Entry-level DSLR compared to Prosumer (SPEED)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Nov 26, 2005.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    The argument about DSLRs (and it's accurate) is that they eclipse
    conventional P&S cameras when it comes to providing a noise-free
    clean image, especially at high ISOs. However, the vast majority
    (you HAVE seen Nikon's TV ads for the D50, right??) of the buyers of
    entry-level DSLRs are buying them with kit lenses that are markedly
    slower than most of the lenses on P&S, especially if the P&S has a
    short zoom, (max 5x) like a typical kit DSLR's kit lens and especially
    if you stop the zoom down to achieve decent image quality.

    So, you have two cameras, the argument being the DSLR has less noise.
    But, compare the Canon Rebel XT and Canon's Powershot Pro-1.
    The Rebel XT has an 18-55mm kit lens which (according to dealers I've
    spoken with) is all many people buy with the camera. Some will buy
    extra lenses, but only if they go beyond the normal camera user to the
    enthusiastic amateur level.

    The Rebel XTs kit lens is an 18-55mm f3.5-f5.6. This lens only works
    as a reasonably sharp lens when stopped down to around f9, but lets
    say to be generous, one stop. So, the lens becomes an f5.6-f8 lens,
    unless you like cropping the outer 15% of the image every time you
    want to save one to eliminate blurring.

    At f5.6 at 18mm, it is 2 stops slower than the Pro-1 whose lens goes
    from f2.4-f3.5 at 28mm-200mm equivalent. Its lens is superior in
    construction to the kit zoom on the Rebel, employing both aspherical
    and UD elements.

    More importantly, it will provide image resolution nearly as high as
    the Rebel, as tests confirm.

    So, at f2.4, around 28mm equivalent, it is at least two stops faster
    than what an equivalent shot from the Rebel will produce. At full
    zoom, it is again 2 stops faster than the Rebel.

    So, yes the Rebel's sensor allow it to shoot at 1600 ISO but it's lens
    is effectively 2 stops slower so the Pro-1 will achieve the same speed
    using only 400 ISO.

    If you compare the images of the Rebel XT at 1600 with the Pro-1
    images at 400, the XT seems to have far less noise. The Pro-1s noise
    is very tight, meaning it's almost film grain-like. This affords the
    opportunity for effective reduction using noise-reducing techniques.

    The XT uses aggressive noise reduction in it's in-camera processing
    and what noise there is at 1600 appears "soft." If you wash a Pro-1
    image through a noise reduction program like Neat Image or even PS's
    own, the noise structure then looks almost identical to the Rebel XT's
    at 1600.

    The basic solution to this "problem" on the part of the XT is to buy a
    better lens to begin with, but then the pricing becomes almost double
    that of the Pro-1 anyway, putting it beyond the spend of many
    consumers who want a decent camera but don't want to go above
    Rich, Nov 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Eatmorepies Guest

    What's your point?

    Eatmorepies, Nov 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yup, that is how it works.
    Charles Schuler, Nov 26, 2005
  4. Rich

    timeOday Guest

    I'm not sure, but maybe that buying a DSLR isn't a very good choice if
    you'll only ever use it with a single affordable lens.

    I was reminded of the discussion near the end of this review of the Sony
    DSC-R1, a rather SLR-like camera with a fixed lens:
    timeOday, Nov 26, 2005
  5. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    And that's Rich's problem because... ?
    Yes, the R1's lens seems to be pretty good.
    But it's fixed.
    The point of a DSLR isn't what people will put on it, but instead,
    it's what people *CAN* put on it.
    That someone buys a DSLR and never buys another lens for it than the
    kit lens that it came with doesn't affect me at all. I can (and have)
    bought other lenses for mine. I couldn't do that with an R1. Or any
    other fixed lens camera. I could add converters, but that wouldn't get
    me the quality a seperate lens can afford.

    So, if the R1 suits, but it. No problem. If a DSLR suits, buy it.
    Again, no problem.
    Rich is doing his best to be a rabblerouser.
    Bill Funk, Nov 26, 2005
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    No, they will have optional attachments for it for great WA and
    telephoto shooting. Granted, you won't see 8mm or 400mm equivalents
    Neither will using zoom lenses compared to fixed-focal length prime
    lenses. No one debates variation in quality from one lens combination
    to the next, but there is a "bottom rung" you don't really want to
    descend below. The gist of the post was that maybe, configured as
    they are for rank amateurs, there is no major advantage with
    entry-level DSLRs compared to prosumers?. Once you decide to spend
    more money than the average amateur, the advantages come into play
    in the form of better lenses.
    Well, Sony obviously had a rationale for bringing this camera out.
    Was it to "rabblerouse?"
    Rich, Nov 27, 2005
  7. Rich

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Rich just slathers on the FUD relentlessly:
    Say, why didn't you use the subject line "Why so few prime lenses

    Oh, right, because someone already did last week!


    Rich, like all the trolls, you are predictably unoriginal. Have you
    asked even one honest question on USENET? As is typical with the
    finest propaganda, your lastest babbling rant consists of a mixture of
    truth and falsehood, designed more to convince yourself than any
    rational reader.

