nikons do a very poor job of color rendition. Especially in less then favourable lighting, such as fluorescent. And especially with skin tones. I, personally, would not buy a Nikon (or recommend one really) for that reason alone.
But that is my opinion. Of course, I can say, that it is my "professional opinion", if that adds any weight to my comments.
That's a valid opinion, I don't follow the p&s market, so I really don't know much about them. I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of a clueless salesperson, trying to claim one is better then the other with absolutely no reasoning behind their opinion at all. Since most p&s will never print bigger then an 8x12" I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between any of them when viewing prints. Which is also why I think these p&s with 12mp+ are ridiculous. 90% of people don't need that kind of resolution in a p&s, all those extra pixels do is force you past the diffraction limit in anything but bright daylight. I'm convinced a 6-8mp p&s would deliver better all around image quality, then a 12-14mp with the same small size sensor. The whole megapixel race in the p&s market is just a marketing gimmick.
The part about Nikon color rendition is interesting to me. I'm a Minolta/Sony shooter, and on the forum I look at to buy and sell gear, I have read of at least 2 folks who switched from a 5D mk2 to a A850/A900 because they thought the Canon color rendition was poor. These were mostly landscape shooters though, you may be after something completely different with weddings, and sports.
It's all in the eye of the beholder I guess. I figure lenses have as much to to with the color you get as the sensor does as well. When I switched from a Sigma 70-200 2.8 to a Minolta 80-200 2.8, I immediately noticed a difference in the color rendition between the two. When I use that Minolta 80-200, Minolta 50 1.7 or Carl Zeiss 24-70 2.8 I rarely do any color adjustments in Lightroom. But when I use my Sigma 90 2.8 macro, or Sigma 150-500 5.6-6.3 I get completely different colors, more muted I would say, and I end up tweaking the saturation and vibrance in Lightroom.
I believe you only shoot Canon glass so maybe you get more consistent results then me.
Now with the Pentax SMC lenses on my 6x7, and Velvia 50 inside. Well... I still think no digital (short of a $20,000+ MF phase one, or leaf back) can touch that as far as gorgeous colors, perfect transitions, and just plain awesomeness. :D My A900 gets close as far as resolution, but I still prefer the overall look of the Velvia, it's just becoming a PITA to get it processed around here. :frown:
-
I see both your point on this but the reason I would like to have the bettery pack is they carry higher voltage giving the camera a larger amount of energy. When we go on vacation my wife is the chief picture taker and she takes ALOT of pictures. To the point that the camera is pretty much turned on for the bulk of the day and prertty much only turned off in between sites and at meals and even during those times it my still be turned on depending on what's going on. It just gets a little old carrying around 10 or 15 batteries everyday and then trying to keep them straight as to which ones are charged and then spending every night trying to make sure all them get recharged for the next day.
Sounds like your wife and I have a common habit. I took my wife and two daughters to Disney World a few weeks ago. We were there for 8 days... I came home with 2267 images.
I've pared them down to about 900 that I like. I'll put them to music on a DvD slide show. Then my wife will try to pare them down to about 600, will have prints made of those for a photo album (actually probably 3 photo albums).
-
That's a valid opinion, I don't follow the p&s market, so I really don't know much about them. I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of a clueless salesperson, trying to claim one is better then the other with absolutely no reasoning behind their opinion at all. Since most p&s will never print bigger then an 8x12" I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between any of them when viewing prints. Which is also why I think these p&s with 12mp+ are ridiculous. 90% of people don't need that kind of resolution in a p&s, all those extra pixels do is force you past the diffraction limit in anything but bright daylight. I'm convinced a 6-8mp p&s would deliver better all around image quality, then a 12-14mp with the same small size sensor. The whole megapixel race in the p&s market is just a marketing gimmick.
The part about Nikon color rendition is interesting to me. I'm a Minolta/Sony shooter, and on the forum I look at to buy and sell gear, I have read of at least 2 folks who switched from a 5D mk2 to a A850/A900 because they thought the Canon color rendition was poor. These were mostly landscape shooters though, you may be after something completely different with weddings, and sports.
