Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

D50, 350d, or P&S

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:13:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi;

After ahving Fujifilm 2800 for 4 years, and being frustrated by its low
light performance, speed, flash, and lack of controls I have decided to
move one step up. My usage is general indoor and outdoor, some nature,
mainly family occasion (indoor, with and without flash) and some portrait.
The low noise and speed od DSLRs is attarctive to me but if I choose a DSLR
I will use it with a single zoom lens, I will not be carrying multiple
lenses around.

I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). From the
reviews it seems D50 has better noise characteristics but 350D has higer
resolution and is sharper. The kit lens of D50 seems better than that of
350D. If I go with d50 probably I will go with the 18-70 zoom that is
standatd on D70.

I would appreciate sharing your experience and thoughts. My case agains
most P&S's is their high noise level and speed, but if there are good
candidates, I will consider them.

Thanks

Far

More about : d50 350d

Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:13:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

The Pentax DS has some strengths... IMO it 'handles' better than the
350D, the pentaprism wipes the floor with the others.

It has some weaknesses. A relatively poor JPEG engine... a very poor
selection of lenses IMO but it's backed up well with Sigma lenses.

IMO the Nikon is probably better all round but it's bigger and over
here as much as 60% more expensive... and let's not talk about lenses.

This is kinda like luxury cars... if people get off their BMW and
Mercedes fetishes they'll find there is quite strong competition
from... Audi???

T.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:13:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

There's ONE 80-200mm f2.8! I went with the Sigma version.

The only other lens I would be intersted in is the 28-70mm f2.8 - I
also went Sigma for that.

Two lenses I really want... that's terrible IMO.

I'm not interested in the compatibility with old lenses, I know many
people are.

T.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 17, 2005 5:13:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 17 Sep 2005 13:13:13 GMT, Per Ting <perting2002@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hi;
>
>After ahving Fujifilm 2800 for 4 years, and being frustrated by its low
>light performance, speed, flash, and lack of controls I have decided to
>move one step up. My usage is general indoor and outdoor, some nature,
>mainly family occasion (indoor, with and without flash) and some portrait.
>The low noise and speed od DSLRs is attarctive to me but if I choose a DSLR
>I will use it with a single zoom lens, I will not be carrying multiple
>lenses around.
>
>I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). From the
>reviews it seems D50 has better noise characteristics but 350D has higer
>resolution and is sharper.

According to one review, the Canon is not sharper at the higher ISO
settings and the jpeg compression on the D50 is too severe. So get
the D50, forget the P&S (except for perhaps the new Sony R1 which is
at least acceptable) and shoot RAW.
-Rich
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 5:13:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Per Ting wrote:
> Hi;
>
> After ahving Fujifilm 2800 for 4 years, and being frustrated by its
> low light performance, speed, flash, and lack of controls I have
> decided to move one step up. My usage is general indoor and outdoor,
> some nature, mainly family occasion (indoor, with and without flash)
> and some portrait. The low noise and speed od DSLRs is attarctive to
> me but if I choose a DSLR I will use it with a single zoom lens, I
> will not be carrying multiple lenses around.
>
> I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S).
> From the reviews it seems D50 has better noise characteristics but
> 350D has higer resolution and is sharper. The kit lens of D50 seems
> better than that of 350D. If I go with d50 probably I will go with
> the 18-70 zoom that is standatd on D70.
>
> I would appreciate sharing your experience and thoughts. My case
> agains most P&S's is their high noise level and speed, but if there
> are good candidates, I will consider them.

Consider "horses for courses".

Get all three, or all three and a half-dozen more, each meeting your
needs for a given set of circumstances. Buy a Senior Citizen scooter
to tow a trailer around, so you can reach in and pull out what is
appropriate. While you're at it, hire an accomplished assistant or
three, who have worked with professional photographers in several
_genre_. They will be able to respond to your instructions with
exactly the equipment, exposures, and post-procedures required to
produce the photograph you have described to them. Then your agent(s)
will present, promote, and sell your work, and you will be rich and
famous. Then you will be so bored with all that Johnnie-Come-Easily
luxury, you'll have to start hanging out in Usenet groups just to keep
your intellect from evaporating altogether.

