Yet another camera thread (35mm vs digital)

[Chewy509]

Hi Guys,

Well, my Kodak 35mm camera has finely decided to die, new batteries, cleaned the internals (as much as I can), but yet, nothing happens when I switch it on... Well, it is 11 years old (got it for my birthday before leaving for the military), and has taken 1000's of photos. It's served me well.

So I'm after a new camera... I've been throwing around a few ideas about 35mm vs digital and have been reading/researching on the net.

I've gathered that MP count doesn't mean anything if you've got a crap sensor, and that the 2 benefits of DSLR is the ability to use different lenses and that the sensors are generally higher quality (even if they have a smaller MP count) vs the P/S type cameras.

Then comes the 35mm SLR's which are now going cheap on eBay (I do realise the cost is in the lenses and not the body), but Canon are still sell the EOS 300X and 3000V as new current models. The main disadvantage is film (getting harder to find good film) and having to scan in pics to be used on the PC. Which I know is going to rule out 35mm cameras.

Any suggestions would be appreciated, since my budget is in the AU$500 mark. I won't list any requirements, but rather would likes, min 5MP and 10x optical zoom for digital and 10x optical zoom for 35mm. It'll mainly be for outdoor scenic shots, with the occasional indoor family/event type photos. Since it's mainly for outdoor, something solidly built and fairly dust tolerant is desired.

I've looked at the Fuji FinePix S5600 and S6500, the Canon EOS 300X, and a few others... but can't really make up my mind. My budget seems to be a slight problem as well, as it seems to be above the P/S category, yet below the SLR category...

PS. I have been reading the other camera threads, and the cameras do look nice, but out of my budget...

PPS. Brand is no issue, as I don't have an existing range of lenses, and as long I can export the photos onto some form of MMC/SD/XD Card I won't have to buy an adapter. I don't care about video on the digital side.

 

[Tannin]

I think it's time to apply the Robert Heinlein rule, Chewy: when you don't know who to vote for], try to figure out who to vote against.

The easiest thing to leave out is the film cameras. That's a complete no-brainer. Outside of a dwindling number of very specialised uses, film is as dead as mutton. If we ignore mega-budget exotica like large format view cameras, film is outclassed in almost every way. It's lower resolution (comparing like with like, and remembering that you are not in a position to blow thousands on a drum scanner), takes ages to get your shots back, comes in an inconvenient format (much more convenient to have your shots already loaded where you want them - on your computer), has vastly higher running costs, is vastly less flexible ..... in fact there is only one area where (staying with more-or-less affordable gear) film still holds the lead, and that's dynamic range. Even that is under threat - watch the new Canon range when it's announced in about a month (probably). Other brands will follow. Short answer: forget film.

 

[Tannin]

I don't think it's true to say that DSLR sensors are generally of higher quality than P&S sensors. Nope: try always. There isn't a DSLR on the market today that doesn't easily out-perform any of the P&S cameras. The reason is simple: size matters. The best simple measure of the quality of a sensor isn't the MP, it's the physical size of it.

For any given level of technology and manufacturing expertise, two sensors of different size will produce pretty much the same amount of noise. However, a sensor three times bigger will produce three times as much signal - meaning that the S/N ratio is three times better, and that in turn means it takes significantly better pictures.

That's the main point - the take-home message, if you like. Bigger is better.

Now the finer points. MP per sensor unit area (pixel density) is a two-edged sword. The more pixels per unit area, the finer the detail you can resolve (in theory). But the smaller each pixel is, the fewer photons it captures - i.e., same number of "bad" random noise electrons, smaller number of "good" signal electrons, therefor more noise, especially in low light. With current technology, the ideal pixel density seems to be about 8MP for a 1.6 crop camera. There are now several DSLRs that go a fraction over that - the latest 10MP entry-level & midrange Nikon, Sony and Pentax models, plus the Canon 400D, and the consensus seems to be that it offers no IQ advantage over the 8MP 20D and 30D. You can gain a tiny amount of detail, but it's more difficult to control the noise. In reality, any DSLR with 6MP, 8MP or 10MP will be vastly superior to any P&S.

Now, let's ponder the P&S brigade. They all have tiny sensors, with miniscule pixels. This is why they all crap out the moment you go past shooting wide-open or in good light. Living where you do, close to all those amazing but very dark rainforests, I don't think you'd be happy with a P&S.