It's all in the eye of the beholder I guess. I figure lenses have as much to to with the color you get as the sensor does as well. When I switched from a Sigma 70-200 2.8 to a Minolta 80-200 2.8, I immediately noticed a difference in the color rendition between the two. When I use that Minolta 80-200, Minolta 50 1.7 or Carl Zeiss 24-70 2.8 I rarely do any color adjustments in Lightroom. But when I use my Sigma 90 2.8 macro, or Sigma 150-500 5.6-6.3 I get completely different colors, more muted I would say, and I end up tweaking the saturation and vibrance in Lightroom.
I believe you only shoot Canon glass so maybe you get more consistent results then me.
Now with the Pentax SMC lenses on my 6x7, and Velvia 50 inside. Well... I still think no digital (short of a $20,000+ MF phase one, or leaf back) can touch that as far as gorgeous colors, perfect transitions, and just plain awesomeness. :D My A900 gets close as far as resolution, but I still prefer the overall look of the Velvia, it's just becoming a PITA to get it processed around here. :frown:
response below so it doesn't get lost in the mix, sorry.
-
I really shouldn't go on these long-winded responses, but I'm trying to organize and keyword my Lightroom catalog right now, and I get bored, then the A.D.D. kicks in, it's a miracle I ever get anything done.
BTW I agree go with AA for a p&s. You can find AAs anywhere, plus you can carry spares if your away from power when camping or something, where you cannot recharge the built in batteries.
-
Sounds like your wife and I have a common habit. I took my wife and two daughters to Disney World a few weeks ago. We were there for 8 days... I came home with 2267 images.
I've pared them down to about 900 that I like. I'll put them to music on a DvD slide show. Then my wife will try to pare them down to about 600, will have prints made of those for a photo album (actually probably 3 photo albums).
Oh yeah we had 1100 pictures which we cut down to 800 and put them into albums after getting the printed when we went to Disney World 4 years ago and we were only there for 4 days. Niagara falls was at least 600 pictures each time and we have been there 4 times. BTW Niagara Falls is a picture takers dream in winter even if it painfully cold then.
-
I suggest you ask the squirrels in game.
-
That's a valid opinion, I don't follow the p&s market, so I really don't know much about them. I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of a clueless salesperson, trying to claim one is better then the other with absolutely no reasoning behind their opinion at all. Since most p&s will never print bigger then an 8x12" I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between any of them when viewing prints. Which is also why I think these p&s with 12mp+ are ridiculous. 90% of people don't need that kind of resolution in a p&s, all those extra pixels do is force you past the diffraction limit in anything but bright daylight. I'm convinced a 6-8mp p&s would deliver better all around image quality, then a 12-14mp with the same small size sensor. The whole megapixel race in the p&s market is just a marketing gimmick.
100% agree. I shot with a 3.5mp Canon D10 for a couple of years. I routinely enlarged sports images to 20x30 with no problem at all. It's all about the original clarity of the image and then what you do with in Photo Shop before sending it out to the photo finisher for print.
The part about Nikon color rendition is interesting to me. I'm a Minolta/Sony shooter, and on the forum I look at to buy and sell gear, I have read of at least 2 folks who switched from a 5D mk2 to a A850/A900 because they thought the Canon color rendition was poor. These were mostly landscape shooters though, you may be after something completely different with weddings, and sports.
I can't speak much about Minolta/Sony, they just simply are too rare a bird among professional photographers (especially the sports/journalist guys that I have the most contact). The Minolta/Sony bodies just aren't very popular with the pro shooters. Not having spent any time with one in my hands and not knowing anyone who uses one professional, I can only take your word for it. As for the color rendition on the 5Dmk2, I couldn't be happier with mine. In fact I can give you a comparison of the 5Dmk2 against a Nikon. As it happens, Disney has a small army of photographers stationed all over their parks now days. You get this card that the photographer can scan after he takes your picture, then you can view and purchase the photos on a web site later. Interesting concept, although the quality of their photographers is sketchy in my opinion. Anyway, we were there for 8 days in January, and I dutifully let the Disney photogs do their jobs. Primarily out of interest in the entire process and how Disney was offering photography services on a truly massive scale. Anyway, I bought the CD of all of the photos that their photogs shot with their Nikons (D90s maybe, didn't pay too much attention to them honestly). Well, as it happens, I was taking the same shots right next to the Disney guys. Let's compare the Nikon with my Canon 5D...
Nikon
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/Image0082.jpg)
Canon 5Dmk2
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_0624.jpg)
Granted, my camera body was a much higher end model, and I only shoot Canon L glass. But do you see how mucky the kids' faces are in the Nikon shot? Compared to the Canon? I see this same almost smeary look from guys shooting top end Nikon with their top line glass. It's hard to put into words really. It doesn't seem to bother most of the newspaper guys, but their end product is printed on the crappiest of crappy newspaper, so maybe they just don't care.
