Camera Labs

Thank you so much! I think the 15,30, and 60 seconds will do for now until I'm able to save up for a really good DSLR camera Is the 30 or 60 seconds enough to get that line of light when the cars pass by? I would really want to try that!!!

Thanks again.

I have had the G9 with me for a few days.. other then the reason it really impressed me with tonns and tonns of feature's.. but when i placed the AV to the minimum value i dont tend to acheive the same depth of field as i do with my DSLR but with 2 points value higher then the G9's minimum...

Wierd

_________________
Camera's: Canon 450D - Canon 40D
Lenses: Canon 70-200mm F/4 L, Sigma 10-20mm, Tokina 28-70, Sigma 300mm 2.8, Canon 50mm 1.4, EFS 60mm 2.8 macro
Flashes: 430EXII, 580EX and ST-E2

Just thought I'd add my two cents. The one thing I love about having a DSLR is the fact that you can use much higher ISO's and still have good looking images. I mean on a DSLR you can look at an image and say hey i cant actually see noise in that shot. Yeah I admit the size difference can put some people off, but you get used to it. You get used to the non existent start up times, no shutter lag, and just having something that works right there and then. I'd rather have taken a shot and got it wrong knowing I was at fault, rather than the camera not having the capabilities i needed to get it right I guess.

_________________
I've upped my Iso, now up yours.
Nikon D700, Nikon D80, Micro Nikkor 105 f2.8 AI-S,Nikon 85mm 1.8D, Nikon 50mm 1.8D, Nikon 35mm F2D, Nikon 16-35 f4 VR, Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 AF-S, Nikon 70-200VRII, Nikon 70-300mm VR, 300mm f2.8 AI IF ED, SB-800, SB-900. Noiseware pro,NIK Dfine, Nik Colour Effex, Nik Sharpener Pro

Sure a dslr will do a couple of tricks that a compact won't. But a compact will do millions of tricks that a dslr won't. Just ask a million dslr users who didn't have their camera handy when I pulled my compact out of my pocket.

A DSLR is much bigger than a compact, even the smallest of the bunch like an Olympus E-510 or E-520. A DSLR however, will provide much higher image quality and better performance in terms of speed, and flexibility. Changeable lenses can be considered a minus to some, who'd rather not deal with the hassle though. A DSLR also provides significantly more control over the picture, and thus the final result. If one is really interested in high image quality but a smaller form-factor comparable to a compact, then the upcoming micro four-thirds form-factor from Olympus might deliver. Of course, it will no longer technically be a DSLR. I suppose one could call it a digital rangefinder.

_________________
Sony A300 || 18-70 Kit Lens || Minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan || Minolta 50mm f1.7 || METZ 48-AF1 Flashgun || flickr

Yes, the new Oly micro 4/3 will be tempting as an ideal crossover catch-all system! Of course it will be at least close to dSLR prices, even though the mirror box is missing, so there still will be a price advantage for compacts.

To clarify something that was apparently hotly discussed a while ago (I wasn't around a while, too busy being a corporate slave until I lost that job):

There are those typical "say cheese" smile pics that too many people take. Flash in face, silly faces, memories of people for people. No great photography, the value is in its personal value, but please don't bore every visitor with those albums! Those snapshots can never justify a major camera expense, just take the compact and be happy, save the money you spend on more camera for another party cake or another beer kegg (aka barrel) instead, and you'll get more happy "say cheese" pics for your facebook page or that album you use to torture vistors through an evening!

Did I watch too many Jerry Lewis and Three Stooges movies growing up? Why is it that so many here had a problem with my entirely over the top comments about all those millions of bad pictures that would make waste of an expensive dSLR?
Just imagine a funny commercial with bad photographers, actually catering to those same photographers by offering a low cost compact?
I bet they would be the FIRST people to "get it" and say "hey, I don't do art, I want to do that baby pic, give me that little camera!"

Then there is that attempt and maybe even success at more.

A compact used with care can CERTAINLY yield impressive results, and my little Panasonic/Leica DMC LC40 delivered pictures with such ease and quality when I bought it 5 years ago (it is STILL in use, unlike my film cams), that it blew my affection for the expense of 35mm film away, and left only my tender love for my 30 year old Ricoh KR-5 SLR I bought as a teen.

Now, if one is very serious about making more than above mentioned torture album shots, one CAN do it with a compact.

Just remember that Leica started as a dinky little belittled thing back then, the first successful models in a new breed of smaller format film cameras using the "lesser" 35mm film, but became a legend in the hands of capable photographers.

Today's compacts are just like history's first little 35mm Leicas.

But unlike those Leicas, digital compacts are truly affordable for average Joe and Jane Doe - but the more serious photographer may want to opt for the larger bulk of a "modern medium format TLR" equivalent - the digital SLR based on the old 35mm SLR format - because it can get a shot under more challenging conditions, when a compact becomes a real gamble - even at the cost of lugging more and needing a LOT of determination to carry the beast with you every day not to miss anything

And for those without a computer - I am seeing digital frames coming down a lot, and they will soon be a viable alternative to paper albums - not yet, but they are getting there.
Low budget, or carry around - go compact!
My own favs so far: Fuji F40/45, or Canon S3 or S5 or SX100-IS.
The Fuji F45 I had for a while, but being used to my dSLR, I couldn't quite hold it right - nice pics though! I still liked the handling and form factor of my old Panasonic LC40 better, so returned the Fuji.