But which DSLR? Let's apply the same rule: cross off the unacceptable and see what's left. Well, we can cross out Sony: first because it's Sony, and you wouldn't want to buy a pair of bootlaces from those scumbags, and secondly because they don't seem to have anything to offer that Canon, Nikon, and Pentax aren't doing better and/or cheaper.

Out of those three, it's line ball. In your shoes, I'd probably be looking at the Pentax range first, but checking out the other two as well. And you might run an eye over the Olympus line. They are weird little things, with sensors quite a lot smaller than the other SLRs, but still vastly bigger than a P&S. They are apparently quite reasonably priced too, but do weird stuff with their viewfinders. Try one ouit and see what you think.

Oh, and I'd be speaking to your lawyer about that divorce you are considering. Or will be pretty soon if you buy a DSLR on a $500 budget - you'll be about $350 over if you get a K100D.

 

[sechs]

A question that you really have to answer is, do you want to deal with a SLR? Sure, they're better cameras in most senses, but is that going to serve your purpose?

 

[Chewy509]

Tannin, thanks for the info... With what I'm after entry-level DSLR was the most likely route.

I was only going to look at Canon, Nikon and Pentax simply due their history in the field and I've only ever heard good things about those brands. Sony recently has left a bad taste in my mouth, but I'm sure I don't need to give reasons...

As for the divorce, all property/financial matters have been settled, just waiting on the divorce certificate in the mail. :-D

 

[Stereodude]

Get a Canon or a Nikon. Buying anything else is a gamble on long term longevity. The Sony is basically a digital Minolta. Sony acquired the camera business from Konica Minolta.

 

[Tannin]

Get a Canon or a Nikon. Buying anything else is a gamble on long term longevity.

Canon, Nikon, and Pentax are all here to stay. One imaines that Sony won't go away any time soon, more's the pity, but they are entirely likely to do something stupid and break your investment, just because that's what Sony do.

Canon are huge and healthy, easily the biggest in the market.

Nikon is smaller but very healthy, and the unquestioned #2.

Pentax looked a bit dodgy for a while there, they were late into digital and a bit lack-lustre, despite a very strong history, especially in the rest of the world (they are not the name in the US that they are in the rest of the world). But since then they have done everything right: excellent new products, and they are in partnership with one of the largest manufacturers of optical equipment in the world, Hoya (who don't just make filters, they make tons of lenses, which are sold under OEM deals and rebadged). Big company. And thirdly, Pentax have partnered with Samsung, a player with serious muscle and market cap in the same class as Sony - i.e., vastly bigger than Canon and Nikon put together.

Any of those three.

Olympus? They are a weird one. I don't have time to collect my thoughts on Olympus right now.

 

[Chewy509]

Well, I spent all morning at dpreview.com reading up on various cameras (been doing that instead of working), and it looks like the Pentax K100D (or K110D) will fit the bill, will just have to wait a month or 2 to save the extra $$$.

The clincher for the K100D over the Canon EOS 400D and Nikon D40 was the feature set was the same, quality on par, and cheaper. The Nikon D40 is only $50 cheaper, so if there is a reason to get the D40 over the K100D pls let me know. (Couldn't really tell reading the reviews at dpreview.com).

 

[LunarMist]

If your purchase is for a glorified P/S then buy what seems best at this point and use it to oblivion. If you are buying into a system, then buy Canon or Nikon. The D40 only AFs with AF-S lenses (internal ultrasonic motor) which is very limiting, as most D40 buyers won't spend the money for the better AF-S glass. As well, many prime lenses simply are not available with AF-S. Current DSLR sensors are quite good in general and image quality is mainly determined by the lenses and technique. The kit lenses are of mediocre to poor quality, with a lot of variation, though may be decent enough at smaller apertures. Don't expect the image quality of the few extreme range zooms to be that great throughout the range. 2x-3x zooms are generally the best optically and over 5x zooms all have some limitations. Realistically you will have to spend rather more than mentioned or get 2-3 lenses to cover a 10x range.