Barring that, the modern entry-level dSLRs all have functions that
emulate point-and-shoot. The disadvantage in that line is bulk: they
are bigger than P&Ss that can accomplish somewhat the same ends. If
you expect to use a single zoom lens, you have defeated the principal
underlying reason to operate a dSLR. The Pantosonic, Nickon, and
Cannon troups will each suggest their prosumer P&S efforts will meet
your needs one way or another, and thay are right. If the remaining
reservation has to do with 'noise', you can trade off your
unwillingness to carry more than one lens, by adding a NoiseNinja or
other such smoothing program to your arsenal, usually to good effect.
Your single zoom-lens is not going to do much for non-flash low-light
stuff.

You didn't mention how your "My usage is general indoor and outdoor,
some nature, mainly family occasion (indoor, with and without flash)
and some portrait" work is to be viewed. If it is on-screen, and/or
not larger than 8x10 home- or WalMart-made prints, dSLRing, even with
a single zoom lens, will be a waste of resources. Within those
parameters, P&Sing is the best compromise, investmently speaking. If
you expect your original purchase to be the last, get a High-End P&S
and live with its shortcomings.

My choice would be Canon 350D with the alternate 'kit' lens and a
Canon 50mm 1.8 for indoors low-light and portrait. And an assumption
that I'm going to like it and buy more stuff, later.

Easy-peasy from my view.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 8:13:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

tlai909@visto.com wrote:

>The Pentax DS has some strengths... IMO it 'handles' better than the
>350D, the pentaprism wipes the floor with the others.
>
>It has some weaknesses. A relatively poor JPEG engine... a very poor
>selection of lenses IMO but it's backed up well with Sigma lenses.


A very poor selection of lenses? Which planet are you on?

The Pentax *ist D, DS, DS2 and DL all accept virtually every Pentax
lens ever made, whether M42 screw mount Takumars or SMC Pentax K, KM
and KA, or any of the Pentax AF lenses. There is also a huge range of
compatible lenses from Tamron, Tokina, Vivitar, Kiron, and Zeiss as
well as Sigma.

Most of the older Pentax lenses are excellent performers and the
majority are available used at very low prices. Obviously, the wider
angles are in greater demand thanks to the "1.5X factor" but there are
still some good bargains to be had on eBay and elsewhere.

Pentax are just about to introduce a 12-24mm zoom which will address
the perceived weakness of the current AF lens range in the shorter
focal lengths.
September 17, 2005 8:22:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

If noise is the main concern, then consider the Pentax *istDs. It's in the
same category as the Canon and Nikon you mentioned.

Jean.

"Per Ting" <perting2002@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
Xns96D45E3C32E84perting@63.218.45.254...
> Hi;
>
> After ahving Fujifilm 2800 for 4 years, and being frustrated by its low
> light performance, speed, flash, and lack of controls I have decided to
> move one step up. My usage is general indoor and outdoor, some nature,
> mainly family occasion (indoor, with and without flash) and some portrait.
> The low noise and speed od DSLRs is attarctive to me but if I choose a
> DSLR
> I will use it with a single zoom lens, I will not be carrying multiple
> lenses around.
>
> I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). From the
> reviews it seems D50 has better noise characteristics but 350D has higer
> resolution and is sharper. The kit lens of D50 seems better than that of
> 350D. If I go with d50 probably I will go with the 18-70 zoom that is
> standatd on D70.
>
> I would appreciate sharing your experience and thoughts. My case agains
> most P&S's is their high noise level and speed, but if there are good
> candidates, I will consider them.
>
> Thanks
>
> Far
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 8:47:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

tlai909@visto.com wrote:
>
>There's ONE 80-200mm f2.8! I went with the Sigma version.
>
>The only other lens I would be intersted in is the 28-70mm f2.8 - I
>also went Sigma for that.


