 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/02/2016 19:18, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 01:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>> >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>>> Scott: Canon
>>
>> Begun, the camera wars have.
>
> Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only
> acceptable brand.
>
> I have no idea why.
Simple: they used to be, a long time ago, until around 2008. Then they
completely stalled in terms of image quality, whereas Nikon, Pentax,
Sony and Sigma (to my knowledge all DSLR brands that mainly use Sony
sensors) kept improving to the point where today you can buy a Nikon
DSLR (D5200 for example, 699Euro with an 18-140mm lens) that has in
every way (light sensitivity, color accuracy, tonal accuracy, dynamic
range) at least twice the image quality of a more expensive Canon (EOS
700D, 799Euro with an 18-135mm lens)
(This is not an opinion, by the way, I'm talking about measurable facts,
and I know the new 750/760D has a much better sensor, but it still lags
behind in terms of dynamic range by a factor of around 2 stops)
Most people that think of themselves as capable of giving advice about
cameras, because of experience, have been using DSLR's for quite some
time now, since before 2008. So from their perspective Canon is indeed
better than Nikon (most people forget about Pentax and Sigma, and Sony
doesn't really make DSLRs anymore, unless you call their SLT cameras
real DSLRs, which I don't since it lacks the main component (and reason
of invention) of a SLR: an optical viewfinder), either because they
don't know Canon now has the lowest image quality of all DSLRs (again:
not an opinion, but a measurable fact), or because they have a
collection of lenses which makes it more interesting for them to stay
with Canon (irrelevant really if they're giving advice to someone else,
but people aren't always rational), or because they just don't know any
better.
Now, in terms of ergonomics and ease of use, that is a matter of
personal opinion, but I believe most people that have ever used a Pentax
would agree: nothing beats Pentax :)
Nikon has some weird default settings (like a fixed ISO.. when I use
aperture priority, that means I only want to select the aperture, so the
default ISO setting should be automatic, in my opinion), and Canon has
some weird button placement (it's much easier to turn on and off a Nikon
or a Pentax than a Canon, for example).
I have personally never really used a Sony or a Sigma, but I haven't
heard anything good about the Sony menu structure.
In terms of speed, I'll give it to Canon: their EOS 7D mkII is probably
the fastest camera in it's price range.
Having said all this, I'm not convinced I would recommend a DSLR these
days, certainly not for a beginner.
If you're not going to change lenses (which most beginners don't),
you're (imho) better off buying a Sony RX100 mkII (499euro, size of a
compact camera, slightly more versatile lens than the 18-55mm on your
DSLR, and the same image quality (or better, if you bought a Canon :))),
or a Panasonic FZ1000 (699Euro, size of a small DSLR, virtually the same
zoom range as an 18-300mm lens on your Nikon DSLR, slightly better image
quality than a Canon DSLR (so about half as good as a Nikon, which is
still a whole lot better than a normal compact camera) and weighs and
costs about the same as that 18-300mm lens by itself), or ...
Point is that you don't need interchangeable lenses for good image
quality or good speed anymore, that time is long past (ever since the
Sony RX100 mkII, that is, so about 2 years now :))
However, if you want to be able to change lenses, and you're just
starting, it is (again, imho) a better idea to invest in a mirrorless
system, as DSLRs will (most probably) disappear from the market in about
10 years. The advantages of a DSLR above a mirrorless camera are getting
less every year. In the lower end, the only advantage a DSLR has today,
is the viewfinder (low end mirrorless cameras don't have a viewfinder)
and the available lenses (which isn't really a fair comparison: Nikons
F-mount has been in use since 1959, Canons EF-mount since 1987, and
mirrorless only since 2004 (or 2008 if you don't count Leica, which you
probably shouldn't as it's out of most peoples price range :)))
But if you go mirrorless: stay away from the main DSLR brands, Nikon and
Canon. They both seem to be more interested in protecting their DSLR
market than they are in making a good mirrorless camera.
Sources: dpreview.com, dxomark.com, personal experience with most brands
cu!
--
ZK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 03.02.2016 um 00:27 schrieb Zeger Knaepen:
> Nikon has some weird default settings (like a fixed ISO.. when I use
> aperture priority, that means I only want to select the aperture, so the
> default ISO setting should be automatic, in my opinion),
I can't wrap my head around what the ISO setting is for on digital
cameras anyway. It's not like you can really change the sensor's light
sensitivity.
On a digital camera I'd expect to have a shutter speed setting so I can
control the movement blur, and an aperture setting so that I can control
the focal blur, and that's that.