    I've recommended you consider obtaining a camera and/or a life, but at
    this point both of these events appear to be very unlikely. Your
    entire spew can be viewed as the Lament of the Financially Challenged:
    you can't afford a good camera. It can also be read as the Screech of
    the Cognitively Dissonated: you can't face the psychic blow from the
    aforementioned financial problem, so you proceed to so you make up
    bullshit to justify your continued inability -- though you call it
    "lack of desire" --- to buy even the least expensive dSLR.

    And, from your infantile point of view, if you can't have it, no one
    should have it.

    HA HA HA. I have a 1DMkII Rich, I have a 10D. I use them regularly.
    They take fantastic images. Even with my EF 17-35/2.8L. HA HA HA HA
    HA. I know more than a few people who agree, and I've seen the
    evidence from _their_ cameras. Squirm, you miserable excuse for a
    FUDster troll! I really hope you lie awake at night thinking there are
    other people having fun with their equipment, making money, and
    otherwise getting outside and living their lives and being productive
    .... and they are doing so without your royal assent, permission, or
    even without the value of your dubious analytics! And I hope these
    thoughts bring you terrible, wracking, episodes of insomnia and doubt.
    Everyone else is laughing at you. Can you hear them? Listen: HA HA
    eawckyegcy, Nov 27, 2005
  8. Rich

    Ron Hunter Guest

    It seems to me that the rationale for buying a DSLR is flexibility, at
    the cost of convenience, weight, and price. For those who don't need
    this flexibility, the DSLR isn't a good choice.
    Ron Hunter, Nov 27, 2005
  9. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Have you seen the 1.7x telephoto auxiliary lens ? It's *HUGE*.
    Alfred Molon, Nov 27, 2005
  10. Rich

    Alfred Molon Guest

    He made a perfectly valid point. What problem do you have ?
    Alfred Molon, Nov 27, 2005
  11. Isn't that just to make the people who call the cameras tiny, happy? I
    mean, people buy the extra bettery grips for the Nikon Coolpix range just
    to make the cameras big enough to hold!


    (I'm sticking with my 350g, 432mm f/3.3 zoom).

    David J Taylor, Nov 27, 2005
  12. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    Yes, that's what I said.
    I also said that's not a problem for me, and I also (through the
    "rabblerouser" comment) question why it's a problem for you.
    No, that was your intent.
    Sony's rational was specifically to make money. That's what Sony is
    here for: to make money for its owners. That it brings out what others
    see as a good product is merely the means to that end.

    You could have just as easily said a Porsche isn't a good purchase for
    a 16-year old first driver. My response would be the same: "So what?"
    Bill Funk, Nov 27, 2005
  13. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    I wouldn't call the R1 "tiny"!
    Bill Funk, Nov 27, 2005
  14. Rich

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    Not everyone wants to shoot at high IOS settings. I shoot most of my
    photos at 100 and 200 ISO. The entry level dSLRs also allow one to buy
    into a dSLR system and then purchase additional lenses and accessories
    as the need and budget allow.
    Shawn Hirn, Nov 27, 2005
  15. Rich

    Bill Funk Guest

    And that's one of the wondeful things about the wide variety of
    cameras out there!
    First, you determine what you want in a camera, then you decide which
    one that fits those needs you'll buy.
    If that's not a DSLR, wonderful! Think of the money you'll save!
    Bill Funk, Nov 27, 2005
  16. Rich

    ASAAR Guest

    eawckyegcy ("HA HA HA. I have a 1DMkII Rich, I have a 10D. I use
    them regularly. They take fantastic images. Even with my EF
    17-35/2.8L. HA HA HA HA HA." made his usual point, with no attempt
    to go beyond the infantile trolling he specializes in. Rich seems
    to have simply noticed that many consumers buy cameras the way they
    buy many other overly hyped and advertized products, overspending
    for features or potential quality that won't ever be used, buying
    themselves an "image". If they can afford it, I see nothing wrong
    with that, but a few of the regulars here seem to be insecure enough
    to feel threatened by this idea, even though Rich doesn't seem to
    have been talking about them. But completely aside from the point
    he made, he also provided a side benefit, which was that by creating
    such a tizzy, the knee-jerks clearly identified themselves!
    ASAAR, Nov 27, 2005
  17. Rich

    Rich Guest

    If you are satisfied with the image quality you are getting, then
    thats all that matters.
    Rich, Nov 27, 2005
  18. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Of course. The size of the fixed lens more or less dictates that
    otherwise you end up with a nice vignetted circle!
    Rich, Nov 27, 2005
  19. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Why is a observation a problem? The only problem is economics.
    That true performance and flexibility is possible with a DSLR but only
    a much higher price than the kits we see on the market. This changes
    the demographic the cameras initially aim at.
    Because many of the arguments against prosumers versus entry-level
    DSLRS now (given the INITIAL cost of both systems) centre around
    economics and the economics for both systems (once you examine them)
    do not match.
    Rich, Nov 27, 2005
  20. Rich

    Matt Ion Guest

    That's it, I'm sold.... I'm tossing out my Digital Rebel, my Rebel G,
    both kit lenses, my 75-300 EF, and my Speedlite EX420, and replacing it
    all with a Fujifilm A201. Screw this DSLR crap, digital P&S is where
    it's at!

    Well done, Rich. You can go away now. Your work is complete.

    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0547-5, 11/26/2005
    Tested on: 11/27/2005 12:00:38 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    Matt Ion, Nov 27, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

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