So you are actually *complaining* that Pentax offers a top quality
lens in each of your two chosen focal length ranges? It seems that
you don't really know what you are complaining about.

Having used Sigma's 70-200mm f/2.8 and 28-70mm f/2.8 lenses I would
not even consider buying either. The best reason for buying a Pentax
DSLR is the optical quality of Pentax lenses. Using inferior lenses
might save you money, but the quality simply isn't there - that's both
optical quality and build quality.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 10:57:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

According to Per Ting <perting2002@yahoo.com>:
> Hi;
>
> After ahving Fujifilm 2800 for 4 years, and being frustrated by its low
> light performance, speed, flash, and lack of controls I have decided to
> move one step up. My usage is general indoor and outdoor, some nature,
> mainly family occasion (indoor, with and without flash) and some portrait.
> The low noise and speed od DSLRs is attarctive to me but if I choose a DSLR
> I will use it with a single zoom lens, I will not be carrying multiple
> lenses around.

Hmm ... not *carrying* multiple lenses -- this might suggest the
possibility of actually *owning* multiple lenses, and opting to carry
only one at a time -- selected for the kind of photography which you
plan at that particular moment.

I own a Nikon D70, and at present have five lenses which I
consider to be necessary at different times. I'll list them in the
order in which I acquired them:

1) 28-105mm f3.5-4.5: Equivalent zoom range to 42-157.5mm on
a 35mm film camera. I prefer this one
for shooting people at portrait ranges,
plus it has an excellent macro mode for
extreme close-ups (if your nature
photography includes insects and
individual blossoms.)

2) 180mm f2.5 Manual focus:Converted to a CPU so it could be used
with the camera's metering system.
Equivalent focal length of 270mm.

3) 50mm f1.4: Excellent for low-light photography,
and nice for close-in portraits
(equivalent to 75mm.)

4) 18-70mm f3.5-4.5: The traditional "kit" lens for the
D70. I finally got this for the wide
angle coverage, and find it to be
sharper than an older 20mm f2.8 which I
need to use in manual exposure mode.
Equivalent film focal lengths will be
27-105mm -- very close to the first lens
above if I were using it on a film
camera.

5) 200mm f5.6 med. Nikkor: Built-in ring flash, designed for hand-held
close-ups up to a 3:1 magnification
ratio. Antique, but excellent for the
purpose.

Now -- if I were doing what I consider nature photography
(squirrels, deer, chipmunks, birds, and whatever else comes within
reach, I would want a longer lens -- perhaps a real 300mm (450mm
equivalent) -- and somewhat faster than the two zooms listed. I would
want at least an f2.8 -- and ideally with VR (Vibration Reduction) which
takes the lens' price totally out of my reach.

Note that the D70 (and presumably the D50) can be set for
"auto ISO" -- so if the light is too low to allow a reasonable shutter
speed for handheld shooting, it will boost the ISO (sensitivity) until
you can take the shot. This has allowed quite a few shots in low light
even with the f3.5 maximum aperture of the first lens in the list. But
the 50mm f1.4 lets me go down into "available darkness"

> I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S). From the
> reviews it seems D50 has better noise characteristics but 350D has higer
> resolution and is sharper. The kit lens of D50 seems better than that of
> 350D. If I go with d50 probably I will go with the 18-70 zoom that is
> standatd on D70.

Both cameras will take excellent photos. I would suggest that
you go into a local photo store, and try each camera. See how it feels
in your hands. I would include the D70 or D70s in the collection to
try. Different people find different cameras to feel "right" in their
hands, and since you don't have an existing collection of lenses to sway
your choice, the choice should be made on what is easiest for you to
use. (I had quite a few Nikon lenses already -- so for me the choice of
the D70 made sense.)

And I really believe that you will find that more than one lens
will eventually find its way into your hands, as each does some things
better than others. Don't be afraid to get a used lens from a good
photo store. Of the lenses above, three were obtained used (and at least
one no longer available new). Those are the 180mm f2.8 (from a hamfest
-- think giant electronics flea market), the 50mm f1.4 (from the camera
store where I got the D70), and the 200mm f5.6 Medical Nikkor (from an
eBay auction). I already had an earlier version of that lens, which had
an AC-only power supply for the ring flash. This one had the battery
powered supply (eight "D" cells). (I could not have just gotten the
supply because the connector changed between the two lens versions.)