That said, be wary of color opinions from Landscape shooters. Those are the guys who are most likely to be carrying an entire bag full of filters. They often are working to alter the image colors more then capture true life color. In my opinion, I'd pay more attention to what the guys shooting macro still lifes of flowers think of color rendition. They're the ones looking to capture the full saturation of colors in their images.
For me, the most important thing with color rendition is that the image looks how the real scene looked to me, Especially the skin tones.
Here's a street performer in the Italy section of Epcot. He looks exactly how I remember him. He was wearing a bit of pancake make up.
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_0984.jpg)
And a shot at Epcot, handheld by the way at ISO 6400 on the 5D
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_1184.jpg)
And of course the castle, also handheld at a high ISO
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_1197.jpg)
It's all in the eye of the beholder I guess. I figure lenses have as much to to with the color you get as the sensor does as well. When I switched from a Sigma 70-200 2.8 to a Minolta 80-200 2.8, I immediately noticed a difference in the color rendition between the two. When I use that Minolta 80-200, Minolta 50 1.7 or Carl Zeiss 24-70 2.8 I rarely do any color adjustments in Lightroom. But when I use my Sigma 90 2.8 macro, or Sigma 150-500 5.6-6.3 I get completely different colors, more muted I would say, and I end up tweaking the saturation and vibrance in Lightroom.
Lenses are HUGELY important! I bought a few Tamron and Tokina lenses when I was getting started and poor. Garbage! I won't buy anything but an actual Canon lens ever again, and most likely won't buy anything but L series either. The image clarity, color clarity, and even more important for a sports guy, the focus accuracy and speed are simply no comparison between Canon lenses and third party lenses. That said, I have never owned a Sigma so can't really comment fairly. I just know that in my opinion, I have never seen a third party lens that was worth buying, even though it may have been half the price of the same length and f stop Canon lens.
Better off buying a cheaper body, then buy the good glass. That is if you have to penny pinch. My theory is get the top line gear, and write it off on my taxes!
I believe you only shoot Canon glass so maybe you get more consistent results then me.
True, Canon only. I would say that you are experiencing what can be a wide variation of quality when switching from third party to the expensive glass. Also. lenses like the 150-500, with such a broad reach, are notorious for that muted almost hazy look to the color. Sometimes they will have one length that produces a really nice image, while the rest of the reach is sub par. I would wager that on the 150-500, maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 is a sweet spot. You'll have to look for it.
You'll find that most pros are using mostly prime lenses (single length), or very narrow zooms. I only carry two zoom lenses, a 24-70f2.8 and the 70-200f2.8. Everything else I use is prime. I would suggest staying away from those really large zoom ranges on lenses.
Now with the Pentax SMC lenses on my 6x7, and Velvia 50 inside. Well... I still think no digital (short of a $20,000+ MF phase one, or leaf back) can touch that as far as gorgeous colors, perfect transitions, and just plain awesomeness. :D My A900 gets close as far as resolution, but I still prefer the overall look of the Velvia, it's just becoming a PITA to get it processed around here. :frown:
Film is dying. For better or worse. Personally, I haven't shot a roll of film since June of 2000. From a purely business standpoint, digital trumps film in every way.
-
Nice comparison Dave, I would say you have better contrast and bokeh too, and better DOF control. I'm wondering if the DOF difference is FF vs aps-c, or if the Disney guy was shooting stopped down. Looks to me like the flash was to harsh on the Nikon, highlights are blown too.
I can't speak much about Minolta/Sony, they just simply are too rare a bird among professional photographers (especially the sports/journalist guys that I have the most contact). The Minolta/Sony bodies just aren't very popular with the pro shooters.
True, Sony has a long way to go to meet their market share goals. Plus they've not made a camera to compete with the 1Ds and D3 lines yet. A900 is mostly a 5D mk2 and D700 competitor. There are a some pros out there using Sony though, (Micheal Riechmann of Luminous Landscape, now uses Sony along side his Leica M9) mostly for studio and landscape work, Sony has focused more on low ISO detail, and not high ISO. So they are not as well suited for low light work (ie weddings/sports) as Canon. Comparing the A900 to the 5D mk2, according to DXO below ISO 400 Sony has better signal/noise ratio, 400 is about equal, and above 400 Canon is better.