Another limitation for Nikon users is that the RAW conversion software provided with the cameras is basicaly useless. You will need to spend about $150 for Capture NX. However, it is excellent software and does many things previously requiring PS. (I'm still learning how to use NX to best advantage - there is a significant learning curve.) Many users can obtain fine results using only NX and perhaps a cheap image editing program for occasional extra needs, e.g., PS Elements instead of the full PS. OTOH, Canon provides DPP for free, but it is of limited utility. Canon expects users to convert RAW files to TIF files and then do everything else in PS.

I really don't know much about the other brands anymore since I only have Canon and Nikon for digital gear. As mentioned above, I would not trust any of them to maintain forward compatibility.

 

[Chewy509]

A question that you really have to answer is, do you want to deal with a SLR? Sure, they're better cameras in most senses, but is that going to serve your purpose?

I think so... This is something that I think Tannin can expand on, but scenic shots of beach/jungle have a beauty of their own, and I don't want to waste or soften that beauty. It's all in the detail... both colour and complexity.

Most of the shots I tend to take are of objects up to 100m away, hence decent optical zoom is required, and have seen what a difference having it means.

I completely understand the lenses are $$$, and both Canon and Nikon have fantastic ranges (my dad purchased a Canon 35mm SLR a few years ago - I don't know the exact model, but he was showing me the product guide for lenses - he mainly does macro work, particular of flowers, orchids in particular)

 

[Chewy509]

Another limitation for Nikon users is that the RAW conversion software provided with the cameras is basicaly useless. You will need to spend about $150 for Capture NX. However, it is excellent software and does many things previously requiring PS. (I'm still learning how to use NX to best advantage - there is a significant learning curve.) Many users can obtain fine results using only NX and perhaps a cheap image editing program for occasional extra needs, e.g., PS Elements instead of the full PS. OTOH, Canon provides DPP for free, but it is of limited utility. Canon expects users to convert RAW files to TIF files and then do everything else in PS.

Speaking of software, how well does GIMP handle RAW formats? (I primarily use FreeBSD, with Windows purely for Raven Shield/Quake3/BattleField2 at LANs).

**I'll use a USB card reader to download the images from the camera, so Linux/*BSD compatibility isn't a requirement.

 

[Handruin]

Here is a nice guide of most lenses available for Canon/Nikon

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

[Buck]

(my dad purchased a Canon 35mm SLR a few years ago - I don't know the exact model, but he was showing me the product guide for lenses - he mainly does macro work, particular of flowers, orchids in particular)

Nice. Any pictures available for viewing on the world wide wibble?

 

[LunarMist]

I think so... This is something that I think Tannin can expand on, but scenic shots of beach/jungle have a beauty of their own, and I don't want to waste or soften that beauty. It's all in the detail... both colour and complexity.

If you want a sufficient detail for landscapes 6 megapixels is marginal. Again, don't be unrealistic about expectations. This is where the 12+ megapixel bodies are better but still not the same as medium format or larger film and scanning. Start simple and see how much time, effort and money you are willing to invest. Shooting from long distances is not the best idea, due not only to the size/weight/cost of lenses, but to atmospheric conditions. Consider finding ways to get closer to the subject as well, such as using a blind. You don't want to end up like me, with tons of gear (imagine >3 of Tony) and often unsatisfied.

 

[Chewy509]

If you want a sufficient detail for landscapes 6 megapixels is marginal. Again, don't be unrealistic about expectations. This is where the 12+ megapixel bodies are better but still not the same as medium format or larger film and scanning. Start simple and see how much time, effort and money you are willing to invest. Shooting from long distances is not the best idea, due not only to the size/weight/cost of lenses, but to atmospheric conditions. Consider finding ways to get closer to the subject as well, such as using a blind. You don't want to end up like me, with tons of gear (imagine >3 of Tony) and often unsatisfied.

Getting closer can be sometimes hard, especially when looking across a gully towards a water fall... (Most of the distance shots, will be of larger objects, except when I go to local air-shows, and I know that is another ball game all together)

I think you raise an interesting point, how much do I really want to spend and will the extra $$$ be worth it in the long run?

 

[Chewy509]

Nice. Any pictures available for viewing on the world wide wibble?

Most of the one's I've seen are on paper only, here are a few that have been scanned...

 

[ddrueding]

I've been thinking of getting into the DSLR game for years now. My general consensus has been to buy the best body and single lens I can at the time, knowing full well that I'll want to sink more money into the hobby later.

