Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation
On 7/2/2013 11:29 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> alex_m <alex_m@none> wrote:
>> My old Nikon D40 was stolen on a recent trip and I am looking for a
>> replacement. Any advice is greatly appreciated! Here is more info:
> A Nikon D40 is rather old (2006) and outdated technology by
> today's standards, which should make replacing it a bit
> of a joy!
>> I have a Canon 1D mark ii N (long in the tooth, but I still like it a
>> LOT and use as a primary camera). I used D40 on trips where the weight
>> of 1D is a pain, with either a light prime or a 18-200 superzoom. I
>> played a little with small compacts (Lumix and Nikon) and realized
>> they do not work for me -- I like the size, but I am underwhelmed by the
>> pictures. Likely a part of this is my fault, but I decided to stay
>> with DSLRs.
> The Canon 1DMII is also very long of tooth (2004), but
> has at least an advantage of being a high end camera
> with lots of great features, if not such great image
> To put it mildly, any camera from Nikon or Canon that
> was introduced later than early 2010 will produce
> significantly better images than either a Canin 1DMII or
> a Nikon D40.
>> Preferences: I am looking for something that is relatively light and
>> would be usually coupled with a superzoom or a light prime. Not too
>> fickle (D40 climbed Rainier and went on a few sea kayaking trips with
>> me). Price is not a #1 consideration, but prefer to take it around and
>> not feel too protective about it (for me, a $1000 camera would satisfy
>> this, $5000 would not). Probably Canon - I have a couple of good Canon
>> lenses that I could use with it. Low noise at daylight ISOs (say, up
>> to 800) is crucial; good performance at higher ISO is nice, but not
> I suspect that one of the recent Canon models would be
> best for your purposes. I'm a Nikon user, so I can't
> really suggest which Canon would best suit your
> It also sounds, from your descriptions, as if another
> low end Nikon would also be just about as useful. A
> D3200 would produce better images, particularly if you
> want to use a superzoom such as the 18-200mm. Nikon's
> 18-200mm is reputed to be the best such lens available,
> and the D3200 has a sensor that is equalled only by high
> end models. Because of your more or less "single use"
> pattern, the advantages of a D3200 might make it better
> than a Canon. (Normally, for general purpose use, two
> cameras that can use the same lenses would trump all
>> I am wary of high megapixel cameras -- one of the problems I saw with
>> subcompacts was noise, which I think may be caused by a small sensor
>> subdivided into lots of pixels. Is this a false assumption?
> Just be aware that starting with Nikon's release in 2008
> of models like the D3 and D300 there has been a huge
> jump in sensor technology that affects noise, dynamic
> range, and higher ISO. And that increment was surpassed
> with another jump in 2010 with newer models with even better
> Nikon has always tended toward better image quality at
> lower pixel counts. So their best models up through
> 2010 were all 12 MP sensors, but now the high end
> cameras are 18MP for the D4 and 36MP for the D800, and
> these cameras are unbeaten for high ISO, low noise, and
> high dynamic range. The lower end models of course
> aren't quite as good, but they also follow the trend.
> (A current Nikon D3200 or D5100 would be significantly
> better than the Canon 1D MII.)
> Here is a URL to a chart showing dyanmic range vs ISO, which
> is probably the most useful bar to judge image quality from.
> That graphs the Canon 1DMII, the Nikon D40, D5100, and
> D3200. Other models, both from Canon and Nikon, can
> significantly better the D5100 by as much again as it is
> over the older models, but not at prices even close to
> what you are interested in.
> Try clicking on different models shown in the list on
> the right side to get other comparisons.
>> I will probably also get a superzoom (my 18-200 disappeared with the
>> D40), so any recommendations on this are appreciated as well.
> That comment does tend to suggest that a Nikon D3200 or
> D5100 plus the Nikkor 18-200mm superzoom would provide
> the best images for the purpose you have. Weight that
> carefully against the general advantages though of
> having two bodies that use the same lenses, and in
> particular because the latest low end Canon models will
> also produce significantly better results at anything
> other than the lowest ISO settings. A modern low end
> Canon body might even cause you to stop using the older
> 1D completely!
The only issue I have with your mostly accurate comments are that my
18-200 Zoom was not a great lens. Mine produced low contrast, soft
images. It was OK as a walk around lens, for taking snapshots, and
family pictures, but that's about it.
If budget permits, and weight is a serious consideration, I would
consider a Leica B-lux. (Not a cheap camera, but produces excellent
images, up to about 800 iSO)
Re: Looking for DSLR selection recommendation
On 7/3/2013 8:36 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> PeterN <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On 7/2/2013 11:29 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>>> [...] particularly if you
>>> want to use a superzoom such as the 18-200mm. Nikon's
>>> 18-200mm is reputed to be the best such lens available,
>> The only issue I have with your mostly accurate comments
>> are that my 18-200 Zoom was not a great lens.
> Note that my rather accurate assessment of the 18-200mm
> in no way shape or form suggested it was a "great lens"!
> It's just the best 18-200mm superzoom around, which means
> it is still a relatively poor lens.
> I've personally never owned one because of that.
>> produced low contrast, soft images. It was OK as a walk
>> around lens, for taking snapshots, and family pictures,
>> but that's about it.
> That is exactly what a superzoom is well known to be.
> I use a 24-120mm f/4G lens, and while I would really
> like a wider zoom range, I just can't live with the
> lower quality.
For wide angle work on my D800. I make do with my old Nikkor 20mm as a
fixed lens and 12-24 DX. I have even used my 10.5 semi fisheye.
I have not yet decided whether I will get a replacement, but if I do, it
will most likely be the 16-35. The 14-24 is better glass, butis a lot
heavier and will not accept filters, so I cannot use it for long
exposures. (Yes I know I can get an adapter and a series of ND filters.
But, I'm not sure that is a practical solution for me.
>> If budget permits, and weight is a serious
>> consideration, I would consider a Leica B-lux. (Not a
>> cheap camera, but produces excellent images, up to about
>> 800 iSO)
> I'm not sure which camera you are referring to, as I
> can't find anything about a Leica B-Lux and there are
> both V-Lux and D-Lux models (none of which I'm at all
> familiar with). Assuming you mean a Leica V-Lux 4,
> which has a 24x zoom... I think I'd stick with either
> the Nikon or the Canon.
Oops. I meant the D-Lux. I agree about the V-Lux.
|All times are GMT. The time now is 08:53 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.