Dslr gurus- new camera time

[kalster]

Sigma 10-20 looks to be around 400-450, I can stretch my range that much. I see you use that, is it pretty sharp through the focal range

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Fike

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
K10D FTW
Sure Canon has slightly better noise at 1600+, but Pentax has the shake reduction, which helps for 2-3 stops, much more effective than having a tad lower noise for low light shooting.

shake reduction is great when you are only photographing static subjects, but for any kind of sports, action or wildlife, shake reduction will still result in a blur. Try shooting a soccer game or a flying bird at a 20th of a second and you will get poor results, but at 3200 ISO and a 100th of a second, you are golden.

You know, you can turn the IS off.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Fike

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
K10D FTW
Sure Canon has slightly better noise at 1600+, but Pentax has the shake reduction, which helps for 2-3 stops, much more effective than having a tad lower noise for low light shooting.

shake reduction is great when you are only photographing static subjects, but for any kind of sports, action or wildlife, shake reduction will still result in a blur. Try shooting a soccer game or a flying bird at a 20th of a second and you will get poor results, but at 3200 ISO and a 100th of a second, you are golden.

You know, you can turn the IS off.

Does IS work better when it is integrated into the lens technology or the camera? Or does it matter?

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Fike

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
K10D FTW
Sure Canon has slightly better noise at 1600+, but Pentax has the shake reduction, which helps for 2-3 stops, much more effective than having a tad lower noise for low light shooting.

shake reduction is great when you are only photographing static subjects, but for any kind of sports, action or wildlife, shake reduction will still result in a blur. Try shooting a soccer game or a flying bird at a 20th of a second and you will get poor results, but at 3200 ISO and a 100th of a second, you are golden.

You know, you can turn the IS off.

Does IS work better when it is integrated into the lens technology or the camera? Or does it matter?

At this point in time, Canon and Nikon have better IS integrated into the lens, usually efficient for 3 stops, while in body IS is about 2 if best. There is no reason this can't become better implemented as technology matures though. The one advantage that makes it attractive now is that it obviously works for all lenses.

I believe that sooner or later every DSLR manufacturer will have in body IS as good as in the lens solutions from C and N, but C and N will never integrate it into the body because they can charge a premium for the lenses, and they are the 800 lb gorillas that can do whatever they want.

 

[arrfep]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: arrfep


And I'm not even a Pentax user. But the K10D is making me consider selling my 30D.

Why would you sell your 30D for this relatively new and unknown camera? Gear-itis? Is there something about your 30D that you just can't live with?

I can understand someone who has no lenses and is just getting into this considering the Pentax but unless you're made of money or the brand you are with now suddenly started making crap I don't understand why you'd change.

I certainly didn't consider any other brands when I decided to buy a new DSLR last month. My reason for that was solely based on the fact that I have invested more money in Canon lenses than the cost of the camera body itself. It would have to be a huge and I mean huge step up (improvement in gear) for me to consider changing to Nikon or any other DSLR kit. Sure I could sell my lenses but I'd still take a substanstial loss. It's just not worth it. I'm sure there would be things I'd like about the Pentax and things I would dislike. I can see lens selection being up there on the list of dislikes though.

Sure you can use any Pentax lens made but many of those are manual focus only. I do like and use manual focus lenses but I also like and use autofocus lenses too. My eyes aren't what they used to be and autofocus is nice to have (which is one of the reasons I dislike the Rebel series DSLR cameras with their tiny viewfinders).

Welllll...........like was said, mainly for in-body IS and weather-sealing. I tend to use my camera in sometimes less-than-forgiving conditions and I'd like to know it can take it. I also like to pack light, and like I said, with the pancake lenses and the in-body IS I really think it becomes the best dSLR for travelling. And by travelling, I mean "all I need to survive" in a backpack.

And as I said (to be fair, it was in a post after the one you quoted but before you posted) I am still awaiting reviews to see if it's worth buying. Your point about lenses is of course obviously valid, and my situation is that I only have the kit lens and the Tamron 17-50...I did just get into the world of DSLRs this spring.

The funny thing about people and DSLR discussions is that people think there is a "best dSLR" period, and don't take into account what they are planning on using it for. As multifunctional as an SLR is designed to be, in the digital days it seems they can be much more single-purpose than in the film days.

If I was shooting Pro Sports, yeah I'd buy a 1Ds MK-whatever they're on, not a Pentax K10D. But if I was climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro, I'd want the K10D with an UWA and a pancake, and not the 1Ds. For nightclub available-light shots I'd get neither, I'd use the 5D instead.