 

[Platform]

My large collection of Nikkor AI and AI-S lenses dictated my DigiSLR choice -- a Nikon body that I could afford and could adequately replace my F and F3 Nikons film bodies.

My D100 does its job well, though use of my film-camera Nikkor lenses throws the D100 into 100% manual mode. But, bracket shooting along with shoot-from-the-hip experience determining f/stop + exposure timing + ISO exposure index without the use of a light meter usually works for me. Fortunately, one can view the results in these modern times on that little LCD screen!

 

[Tannin]

The moral of Platform's story is that when you buy an SLR, you ain't so much buying a camera as commiting yourself to a range of lenses. From that moment on, you have constrained your choices.

Example: let's say I fell in love with a new Nikon model tommorow. You, being an extremely nice bloke, give me a pair of them. I can't use any of my lenses, so the next thing I have to do is spend AU$20,000 on different glass. Worse, there isn't a Nikon-fit 500/4 IS or any close equivalent. I'm plain stuck.

Another example. Platform decides to go Canon. Never mind the rest of his lenses (read the same as in my case above - very expensive to change), he simply can't buy a Canon-fit lens that in any way approximates his wonderful 200-400/4 VR.

As for Lunar's example .. don't even think about it.

The point is, each of the SLR makers has a range of lenses, and you won't really know which of those lens ranges will suit you best until well after you have bought your SLR, and it's too late to change.

Canon have easily the biggest range to choose from, and are particularly strong in the super-telephoto area. Even Nikon don't come close (which is why around 90% of all cameras you see at the olympics or the golf of the big motor racing events are Canons). But, realistically, you aren't ever going to buy one of the really big white Canon lenses you see on TV, they weigh a ton and cost AU$5000 to AU$15,000 each. So the fact that Canon has them and no other brand does simply isn't relevant. (Well, Nikon has a couple, but has more than a couple of major gaps in their super-telephoto range. Pentax has just one which, like several of the Nikons, doesn't have IS (VR in Nikon-speak) and if effectively even more obsolete.)

When you step down to realistic maybe-I'll-buy-it-one-day lens options, however, the landscape changes. All three makers have a pretty fair range, and you can buy any number of third-party lenses as well. I can't comment in any detail about their everyday lens offerings as I do nearly all my stuff at super-telephoto lengths and a 50mm or a 300mm lens isn't that relevant to me. But the general view seems to be that Canon has the biggest range (and is the easiest to get third-party lenses for as well), Nikon has a smaller number, but several things that Canon doesn't offer, and Pentax is a bit weak on zooms but very good at primes. (The Pentax "pancake" lenses are mega-cool.) Note that Pentax are now in bed with one of the better-regarded 3rd-party lens makers .... from memory, Tamron. If I remember correctly, it works like this: Pentax do the optical design, Hoya (who now own a large slice of Pentax) manufacture it, or at least make the glass, and Tamron sells it to the broader market (i.e., for Nikon and Canon mounts as well), while Pentax get to put their own brand on it.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that either you aspire to the ultimate in super-telephoto lenses, in which case Canon is the only game in town, or else you don't, in which case you can happily go with any of the three.

 

[Tannin]

PS: I'm assuming that Platform has a 200-400 VR. He has everything else that's nice, so it seems a prety safe bet.

 

[Buck]

Most of the one's I've seen are on paper only, here are a few that have been scanned...

Thanks for sharing Chewy. We have some posted here; although I haven't had the time to scan and post 2006.

 

[Chewy509]

Well, thanks for all the suggestions, however I've had some car trouble which is going to eat the $$$ I had set aside for the camera.

So I guess the purchase will have to wait.

PS. It's the transfer case, not engaging 4WD correctly. I had it in for inspection to find the find the exact problem, and now I know I guess I better get that fixed...

 

[Chewy509]

Thanks for sharing Chewy. We have some posted here; although I haven't had the time to scan and post 2006.

Cool pics.

 

[LunarMist]

PS: I'm assuming that Platform has a 200-400 VR. He has everything else that's nice, so it seems a prety safe bet.

OK, I'll bet against that. Gary probably has something more esoteric like the original 200-400/4 AI-S, 180-600/8, 600/5.6, original (big honking) 80-200/2.8 manual focus, etc.

 

[Buck]

Thanks Chewy.

 

[Tannin]

You are probably right, Lunar.