But then again, what do I know about photography -- my only camera that
might still be in sufficiently working condition is a 2001 compact
digicam. (Oh, and the inbuilt camera of my smartphone.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/02/2016 3:51, clipka wrote:
> Am 03.02.2016 um 00:27 schrieb Zeger Knaepen:
>> Nikon has some weird default settings (like a fixed ISO.. when I use
>> aperture priority, that means I only want to select the aperture, so the
>> default ISO setting should be automatic, in my opinion),
>
> I can't wrap my head around what the ISO setting is for on digital
> cameras anyway. It's not like you can really change the sensor's light
> sensitivity.
it's an amplifier setting. The aperture and shutter time defines how
much lights enters, which results in a certain voltage in each pixel.
Changing the ISO changes the amplification of that voltage, so it
changes the "brightness" of that pixel.
Unfortunately you're also amplifying shot noise.
After that comes the analog to digital conversion (yes, those digital
camera sensors are analog devices :)), and that's where Canon fails
miserably: it adds a lot of extra noise, compared to the Sony sensors.
The result is that with Canon, if you try to brighten the darker parts
of the image, you're going to see that noise, very soon. With Sony not
so much, which gives it a far superior dynamic range at lower ISO
settings (at higher ISOs the shot noise is so high, there's just not
enough data left for a high dynamic range).
> On a digital camera I'd expect to have a shutter speed setting so I can
> control the movement blur, and an aperture setting so that I can control
> the focal blur, and that's that.
That's possible with so called ISO-less sensors (no sensor is really
ISO-less yet, but Sony sensors come very close), where it doesn't matter
if you change the ISO in-camera, or do it digitally afterwards.
There is a good reason why you would do it digitally: with analog
amplification you risk blowing out the highlights, with digital
amplification the only problem is you're also amplifying read noise (the
noise added in the analog-digital conversion, which is very low with
Sony sensors and relatively high on a Canon sensor).
cu!
--
ZK
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/02/2016 02:51 AM, clipka wrote:
> I can't wrap my head around what the ISO setting is for on digital
> cameras anyway. It's not like you can really change the sensor's light
> sensitivity.
That's a bit like saying you can't wrap your head around the volume
setting on your dictaphone - after all, it's not like you can really
change the microphone's physical response to sound...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2-2-2016 15:56, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/2/2016 2:24 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 02.02.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 2/2/2016 1:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>> >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>>>>> Scott: Canon
>>>>
>>>> Begun, the camera wars have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it is not a pinhole it is not true to the spirit and is a softboy's
>>> cheat. :)
>>
>> Is that why smartphones have such small lenses? ;)
>>
>
> I don't know. Why do smartphones have such small lenses?
>
> ;-)
>
They are smart. :-0
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I've already got a tripod. It's not especially good though. And
> regardless, you can't use a tripod to hold the camera half an inch away
> from a horizontal surface, while facing at a jaunty angle. :-P
Doesn't surprise me that a Nikon shop would sell you a duff tripod too. :-P
Take it back and get one that can do this:
http://www.johnnyego.com/photography/055PROBX/055PROBX_03.JPG
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/02/2016 08:56 AM, scott wrote:
> Doesn't surprise me that a Nikon shop would sell you a duff tripod too. :-P
Nikon shop? No, I bought it from John Lewis. And I've had the tripod for
years. :-P
> Take it back and get one that can do this:
>
> http://www.johnnyego.com/photography/055PROBX/055PROBX_03.JPG
I think just buying a less cheap tripod is the thing...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/1/2016 9:46 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Careful. That sounds kind of like socialism. Who are you to infringe
> upon the camera makers' right to differentiate.
>
>
> Mike
This didn't come out as funny and critical of the camera manufacturers
as I had intended.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/02/2016 06:18 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only
> acceptable brand.
>
> I have no idea why.
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
*facepalm*
OK. So apparently I really did buy the wrong camera. The study
statistically proves that Canon is superior to Nikon. And Pentax. And Sony.
But never mind that. Panasonic is superior to *all* of them. By a large
margin!
(I didn't even know they *make* cameras...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/12/2016 2:11 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 06:18 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only
>> acceptable brand.
>>
>> I have no idea why.
>
> http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
>
> *facepalm*
>
> OK. So apparently I really did buy the wrong camera. The study
> statistically proves that Canon is superior to Nikon. And Pentax. And Sony.
>
> But never mind that. Panasonic is superior to *all* of them. By a large
> margin!
>
> (I didn't even know they *make* cameras...)
And iPhone users have more sex! I've had an iPhone for 6 years, I'm
still waiting...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