There's too many choices, and like I said, whether you agree or not, people with hobbies like ours tend to be continuously driven to upgrade. Whether it be by the market or by our own impulses. The truth is that I probably would never switch to Pentax because I know that after Canon evaluates what its competitors have released, it will blow them all away with the 40D.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: kalster
Sigma 10-20 looks to be around 400-450, I can stretch my range that much. I see you use that, is it pretty sharp through the focal range

Yup, it's sharp throughout the focal range. It is NOT sharp, however, when it's fully or almost fully stopped down at around f/22. Try to keep shooting at apertures larger than f/11.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm

Look at the MTF50 tests. They measure resolution of the lens.

The 17-40mm is an option, but you need to decide whether you want wide angle or ultra wide angle. There is a HUGE difference between 17mm and 10mm, it's almost an apples to oranges comparison.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Fike

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
K10D FTW
Sure Canon has slightly better noise at 1600+, but Pentax has the shake reduction, which helps for 2-3 stops, much more effective than having a tad lower noise for low light shooting.

shake reduction is great when you are only photographing static subjects, but for any kind of sports, action or wildlife, shake reduction will still result in a blur. Try shooting a soccer game or a flying bird at a 20th of a second and you will get poor results, but at 3200 ISO and a 100th of a second, you are golden.

You know, you can turn the IS off.

I think his point was canon's better ISO was still very valid for folks

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: arrfep

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: arrfep


And I'm not even a Pentax user. But the K10D is making me consider selling my 30D.

Why would you sell your 30D for this relatively new and unknown camera? Gear-itis? Is there something about your 30D that you just can't live with?

I can understand someone who has no lenses and is just getting into this considering the Pentax but unless you're made of money or the brand you are with now suddenly started making crap I don't understand why you'd change.

I certainly didn't consider any other brands when I decided to buy a new DSLR last month. My reason for that was solely based on the fact that I have invested more money in Canon lenses than the cost of the camera body itself. It would have to be a huge and I mean huge step up (improvement in gear) for me to consider changing to Nikon or any other DSLR kit. Sure I could sell my lenses but I'd still take a substanstial loss. It's just not worth it. I'm sure there would be things I'd like about the Pentax and things I would dislike. I can see lens selection being up there on the list of dislikes though.

Sure you can use any Pentax lens made but many of those are manual focus only. I do like and use manual focus lenses but I also like and use autofocus lenses too. My eyes aren't what they used to be and autofocus is nice to have (which is one of the reasons I dislike the Rebel series DSLR cameras with their tiny viewfinders).

Welllll...........like was said, mainly for in-body IS and weather-sealing. I tend to use my camera in sometimes less-than-forgiving conditions and I'd like to know it can take it. I also like to pack light, and like I said, with the pancake lenses and the in-body IS I really think it becomes the best dSLR for travelling. And by travelling, I mean "all I need to survive" in a backpack.

And as I said (to be fair, it was in a post after the one you quoted but before you posted) I am still awaiting reviews to see if it's worth buying. Your point about lenses is of course obviously valid, and my situation is that I only have the kit lens and the Tamron 17-50...I did just get into the world of DSLRs this spring.

The funny thing about people and DSLR discussions is that people think there is a "best dSLR" period, and don't take into account what they are planning on using it for. As multifunctional as an SLR is designed to be, in the digital days it seems they can be much more single-purpose than in the film days.

If I was shooting Pro Sports, yeah I'd buy a 1Ds MK-whatever they're on, not a Pentax K10D. But if I was climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro, I'd want the K10D with an UWA and a pancake, and not the 1Ds. For nightclub available-light shots I'd get neither, I'd use the 5D instead.

There's too many choices, and like I said, whether you agree or not, people with hobbies like ours tend to be continuously driven to upgrade. Whether it be by the market or by our own impulses. The truth is that I probably would never switch to Pentax because I know that after Canon evaluates what its competitors have released, it will blow them all away with the 40D.

I'm curious to see how the 40D compares. Of course, I just bought a 30D which is just an evolution of the 20D...I don't see me upgrading anytime soon though. Personally, I'd love to see the 40D come with a FF sensor but I don't see that happening. That's about the only reason I would consider it.

 

[Fike]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Fike

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
K10D FTW
Sure Canon has slightly better noise at 1600+, but Pentax has the shake reduction, which helps for 2-3 stops, much more effective than having a tad lower noise for low light shooting.

shake reduction is great when you are only photographing static subjects, but for any kind of sports, action or wildlife, shake reduction will still result in a blur. Try shooting a soccer game or a flying bird at a 20th of a second and you will get poor results, but at 3200 ISO and a 100th of a second, you are golden.

You know, you can turn the IS off.

And then what is the point?