True, Canon only. I would say that you are experiencing what can be a wide variation of quality when switching from third party to the expensive glass. Also. lenses like the 150-500, with such a broad reach, are notorious for that muted almost hazy look to the color. Sometimes they will have one length that produces a really nice image, while the rest of the reach is sub par. I would wager that on the 150-500, maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 is a sweet spot. You'll have to look for it.
Trust me If I was rich I'd have the Minolta 600mm f4 for my long lens, unfortunately I'm a long way from that. The Sigma 150-500mm I've found is surprisingly good for a < $1,000 lens. Colors aren't fantastic, but I made a Lightroom preset to quickly deal with that. And it's reasonable sharp. It is best between 200-400mm stopped down to f8. Wide open it's soft, especially in the corners. I actually use it more with my A700 for that reason, the soft corners get cropped out on aps sensor.
I am thinking about selling the 150-500 and getting a Sony 500mm f8 reflex instead. I'm sure I'd be cussing the f8 part in the twilight hours though. And the mirror in it makes funky donuts in the bokeh. But I'm sure it's sharper, better color and faster focusing.
What I've read about Sigma and Tamron both is that they have spotty quality control. Meaning different copies of the same lens vary widely in quality. My first Sigma 90mm I sent back, it was just awful, I think an element was out of alignment, it was always soft on the left side, and sharp from the middle right, they sent me a replacement and it's great, tack sharp like macros should be.
It used to be the only zoom I had was a 70-200mm 2.8. But I've started doing more, and more portrait work, engagements, families, senior pictures that kind of thing. I've done a few weddings too, but that's not really my cup o' tea. And... well I got sick of constantly switching between my 24, 35, and 50mm primes. So I finally splurged on the Sony CZ 24-70mm 2.8. I've found it to be equal or better then the old Minolta primes I used to use, and it's built like a tank. Out of the 3, I only use the 50mm anymore because it's a 1.7.
Before the Sigma 150-500mm I had a Sigma 400mm 5.6 prime, which worked pretty good till my A700 AF stripped out the gears in it.
Beside the faulty 90mm, and the stripped out 400mm I've had good luck with Sigma lenses. Here are a few from my old Sigma 70-200 2.8, it was a good lens, I found a great deal on a Minolta 80-200mm 2.8 "G" (it's cool cause it's white, and people think it's Canon, ;) little do they know Minolta did white lenses first.) or I'd still be using the Sigma.
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Wildlife/Bighorn-Sheep/Ram-Lamar-Valley-2/258728520_YPe7e-L-5.jpg)
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Wildlife/Bighorn-Sheep/Ram-Lamar-Valley-1/258728330_hpjXa-L-4.jpg)
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Wildlife/Muskrat/001/498918672_cRLYM-L-1.jpg)
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Wildlife/Eagles/002/504631300_yrRtb-L-1.jpg)
-
just to bring us back OT
That's a valid opinion, I don't follow the p&s market, so I really don't know much about them. I was just pointing out the ridiculousness of a clueless salesperson, trying to claim one is better then the other with absolutely no reasoning behind their opinion at all.
I'd disagree here, if that salesperson had taken loads of different pics with a range of different compacts there is good reason to follow her advice. the technical differences between them are ultimately irrelevant, what you want to end up with is a good image. In my experience canon p+s have generally produced the best colour in a range of conditions, the others always seem to have weird casts, over saturation etc. I dont need to know the technicalities of sensors, lens manufacture or post processing to appreciate the result.
-
just to bring us back OT
I'd disagree here, if that salesperson had taken loads of different pics with a range of different compacts there is good reason to follow her advice. the technical differences between them are ultimately irrelevant, what you want to end up with is a good image. In my experience canon p+s have generally produced the best colour in a range of conditions, the others always seem to have weird casts, over saturation etc. I dont need to know the technicalities of sensors, lens manufacture or post processing to appreciate the result.
That's a valid opinion too. But go back and read my conversation with her. She did not say it was better because it had better color reproduction.
I asked her why she though it was better and she said, "I dunno,... it just is."
Trust me, the odds that she had actually tested all (or even any) of the cameras they carry are slim to none. It has been my experience the salespersons at those kinds of stores are all pretty clueless when it comes to cameras.