> I would appreciate sharing your experience and thoughts. My case agains
> most P&S's is their high noise level and speed, but if there are good
> candidates, I will consider them.

Note that when you let the "Auto ISO" pump the ISO up to 1600,
it will have some noise -- but not nearly as bad as the grain would have
been in film at that speed. And not nearly as bad as a P&S with a tiny
sensor would have shown.

As for speed -- at least on the Nikon D70, I switch it on while
raising it to my eye, and it is ready to shoot as soon as I have my eye
to the viewfinder. This contrasts to "wait forever" with the Nikon
CoolPix 950 P&S camera which preceded it.

In reasonable light, the autofocus is very quick. As the light
gets lower, the autofocus gets slower, but this should be expected with
any DSLR. There is an "autofocus assist" option in the menus which will
turn on a light to assist in quicker focusing at close ranges. This is
obviously counterproductive if you want to be inconspicuous in your
photography.

For greater ranges in very low lights, you may well be better
off to switch to manual focus (with the 18-70mm "kit" lens, and some
other newer lenses, you can simply grip the focus ring and override the
autofocus -- but with the autofocus turned off, the camera will shoot
when you hit the button, without the delay for the autofocus to
complete.

If you have time to pre-focus to the area where your subject
will be, this can save you some response time in the actual shot. You
can do this either by half depressing the shutter release, or by manually
focusing.

Note that you have a collection of "modes" on the selector dial,
including "Auto" (in a green box), "P"rogram, "A"perture, "S"hutter,
"M"anual, and several specialized modes. In some of those, including
the "Auto" mode, the autofocus chooses to focus on whatever is closest
to the camera. Sometimes, this is not what you want. The "P"rogram
mode allows you to turn this option off or on as you prefer, but
otherwise, it is almost as automatic as the "Auto" setting. In the
"P"rogram mode, and several others, you can move the autofocus zone to
one of five zones, located in the form of a '+' sign. I normally keep
it locked in the center, but there are times when it is better to move
it to some other location.

You will need to get an answer from someone else to cover
details about the 350d, as I do not own one.

I hope that this is some help,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 10:13:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D ghv8v$52u$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Per Ting wrote:
>
>> I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S).
>
> Maxxum 5D with 24-105D lens.


I might even try the 5D with a 18-200mm Sigma, shoould be a pretty good
combo.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 10:58:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

DoN. Nichols wrote:
[]
> Now -- if I were doing what I consider nature photography
> (squirrels, deer, chipmunks, birds, and whatever else comes within
> reach, I would want a longer lens -- perhaps a real 300mm (450mm
> equivalent) -- and somewhat faster than the two zooms listed. I would
> want at least an f2.8 -- and ideally with VR (Vibration Reduction)
> which takes the lens' price totally out of my reach.

Or, with a limited budget (USD ~$400), get an image-stabilised, long-zoom
ZLR like the Panasonic FZ20 which has an f/2.8 zoom all the way up to
432mm including manual focus.

David
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 2:15:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pete D wrote:

> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D ghv8v$52u$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>>Per Ting wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S).
>>
>>Maxxum 5D with 24-105D lens.
>
>
>
> I might even try the 5D with a 18-200mm Sigma, shoould be a pretty good
> combo.