 

[Fike]

The 300D is an excellent camera. Take a look at these pics. Invest in good lenses. They are the backbone of any photographers bag. Part of the reason Canon and Nikon are kings of the hill is that they have a great lens collections. Take a look at these links that show what the 300D can do with great lenses.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/outbackphoto_db/t_photos.php?TopicID=canon_300d

 

[GrantMeThePower]

So I'm looking at the pluses and minuses of the pentax vs. canon and it looks like this:

Pentax-Weatherproofing, in camera SR, more RAW options, less expensive lenses
Canon- Better noise in high ISO conditions, more lens choices

Would that be an accurate summary? What about if we throw Nikon in the mix?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
So I'm looking at the pluses and minuses of the pentax vs. canon and it looks like this:

Pentax-Weatherproofing, in camera SR, more RAW options, less expensive lenses
Canon- Better noise in high ISO conditions, more lens choices

Would that be an accurate summary? What about if we throw Nikon in the mix?

Nikon - Ergonomics, lens choice

As for high ISO noise, all three are not too far off. Add noise reduction software in there and the gap will probably become even narrower.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Fike
The 300D is an excellent camera. Take a look at these pics. Invest in good lenses. They are the backbone of any photographers bag. Part of the reason Canon and Nikon are kings of the hill is that they have a great lens collections. Take a look at these links that show what the 300D can do with great lenses.

http://www.outbackphoto.com/outbackphoto_db/t_photos.php?TopicID=canon_300d

His picture does not exactly show-off amazing image quality.
You could take those pics with a $150 P&S. Photographer makes the pictures. The camera is nearly a tool.

 

[GrantMeThePower]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
So I'm looking at the pluses and minuses of the pentax vs. canon and it looks like this:

Pentax-Weatherproofing, in camera SR, more RAW options, less expensive lenses
Canon- Better noise in high ISO conditions, more lens choices

Would that be an accurate summary? What about if we throw Nikon in the mix?

Nikon - Ergonomics, lens choice

As for high ISO noise, all three are not too far off. Add noise reduction software in there and the gap will probably become even narrower.

Well if those are the only reasons to go nikon over canon, I think I can safely leave my two choices at Canon and Pentax, because:

1. I already have some canon lenses, and they have a good assortment, so there isn't much reason to switch to nikon for lenses
2. Ergonomics are less important, and the small size is a plus for the XTi for me simply becuase 80% of my camera usage is on hikes and camping trips, so smaller is sometimes better.

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: kalster
Sigma 10-20 looks to be around 400-450, I can stretch my range that much. I see you use that, is it pretty sharp through the focal range

Yup, it's sharp throughout the focal range. It is NOT sharp, however, when it's fully or almost fully stopped down at around f/22. Try to keep shooting at apertures larger than f/11.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm

Look at the MTF50 tests. They measure resolution of the lens.

The 17-40mm is an option, but you need to decide whether you want wide angle or ultra wide angle. There is a HUGE difference between 17mm and 10mm, it's almost an apples to oranges comparison.

cool
I saw some lovely pictures on your site, can you show me which ones you took with the sigma 10-20

 

[Fike]

A ver good website for canon lens reviews.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: kalster

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: kalster
Sigma 10-20 looks to be around 400-450, I can stretch my range that much. I see you use that, is it pretty sharp through the focal range

Yup, it's sharp throughout the focal range. It is NOT sharp, however, when it's fully or almost fully stopped down at around f/22. Try to keep shooting at apertures larger than f/11.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm

Look at the MTF50 tests. They measure resolution of the lens.

The 17-40mm is an option, but you need to decide whether you want wide angle or ultra wide angle. There is a HUGE difference between 17mm and 10mm, it's almost an apples to oranges comparison.

cool
I saw some lovely pictures on your site, can you show me which ones you took with the sigma 10-20

Super Macro (reversed Sigma 10-20mm)

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1702772

Great Sand Dunes 1, 5, 6, 7

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1435010/1/68222585

Arches 4, 6

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/2157947

Canyonlands 2, 4, 5 (note that these were shot at f/22, my fault, so they are actually not very sharp)

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1621852

Hocking Hills 2, 5, 7, 9

http://fuzzybabybunny.smugmug.com/gallery/1631403

I probably missed a few here and there because I'm doing it by memory. Note though that these pictures represent what could be done with this lens. All of them have been sharpened up and edited in Photoshop, so they are absolutely not indicative of what you'll get straight out of the camera.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
So I'm looking at the pluses and minuses of the pentax vs. canon and it looks like this:

Pentax-Weatherproofing, in camera SR, more RAW options, less expensive lenses
Canon- Better noise in high ISO conditions, more lens choices

Would that be an accurate summary? What about if we throw Nikon in the mix?

Nikon - Ergonomics, lens choice

As for high ISO noise, all three are not too far off. Add noise reduction software in there and the gap will probably become even narrower.