Keep in mind Best Buy is primarily a consumer electronics store, and not a photography store, and the few low end cameras they do carry are geared towards electronic consumers, not serious photographers. I'd wager they know a lot more about the latest video game system, or car stereo then any camera.
I once asked someone there were the Compact Flash cards were, and he showed me the USB flash drives.
I said "No, the kind you use in cameras." and he showed me the SD cards.
I said "Sorry I'm looking for CF cards not SD, looks like you don't have any."
He then looked at me like I was from another planet, for a moment, then I see a light go on in his head, and he states matter of factly,
"Oh, oh, don't worry, these will work in your camera, all the memory brands are interchangeable, these will work in any camera."
I tried to explain to him that CF is a totally different format, not a different brand of SD card. But I don't know if he got it.
Granted, I would probably be just as clueless it he tried to explain car stereos to me. :huh
Edit: to really get back on topic, it seem that most agree the Sony you looked at, or that Panasonic DMC are a better choice then the Kodak. I'd bet either of them could turn out quality prints up to 11" x 14"
That's just 2 of many options though, I'm sure there are lots of good cameras from several different brands in your price range.
-
That's a valid opinion too. But go back and read my conversation with her. She did not say it was better because it had better color reproduction.
I asked her why she though it was better and she said, "I dunno,... it just is."
Trust me, the odds that she had actually tested all (or even any) of the cameras they carry are slim to none. It has been my experience the salespersons at those kinds of stores are all pretty clueless when it comes to cameras.
Keep in mind Best Buy is primarily a consumer electronics store, and not a photography store, and the few low end cameras they do carry are geared towards electronic consumers, not serious photographers. I'd wager they know a lot more about the latest video game system, or car stereo then any camera.
I once asked someone there were the Compact Flash cards were, and he showed me the USB flash drives.
I said "No, the kind you use in cameras." and he showed me the SD cards.
I said "Sorry I'm looking for CF cards not SD, looks like you don't have any."
He then looked at me like I was from another planet, for a moment, then I see a light go on in his head, and he states matter of factly,
"Oh, oh, don't worry, these will work in your camera, all the memory brands are interchangeable, these will work in any camera."
I tried to explain to him that CF is a totally different format, not a different brand of SD card. But I don't know if he got it.
Granted, I would probably be just as clueless it he tried to explain car stereos to me. :huh
Edit: to really get back on topic, it seem that most agree the Sony you looked at, or that Panasonic DMC are a better choice then the Kodak. I'd bet either of them could turn out quality prints up to 11" x 14"
That's just 2 of many options though, I'm sure there are lots of good cameras from several different brands in your price range.
Gotta agree about the Best Buy employee... Idiot trying to make a sale instead of help a customer. Honestly, best thing the OP did was start this thread instead of go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart and listen to uneducated mopes talk out of their butts.
And the whole CF card vs SD card thing just bugs the crap out of me too. In the consumer market it always seems to be all about making the camera smaller. Too bad that smaller cameras produce crappier images. There is a reason why when I shoot candids at a wedding reception I use a bracket to raise my flash as high above the lens as possible. There are good reasons why high end lens are very very large in diameter.
Smaller is only better if you are a giggly little high school sophomore girl who wants to take idiotic snaps of all her cheerleader friends and that oh so dreamy quarterback senior on the football team...
Pfft...
Give me a 14 pound 300mm f2.8 any day. I've been known to hand hold the sucker through 12 hour days of hockey tournaments! Just because I couldn't use the monopod though! :lol Man does it wreak me for a couple days!
-
Nice comparison Dave, I would say you have better contrast and bokeh too, and better DOF control. I'm wondering if the DOF difference is FF vs aps-c, or if the Disney guy was shooting stopped down. Looks to me like the flash was to harsh on the Nikon, highlights are blown too.
That's honestly a good question on the DOF... I spent some time talking to some of the Disney photogs. If I had to guess, I would say he was stopped down to close to wide open. Those guys really don't have any understanding of the craft. They are actually given a three ring binder with sample framing for different group sizes. And there is a page with very specific Shutter/Ap settings. I only saw this binder when one guy couldn't figure out why his shots were showing dark on the screen. He had to go through his "manual" to learn that he had his shutter speed set incorrectly.
I think I would tell them to set to Program Shift and leave it the heck alone! :D They would probably have better results.