 

[bahngeist]

...
The easiest thing to leave out is the film cameras. That's a complete no-brainer. Outside of a dwindling number of very specialised uses, film is as dead as mutton.

Tony, in many respects the 'rumour that film is dead' (a mere contention?) is somewhat premature -- albeit, it is undeniable that labs that process colour film are getting harder to find and the associated costs have risen, and will likely continue to do so, steadily. If one follows the photo forums regularly it becomes apparent that a growing number of pros have returned to film -- more often than not for their personal work, but sometimes on bread-and-butter shoots also. B&W generally predominates in the latter instance however, with colour generally being relegated to medium-to-large format work where such film still holds a qualitatative edge over digital. In the long run colour film will likely pass away, but B&W photography will likely survive as both an archival tool and as a craft/art form.

Given Chewey's needs, you are correct in recommending that he forget film. Conversely, you are wrong in stating that large format view cameras are in the mega-budget realm since a large format kit can actually be significantly cheaper than a 35 mm. or medium format kit. But unless one is, for instance, into printing landscapes to large dimensions or into platinum/palladium printing then such instruments may be regarded a 'exotic'. It all comes down to 'horses for courses': given your photographic interests a small format digital kit likely suits your needs perfectly (particularly since digital has largely supplanted film qualitatitively for such and other similar purposes); conversely, my primary current subject matter are 'close-in landscapes' and medium format transparencies suit my current needs perfectly -- though I must admit that once I can afford a corresponding digital back most of my colour work will likely be done with the latter since this will facilitate creating large scale prints at a reasonable cost (e.g., via an Epson 7800).

My hope is that you do not take my comments as an attack, as my intent is just to present an alternative view that has received little to no notice on this forum. Whether it be digital or film based, our cameras, lenses, etc. are in essence just tools that we apply to achieve our own individual expressive/documentary/etc. purposes. What is suitable in certain instances may not be so in others; in short, film and digital can coexist and complement the other and with that I will get off of my bandwagon

As a sidenote: I may be wrong, but from reading your posts in this and other thread, I am left with the impression that you do not currently have/use a long fast prime in the 400-600 mm. equivalent range. Given your interest in, and the quality of your, bird photography such a lens would be a natural and worthwhile investment. But then, there are reknown bird photographers who prefer to get 'in close and intimate' -- proof that the end result is more the result of personal skill and fortitude than of the equipment, although having a verstatile range of quality gear doesn't hurt

 

[Tannin]

Not at all, Bahngeist. Discussion is always enhanced by different points of view.

Interesting ... I've always assumed that view cameras were very expensive, never really looked at prices, just assumed that if you have to ask the price you can't afford one. (Not that I want one. I mean, I'd love a view camera, but not if it meant dealing with film and scanning stuff in, and a 39MP back ain't on my financial radar!

B & W. Hmmm, I wasn't thinking of that when I posted, but I'd class it as one of those "dwindling number of very specialised uses" I mentioned. But yes, it's certainly still a significant part of the photographic world. Indeed, if I was ever to do any film photography again (highly unlikely), I imagine that B & W would be my own choice.

My main birding lens is a Canon 500 f/4. I toy with the idea of a 400/2.8 now and again, but the reality is I'd not use it very often; only when in rainforest and similar very challenging habitat.

I guess I take something like 70% of all my shots with the 500 (about 50/50 with and without 1.4 converter). But I also have a Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 which, although not in the same category as the big 500, is still a fine lens and just the thing for some situations: flight shots; very small birds that you can get very close to (the 500 only goes to 4.5 metres unless you use tubes, I get 1.8 metres with the 100-400); very large birds that I can't get in the frame with the 500 (Emu, Southern Cassowary, that sort of thing); and all sorts of odd jobs, ranging from semi-macro (using tubes) to landscapes. Doubtless I'll add a 600 f/4 one day as well (almost certainly well before I consider a 400/2.8) but as an all-round, every-day compromise between weight, size, reach, and speed, I don't think I could have a better tool than the 500. Sure, I wish it was a 600. But then I wish it was half the weight and two stops faster sometimes too. Given the laws of physics, it's the best possible compromise for my needs. It was mega-expensive, but I have never regretted it for an instant. (Except at the end of a long, hot day with lots of walking, when I sometimes wish it was 80% lighter and filled with cold beer.)