And for dSLR: doing it over, I'd be torn between Oly 4/3, Canon, and Nikon. BUT with the new micro 4/3 coming out - hmmmm .... they may corner the market yet, with a great compromise for only slightly reduced image quality compared to Canon's CMOS chips, but with far less bulk, and neat preview

_________________
Owen - born late and still not catching up

"Why is a big piece of glass for a camera called fast? I've never seen any of my lenses run away!"

K100d Super, K100d, lots of "fast" glassy stuff

I've got a Nikon E5700 s/zoom that generally gives me good results. However, I came to that from a TLR and SLR background (plus studio cameras; Sinar etc) and I miss the immediacy of the SLR. I saw the Canon 450D and liked it but also liked the Nikon D80. News of the D90 has just made me twitch even more!

As an artist, I also want to snap my pictures at a high resolution, so a DSLR will be just the ticket

Carrying the s/zoom around isn't a problem but then I didn't worry with my old Pentax either.

_________________
David
http://www.davidraison.co.uk
http://www.jumpsystems.co.uk

Nikon E5700 (only 5Mp but good results)
Artist

Very nice article and a good summation in the 'Final Verdict'.

Being an engineer in the 21st C I look for quick practical answers.

For me the most important ques is: Do you want to take snapshots or photographs?

I had a couple of Nikon F2's w/ lenses, etc in the 60's-70's then I started *doing* much of what I had been photographing so I got a point-and- shoot and now I have a renewed interest in making photographs so I got a D80, etc.

Camera bags that flip around to give practically instant access to your main back and a couple of lenses are a godsend and might be a swaying factor (always consider the whole system if you can) toward DSLR.

Also, with the D90, Live View and video clips are now within the province of the DSLR - can tilting LCD's be far behind?

Yes, I do have a little 'Buyers Remorse' when I read about the D90.

_________________
Life is uncertain - Eat dessert first!

Hi INOV8TN, welcome to the Cameralabs forums!

Tilting screens on DSLRs are already here!

See the Olympus E-3, Sony A300, Sony A350 and Panasonic L10 - we have reviews of all four...

Lads.. you're all terrific! Some are talking over my head but I am beginning to get the hang of things. Some issues are still unclear to me though.. do have a look!

1) Depth of field. I hear DSLR's have a lower depth of field due to larger sensor(??) and that this causes the focus to be narrower and to blur out the background. Is this really a feature one would want? I would like to at least have the oppurtunity to get as much of the image as possible sharp or sharpish.

2) Zoom and zoomfactor. On a DSLR lenses go from x mm to y mm. I understand that the zoom factor is mathematically derived from the division y/x. Correct? An 18 - 200 mm lens would thus yield a 6-7 times zoom?
Some of course go even further. Does a lens that cover a wider range of wide-tele area have worse IQ than say two different ones that cover that same range? Problems with purple fringing or sharpness, etc?

3) I heard Gordon talking about the glass on a super zoom (think it was the DMC fz50) saying that comparing to even an expensive lens on a DSLR (covering the equivalent massive zoom) it would probably be better. How is that even possible? Why are the zoom lenses on a DSLR so huge then? It seems to serve no purpose..

Keep them posts rolling...

Hi Anders, as to your Qs:
1. dof (depth of focus) is a great means of making an image (as opposed to shooting a picture) It allows you to leave objects out of focus that are not relevant to the image. But you can always stop the lens down to get a larger dof.
2. 18-200 has a 200/18=11.1x zoom-factor. Normally that is much harder to develop and costlier to produce at good quality than a 3x or 5x zoom. But as even a cheaply built 3x zoom can be a disappointment in the IQ (imiage quality) department your Q has to be answered specifically regarding the lenses that you're looking at. A super-zoom also typically has it's focal lenghts where it is quite good and those where it is weak. So this story is complicated.
3. Super-zooms for small sensor cameras are easier to design and cheaper to build as the equivalent zooms for say a FF/FX-body. But the same caveats as in 2. apply here.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Sorry to be pedantic but DoF stands for depth of field, not focus.

_________________
David
http://www.davidraison.co.uk
http://www.jumpsystems.co.uk

Nikon E5700 (only 5Mp but good results)
Artist

I think Thomas used the phrase to ensure clarity and disperse any confusion that might occur.

Mark

_________________
Canon EOS 40D / EF-S 17-85mm IS / EF 50mm f/1.8 / My Flickr

Yes David, you're rrrrrrrright!
Sometimes I should read my own abbreviations post here

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses

Alright.. yes.. 200/18 = 11.1 but I wonder... is this the magnification ratio from the very very wide angle 18 mm? Or would a 28-200 mm lens not magnify as much (200/28 = 7.14)? Would they get equally close to their object?