And you are definitely right about the flash being too harsh in the photo. The Disney guys don't bounce. It's all direct flash, which is always harsh. Even more so when the lens is shooting wide open. Plus with their rigid "manual", they don't take ambient lighting into account at all.
Personally, I always shoot no flash if I can. If I can't, I bounce. If I can't bounce, I like a on flash soft box attachment. If that isn't going to work, then direct flash. Direct flash is always always always the last resort for me.
True, Sony has a long way to go to meet their market share goals. Plus they've not made a camera to compete with the 1Ds and D3 lines yet. A900 is mostly a 5D mk2 and D700 competitor. There are a some pros out there using Sony though, (Micheal Riechmann of Luminous Landscape, now uses Sony along side his Leica M9) mostly for studio and landscape work, Sony has focused more on low ISO detail, and not high ISO. So they are not as well suited for low light work (ie weddings/sports) as Canon..
Sony will have a tough time breaking into the pro market. They basically have to wait for the current pros to die or retire. I'm not about to pony up the $50k or so that it would cost me to switch over.
The only real shot Sony has in the pro market is with the really large news corps. A number of years ago a major paper (think it was USA Today, but may be remembering wrong) switched from Nikon gear over to Canon gear. The independant Nikon shooters made out like bandits when the paper put the old gear up for sale. I have a friend who shoots Nikon who picked up some really nice stuff for literally pennies on the dollar. But Sony will never be able to make those sales until they are offering gear that is on the top level like the EOS1Dmk3 (or is the mk4 out yet? I shoot a mk3). Most of the news guys shoot for frame rate over resolution, and that is the market that Sony is totally out of at moment. Low light is seriously important to us newsies too. Fast lenses and freakishly high ISO is like crack for a sports photographer. I actually still get a lot of satisfaction when I go to my daughters softball games... I'll sneak up behind a couple of parents who are trying to shoot between the wires of the chain link fence. I'll plop my 300f2.8 down on the monopod an let loose at 10fps at a low f stop to blow the chain link out. I love it when Sally Soccer mom says, "Oh wow, I bet you get some good pictures."
:lol
And it is actually even worse then that for Sony. As an independant, I occaisionally hire a stringer or two to help me out at an event I am covering. They shoot what I tell them to shoot, but the images are mine. Then I pay them whatever flat rate was agreed upon, usually in the range of $10-12 an hour. They don't make much, they get zero credit for their images, even if I sell them all over the world, but they get some experience and an new line on the old resume. Thing is, I usually require stringers to have some (not all) of their own gear. Two reasons, one is so I don't have to buy as much equipment and two is it is a way for me to weed out the applicants a bit. But, long story short, anybody who wants to be a stringer for me has a Canon body. So, they're already hooked into the Canon "tradition". That's a bond Sony won't find it easy to break either.
Trust me If I was rich I'd have the Minolta 600mm f4 for my long lens, unfortunately I'm a long way from that. The Sigma 150-500mm I've found is surprisingly good for a < $1,000 lens. Colors aren't fantastic, but I made a Lightroom preset to quickly deal with that. And it's reasonable sharp. It is best between 200-400mm stopped down to f8. Wide open it's soft, especially in the corners. I actually use it more with my A700 for that reason, the soft corners get cropped out on aps sensor.
Those are really long lengths. So you obviously (judging from your very nice mountain goat shots and your lens selections), are into wildlife. That's a pretty specialised group to be in. And unfortunately for you, the most expensive gear wise. (And hard to make money at too unfortunately).
But your getting great quality. I'm curious how much post production you are having to do on your images? You're getting really nice results.
I don't do much wildlife, except for fun when the opportunity presents. For instance, here is an Eagle photo that I took awhile back. Actually with my old Canon 10D, mounting my 300f2.8 on a 2x Tele-converter. The only post production was a minor crop.
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_8135.jpg)
I am thinking about selling the 150-500 and getting a Sony 500mm f8 reflex instead. I'm sure I'd be cussing the f8 part in the twilight hours though. And the mirror in it makes funky donuts in the bokeh. But I'm sure it's sharper, better color and faster focusing.