Ughhh. That's over 11:1 zoom. Terrible regardless of body.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 8:10:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I think they've kept aberrations in-check pretty well by avoiding fast
lens speeds.
But, if you've got a DSLR with low noise, you don't need to worry about
the lens
speed as much. However, if you are in a really low light situation,
some kind of prime
with a speed of f2 or better is obviously the best choice.
I would like to add that one Brit mag did a test on some of these kinds
of zooms
and the Tamron 18-200 tested slightly better optically than the
better-known
Sigma.
Anonymous
September 18, 2005 11:57:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D gjsq2$odl$2@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Pete D wrote:
>
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:D ghv8v$52u$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>
>>>Per Ting wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I cannot choose between Canon 350D and Nikon D50 (or a good P&S).
>>>
>>>Maxxum 5D with 24-105D lens.
>>
>>
>>
>> I might even try the 5D with a 18-200mm Sigma, shoould be a pretty good
>> combo.
>
> Ughhh. That's over 11:1 zoom. Terrible regardless of body.

They apparently are not so terrible, remember the OP was trying to decide
between P&S or D-SLR, this would get him started and he could use it as a
P&S to start with, perhaps something like a 18-125mm, also remember he does
not want to remove the lens.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 9:56:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:
> I think they've kept aberrations in-check pretty well by avoiding fast
> lens speeds.

The Leica 36 - 432mm long zoom on the Panasonic FZ20 manages a 12:1 zoom
ratio, whilst maintaining a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout its zoom
range - a bigger aperture then the so-called kit lenses supplied with many
DSLRs.

David
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 10:43:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:GqsXe.111199$G8.82340@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> RichA wrote:
>> I think they've kept aberrations in-check pretty well by avoiding fast
>> lens speeds.
>
> The Leica 36 - 432mm long zoom on the Panasonic FZ20 manages a 12:1 zoom
> ratio, whilst maintaining a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout its zoom
> range - a bigger aperture then the so-called kit lenses supplied with many
> DSLRs.

Can't really compare them, because of the physical size differences they
perform quite differently.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 11:29:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:GqsXe.111199$G8.82340@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> RichA wrote:
>>> I think they've kept aberrations in-check pretty well by avoiding
>>> fast lens speeds.
>>
>> The Leica 36 - 432mm long zoom on the Panasonic FZ20 manages a 12:1
>> zoom ratio, whilst maintaining a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout
>> its zoom range - a bigger aperture then the so-called kit lenses
>> supplied with many DSLRs.
>
> Can't really compare them, because of the physical size differences
> they perform quite differently.

Well, I was countering the statement "[point-and-shoot cameras] avoid fast
lens speeds" by citing an example of a zoom working at f/2.8. So
point-and-shoot cameras don't all avoid fast lens speeds on long-range
zooms.

Why is it that such a zoom lens could not be made for a DSLR (or even full
frame)? Would it weigh too much or cost too much, or is it that the
back-focus requirement would complicate the optical design? Yes, there
would be more glass, but the mechanical tolerances would be greater.

David
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 2:40:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:aNtXe.111234$G8.77760@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
>> wrote in message
>> news:GqsXe.111199$G8.82340@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> RichA wrote:
>>>> I think they've kept aberrations in-check pretty well by avoiding
>>>> fast lens speeds.
>>>
>>> The Leica 36 - 432mm long zoom on the Panasonic FZ20 manages a 12:1
>>> zoom ratio, whilst maintaining a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout
>>> its zoom range - a bigger aperture then the so-called kit lenses
>>> supplied with many DSLRs.
>>
>> Can't really compare them, because of the physical size differences
>> they perform quite differently.
>
> Well, I was countering the statement "[point-and-shoot cameras] avoid fast
> lens speeds" by citing an example of a zoom working at f/2.8. So
> point-and-shoot cameras don't all avoid fast lens speeds on long-range
> zooms.
>
> Why is it that such a zoom lens could not be made for a DSLR (or even full
> frame)? Would it weigh too much or cost too much, or is it that the
> back-focus requirement would complicate the optical design? Yes, there
> would be more glass, but the mechanical tolerances would be greater.
>
> David