Well if those are the only reasons to go nikon over canon, I think I can safely leave my two choices at Canon and Pentax, because:

1. I already have some canon lenses, and they have a good assortment, so there isn't much reason to switch to nikon for lenses
2. Ergonomics are less important, and the small size is a plus for the XTi for me simply becuase 80% of my camera usage is on hikes and camping trips, so smaller is sometimes better.

I'm sure there are other pros to Nikon that I hope other Nikon users will add. I agree that the size of the Rebel is actually pretty good. I backpack too, and size and weight is definitely a big issue. In addition, since I have small hands, the "normal" cameras like the 20D, 5D, D80, all feel way too big and chunky in my hands, not to mention their weight makes me scared. When I tried the Pentax cameras though, they seemed ok in size and weight. Not sure if it's the same for the K10D.

 

[kalster]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

Originally posted by: kalster
Sigma 10-20 looks to be around 400-450, I can stretch my range that much. I see you use that, is it pretty sharp through the focal range

Yup, it's sharp throughout the focal range. It is NOT sharp, however, when it's fully or almost fully stopped down at around f/22. Try to keep shooting at apertures larger than f/11.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm

Look at the MTF50 tests. They measure resolution of the lens.

The 17-40mm is an option, but you need to decide whether you want wide angle or ultra wide angle. There is a HUGE difference between 17mm and 10mm, it's almost an apples to oranges comparison.

Yeh, I think I want a wide angle lense rather than an ultra wide angle, so I can use it as a walk around lens. 17-40 seems pretty good. Have you had any experience with the Tamron 17-50. Seems like its gotten good reviews
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: Fike

Originally posted by: virtualgames0
K10D FTW
Sure Canon has slightly better noise at 1600+, but Pentax has the shake reduction, which helps for 2-3 stops, much more effective than having a tad lower noise for low light shooting.

shake reduction is great when you are only photographing static subjects, but for any kind of sports, action or wildlife, shake reduction will still result in a blur. Try shooting a soccer game or a flying bird at a 20th of a second and you will get poor results, but at 3200 ISO and a 100th of a second, you are golden.

You know, you can turn the IS off.

Does IS work better when it is integrated into the lens technology or the camera? Or does it matter?

At this point in time, Canon and Nikon have better IS integrated into the lens, usually efficient for 3 stops, while in body IS is about 2 if best. There is no reason this can't become better implemented as technology matures though. The one advantage that makes it attractive now is that it obviously works for all lenses.

I believe that sooner or later every DSLR manufacturer will have in body IS as good as in the lens solutions from C and N, but C and N will never integrate it into the body because they can charge a premium for the lenses, and they are the 800 lb gorillas that can do whatever they want.

One of the big reasons I won't consider Nikon and Canon is their approach to IS. As someone pointed out a little bit ago on another site, with Nikon and Canon, you are locked into their IS performance when you buy the lens, and it will stay at that level of performance even when you upgrade the camera body (lenses last many years, bodies not nearly as long). With in-body IS, you upgrade the technology every time you buy a new body. You keep the same lenses you had previously, and they benefit from the new IS.

I never thought about it that way before, but it's been borne out with the Sony Alpha because Sony improved the Konica-Minolta AS performance that I enjoy with my Maxxum 7D. Now, Sony is set to release two new DSLRs, probably for release in March at the next big camera show, and I read a rumor that there could be additional SSS improvement over the A100. I can use my Maxxum lenses for near 2 stop improvement now, better on the A100, and then even better on future Sony cameras. Since Minolta lenses are pretty darn cheap on eBay, I save a pretty penny compared to buying Canon IS lenses! By my count, I have 8 IS lenses right now. All together, I think I paid less than one Canon IS lens.

The two new Sony cameras are supposed to be a 7D replacement (Canon 30D class) and a Nikon D40 competitor (ie., soccer mom DSLR, $400-500). I'm eagerly awaiting the 7D replacement to see what they do. I'm holding onto my 7D for awhile yet, but I want to find out what the upgrade path looks like.

 

[GrantMeThePower]

Ok, so for the past few days i've really been studying the choices, and i've definetly narrowed it to the Nikon and the Pentax (sorry canon - and sorry to my old glass). My biggest worry with the Pentax is the choices of lenses. BUT with Nikon the nice stuff is really really expensive.

I dont know what to do...

 

[arrfep]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Ok, so for the past few days i've really been studying the choices, and i've definetly narrowed it to the Nikon and the Pentax (sorry canon - and sorry to my old glass). My biggest worry with the Pentax is the choices of lenses. BUT with Nikon the nice stuff is really really expensive.

I dont know what to do...

Have a look at this thread http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=21106341

Dpreview is probably the best online resource for digital camera stuff and I have found tons of help there on any question I've had. The concensus of that thread seems to be that Pentax might have a smaller line of lenses but it does have any imaginable lens that you will realistically need.