I'm sure you can do better then the 150-500, but I don't know if you're going to be happy with an f8 lens. I would almost think you would be better off trying pick up a used 300f2.8 and a 2x tele-converter also. At 2.8 and 2x tele you're shooting at 5.6. As long as you have a quality tele-converter you won't lose too much color saturation and will benefit from the huge amount of extra light that you'd be getting over an f8 lens. Your reach would be longer too. A 300f2.8 with a 2x tele on an APS-C camera is shooting equivelent to a FF 960mm after all, with quite a bit more light to boot. I don't know if there is anything like that available for your body or not. I do know that there probably isn't much of a used market for lenses you can use though. At any rate, I'd encourage you to explore the option before buying a mirror lens.
What I've read about Sigma and Tamron both is that they have spotty quality control. Meaning different copies of the same lens vary widely in quality. My first Sigma 90mm I sent back, it was just awful, I think an element was out of alignment, it was always soft on the left side, and sharp from the middle right, they sent me a replacement and it's great, tack sharp like macros should be.
That might be right. I can promise you that every Tamron and Tokina lens (including a Tokina 300f2.8) sucked.
It used to be the only zoom I had was a 70-200mm 2.8. But I've started doing more, and more portrait work, engagements, families, senior pictures that kind of thing. I've done a few weddings too, but that's not really my cup o' tea. And... well I got sick of constantly switching between my 24, 35, and 50mm primes. So I finally splurged on the Sony CZ 24-70mm 2.8. I've found it to be equal or better then the old Minolta primes I used to use, and it's built like a tank. Out of the 3, I only use the 50mm anymore because it's a 1.7.
The 70-200f2.8 is a good utility lens. In fact, that's probably my favorite lens to use. Even for portrait work. In fact, I would suggest that you do most of your portrait work at the 200mm end of that lens with the stop as wide open as lighting allows. The longer reach helps to blow the back ground out, which is generally preferred in a portrait. I also use a 24-70f2.8 (Canon though of course!) It is the lens that I use primarily at weddings (for the posed shots) and receptions (the candids).
The only "short" primes that I use very often are a 50f1.4 that I use to REALLY blow the back ground out, or if I want the Iris of an eye in focus but the tip of the nose very soft, and a 20f2.8 that I use for those large group occaisions.
As for weddings, the very best advice I can offer you is this. Spend a few hundred dollars on a couple of mono-lights and start doing a few weddings a year whether you like them or not. Sure they can be stressful, especially when you are new at it. But weddings are pretty much the best way to actually make money with a camera.
I would advise you to try and do a few every year, then just put the cash make directly into upgrading your gear. You'd be surprised how quickly you can improve your gear if you do a few weddings with the sole intent of pouring the money into equipment. It actually wouldn't take all that long to get yourself into some higher end glass.
If you might be interested in this, shoot me a PM and we'll get on the phone and I'll tell you how to approach it to actually break into the market in your area and make some money at it. It's easier then you might think.
Before the Sigma 150-500mm I had a Sigma 400mm 5.6 prime, which worked pretty good till my A700 AF stripped out the gears in it.
Canon Ultrasonic baby! No gears to strip! :D
-
Smaller is only better if you are a giggly little high school sophomore girl who wants to take idiotic snaps of all her cheerleader friends and that oh so dreamy quarterback senior on the football team...
I guess no one ever took a decent image with one of those girly Leica rangefinders then ...
-
I guess no one ever took a decent image with one of those girly Leica rangefinders then ...
Ah you know what I meant :neener:
-
:)
-
I guess no one ever took a decent image with one of those girly Leica rangefinders then ...
I actually got to put a roll through a Leica M3 once, with the 3 focal length lens on it, (I forget what it's called, Summicron something or other) I have to say I did love the rangefinder viewfinder, and the split image focusing. I was snapping candids at a wedding reception with it, and it worked well for that purpose. They are just impractical for many other purposes, SLRs are just a better all purpose solution. Not to mention Leicas are ridiculously expensive, how much is the M9? $7k? for an all manual rangefinder, with a low res screen and a sensor make by Kodak. I can see maybe $2-3k as reasonable for that. Still if I were ridiculously wealthy I'd probably get one. :D
-
(http://www.pbase.com/bug322/image/121816413/large.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/bug322/image/116840216/large.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/bug322/image/116840472/large.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/bug322/image/116840763/large.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/bug322/image/116868184/large.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/bug322/image/116839106/large.jpg)
(http://www.pbase.com/bug322/image/116839211/large.jpg)
All these pix where done with the 4 year old D50
Although i love my Nikon D50 (17-55 F2,8 DX,50MM f1,8 and 300MM F4)
Some enthousiasts say Panasonic makes nice compacts