Sigma make an 18-200mm and Tamron and Sigma make 28-300mm's, they would be
all around the F3.5-F5.6 variable, to make them constant F2.8 would cost you
both arms and all your families legs ;-), when teamed with an APS-C sized
sensor they will produce much better results than the F2.8 P&S by simply
using a higher ISO setting. Most of the big zoom P&S cameras are very noisy
except at low ISO settings (the samples I have seen from the FZ-30 are far
noisier at ISO400 than say the 350D at ISO1600, that gives you two full
stops at least and probably up to three.
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:01:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
[]
> Sigma make an 18-200mm and Tamron and Sigma make 28-300mm's, they
> would be all around the F3.5-F5.6 variable, to make them constant
> F2.8 would cost you both arms and all your families legs ;-), when
> teamed with an APS-C sized sensor they will produce much better
> results than the F2.8 P&S by simply using a higher ISO setting. Most
> of the big zoom P&S cameras are very noisy except at low ISO settings
> (the samples I have seen from the FZ-30 are far noisier at ISO400
> than say the 350D at ISO1600, that gives you two full stops at least
> and probably up to three.

The Sigma 28 -300 sounds nearer. If it's f/5.6 then at the long end the
sensitivity of the two systems would be similar (ISO 400 at f/2.8 c.f. ISO
1600 at f/5.6), perhaps one stop in favour of the DSLR. Any idea how the
two compare in aberrations and geometric distortion?

David
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:25:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:iUwXe.111311$G8.87504@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Pete D wrote:
> []
>> Sigma make an 18-200mm and Tamron and Sigma make 28-300mm's, they
>> would be all around the F3.5-F5.6 variable, to make them constant
>> F2.8 would cost you both arms and all your families legs ;-), when
>> teamed with an APS-C sized sensor they will produce much better
>> results than the F2.8 P&S by simply using a higher ISO setting. Most
>> of the big zoom P&S cameras are very noisy except at low ISO settings
>> (the samples I have seen from the FZ-30 are far noisier at ISO400
>> than say the 350D at ISO1600, that gives you two full stops at least
>> and probably up to three.
>
> The Sigma 28 -300 sounds nearer. If it's f/5.6 then at the long end the
> sensitivity of the two systems would be similar (ISO 400 at f/2.8 c.f. ISO
> 1600 at f/5.6), perhaps one stop in favour of the DSLR. Any idea how the
> two compare in aberrations and geometric distortion?
>
> David

If you want to see a side by side comparison go to DP Review and pull up the
cameras you want to compare, they will have some sample photos.

Cheers.

Pete
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 3:48:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote in message
> news:iUwXe.111311$G8.87504@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Pete D wrote:
>> []
>>> Sigma make an 18-200mm and Tamron and Sigma make 28-300mm's, they
>>> would be all around the F3.5-F5.6 variable, to make them constant
>>> F2.8 would cost you both arms and all your families legs ;-), when
>>> teamed with an APS-C sized sensor they will produce much better
>>> results than the F2.8 P&S by simply using a higher ISO setting. Most
>>> of the big zoom P&S cameras are very noisy except at low ISO
>>> settings (the samples I have seen from the FZ-30 are far noisier at
>>> ISO400 than say the 350D at ISO1600, that gives you two full stops
>>> at least and probably up to three.
>>
>> The Sigma 28 -300 sounds nearer. If it's f/5.6 then at the long end
>> the sensitivity of the two systems would be similar (ISO 400 at
>> f/2.8 c.f. ISO 1600 at f/5.6), perhaps one stop in favour of the
>> DSLR. Any idea how the two compare in aberrations and geometric
>> distortion? David
>
> If you want to see a side by side comparison go to DP Review and pull
> up the cameras you want to compare, they will have some sample photos.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Pete

Unfortunately, they don't cover the Sigma lens.

David
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 11:12:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <aNtXe.111234$G8.77760@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>> The Leica 36 - 432mm long zoom on the Panasonic FZ20 manages a 12:1
>>> zoom ratio, whilst maintaining a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout
>>> its zoom range - a bigger aperture then the so-called kit lenses
>>> supplied with many DSLRs.
>
>Why is it that such a zoom lens could not be made for a DSLR (or even full
>frame)? Would it weigh too much or cost too much, or is it that the
>back-focus requirement would complicate the optical design? Yes, there
>would be more glass, but the mechanical tolerances would be greater.

Well, the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 weighs slightly less than 4.5 kg. And then
you want a zoom?

Anyhow, the lens is really a 6-72/2.8 lens. That suggests a 6x crop. So
the corresponding full frame 35mm lens would be 36-432/16. Nobody would
buy such a lens because it is far too slow. (Does shooting a DLSR at
ISO 2400 give the same noise as the FZ20 at 400? The DLSR would probably
come out ahead).


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
September 19, 2005 11:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <aNtXe.111234$G8.77760@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> David J Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>>>> The Leica 36 - 432mm long zoom on the Panasonic FZ20 manages a 12:1
>>>> zoom ratio, whilst maintaining a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout
>>>> its zoom range - a bigger aperture then the so-called kit lenses
>>>> supplied with many DSLRs.
>>
>> Why is it that such a zoom lens could not be made for a DSLR (or
>> even full frame)? Would it weigh too much or cost too much, or is
>> it that the back-focus requirement would complicate the optical
>> design? Yes, there would be more glass, but the mechanical
>> tolerances would be greater.
>
> Well, the Nikon 400mm f/2.8 weighs slightly less than 4.5 kg. And then
> you want a zoom?
>
> Anyhow, the lens is really a 6-72/2.8 lens. That suggests a 6x crop.
> So
> the corresponding full frame 35mm lens would be 36-432/16. Nobody
> would
> buy such a lens because it is far too slow. (Does shooting a DLSR at
> ISO 2400 give the same noise as the FZ20 at 400? The DLSR would
> probably
> come out ahead).

There's something wrong with the f/number sums, btu I'm not sure what.
The sensitivity difference (for the same noise) is about a factor of 8
(IIRC), so that's f/2.8 to f/8, not f/16.

David
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 2:23:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <iKDXe.111578$G8.40869@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> Anyhow, the lens is really a 6-72/2.8 lens. That suggests a 6x crop.
>> So
>> the corresponding full frame 35mm lens would be 36-432/16. Nobody
>> would
>> buy such a lens because it is far too slow. (Does shooting a DLSR at
>> ISO 2400 give the same noise as the FZ20 at 400? The DLSR would
>> probably
>> come out ahead).
>
>There's something wrong with the f/number sums, btu I'm not sure what.
>The sensitivity difference (for the same noise) is about a factor of 8
>(IIRC), so that's f/2.8 to f/8, not f/16.

You are right. The corresponding sensitivity difference would have to be
a factor of 36. Hmm, tricky.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 10:08:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <iKDXe.111578$G8.40869@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
> David J Taylor
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Philip Homburg wrote:
>>> Anyhow, the lens is really a 6-72/2.8 lens. That suggests a 6x crop.
>>> So
>>> the corresponding full frame 35mm lens would be 36-432/16. Nobody
>>> would
>>> buy such a lens because it is far too slow. (Does shooting a DLSR at
>>> ISO 2400 give the same noise as the FZ20 at 400? The DLSR would
>>> probably
>>> come out ahead).
>>
>> There's something wrong with the f/number sums, btu I'm not sure
>> what. The sensitivity difference (for the same noise) is about a
>> factor of 8 (IIRC), so that's f/2.8 to f/8, not f/16.
>
> You are right. The corresponding sensitivity difference would have to
> be
> a factor of 36. Hmm, tricky.

Correction: the area ratio of the sensors is about 13, XT is 329 sq. mm
and FZ20 24.7 sq. mm.

David
Anonymous
September 20, 2005 1:18:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <bHNXe.111807$G8.70399@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Anyhow, the lens is really a 6-72/2.8 lens. That suggests a 6x crop.
>>>> So
>>>> the corresponding full frame 35mm lens would be 36-432/16. Nobody
>>>> would
>>>> buy such a lens because it is far too slow.

>Correction: the area ratio of the sensors is about 13, XT is 329 sq. mm
>and FZ20 24.7 sq. mm.

I was talking about full frame. A 1.6x crop from full frame gives 23-270/10.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
!