First DSLR recommendations

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Muse
Ah, ... what's an EXIF reader?

Text

Try the freeware Opanda IExif 2.3. EXIF information is embedded by the camera in every image it takes; it contains information about the picture, such as exposure, shutter speed, ISO, focal length, aperture, etc...but it also contains other camera information, such as the number of shutter clicks. Shutters have a life expectancy, so the fewer the clicks, the better.

I just installed Opanda IExif 2.3, freeware. I opened it and opened one of my jpgs, created with my current digicam, a Samsung V3 Digimax. It said there was no Exif information in the file. Will shots made with a D50 have Exif information? Will that include date/time info of when the shot was taken?

I emailed the seller and asked for a JPG recently made with the camera and he said he would send me one later tonight. Thanks for the help.

I'm not afraid of manual focus as long as I have a good enough viewfinder. How is it on the D50/D40? The only SLR I've ever had was a Nikon F and IIRC it was strictly manual focus.

How are those lenses packaged with that D50? Are they decent/good/marginal? I guess the light passed is nothing great, being maximum f3.5.

Edit: I have a JPG I downloaded a few months ago that Opanda finds EFIX info in. It says it was taken with a Canon 20D. I don't see the number of shutter clicks. Where (what field) would that be?

 

[randomlinh]

IMO, you'll be pounding your head in the wall if you're trying to MF on the D40. I cringe still w/ my 20D. Spoiled rotten from the Pentax K1000, heh.

 

[jpeyton]

EXIF information should be available on any JPEG straight from the camera. Processing an image with software and re-saving it may strip some EXIF information, so make sure the seller sends you a JPEG straight from the camera if you want to check the shutter count.

Manual focus with the D40/D50 requires you approximate it by eye (easy to do), but fine tuning it is based on the same "green-dot" focus indicator used for autofocus. Basically a green dot will light up in the viewfinder if your manual focus is spot-on. If you have a lens that is made for manual focusing, like older AI or Pre-AI lenses, they will generally have well-damped long-throw focus rings that make it easy to fine tune manual focus quickly and easily. But you'll find that many newer cheaper lenses have very poor manual focus rings. But there are a lot of things that affect how easy/difficult it is to manual focus...focal length, aperture, depth-of-field, ambient lighting, etc.

At the risk of continually sounding like a Nikon cheerleader, I find the quality of the 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses to be good-to-very good for kit lenses. Flickr and PBase have plenty of great examples taken with that pair.

As for high ISO performance...Canon and Nikon are still the industry leaders. All the other manufacturers are usually one or two product cycles behind them. Pentax made some big strides with their K20D, however (no doubt the all-new Samsung sensor helped).

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
EXIF information should be available on any JPEG straight from the camera. Processing an image with software and re-saving it may strip some EXIF information, so make sure the seller sends you a JPEG straight from the camera if you want to check the shutter count.

Whatever the reason, shots I took... whoops, hold the phone. I looked at an unedited JPG I took with my digicam and there is indeed EXIF info in Opanda. I still don't see shutter count though. I'm wondering if the version of Opanda I'm running supports that. There's no "About" available, AFAIK. In the title bar it says Opanda IEXIF 2.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: jpeyton
EXIF information should be available on any JPEG straight from the camera. Processing an image with software and re-saving it may strip some EXIF information, so make sure the seller sends you a JPEG straight from the camera if you want to check the shutter count.

Whatever the reason, shots I took... whoops, hold the phone. I looked at an unedited JPG I took with my digicam and there is indeed EXIF info in Opanda. I still don't see shutter count though. I'm wondering if the version of Opanda I'm running supports that. There's no "About" available, AFAIK. In the title bar it says Opanda IEXIF 2.

That kind of information might not be available for all cameras; it varies from model to model. I know Canon and Nikon DSLRs put shutter count into their EXIF info; never bothered to check a point-and-shoot digicam before.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: jpeyton
From the DCResource review, the bottom line with the A200:

Great if you shoot RAW all the time and post-process.

JPEGs are good at ISO 100-400 in good light; at ISO 100 in poor light. Outside those parameters, JPEGs are sub-par compared to the competition. It's not the sensor's fault, it's Sony's decision to apply an obscene amount of noise reduction on in-camera JPEGs.

You can't turn the NR off like you can on a D40?

If so, then I guess the D40 will still be my top choice right now...the lack of features isn't a huge deal since I really, really care about high ISO performance.

You can turn the NR down, but not off. Do note that with RAW images the NR is not applied.

Honestly, I haven't shot in JPG for anything important in a couple years now. Sure, if I'm taking snapshots or things that I never intend to print larger than 5x7 I'll use JPG, but by and large, RAW is the order of the day. There's just so much more flexibility with it.

If you really want to shoot JPG mainly and intend to make enlargements beyond 5x7 with those JPGs, then yes, the D40 will be a better choice. If you're going to shoot in RAW, then there's not much difference between the two cameras.

ZV

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: jpeyton
EXIF information should be available on any JPEG straight from the camera. Processing an image with software and re-saving it may strip some EXIF information, so make sure the seller sends you a JPEG straight from the camera if you want to check the shutter count.

Whatever the reason, shots I took... whoops, hold the phone. I looked at an unedited JPG I took with my digicam and there is indeed EXIF info in Opanda. I still don't see shutter count though. I'm wondering if the version of Opanda I'm running supports that. There's no "About" available, AFAIK. In the title bar it says Opanda IEXIF 2.

That kind of information might not be available for all cameras; it varies from model to model. I know Canon and Nikon DSLRs put shutter count into their EXIF info; never bothered to check a point-and-shoot digicam before.

Hmm. Well, I have a photo on my desktop I guess I downloaded from somewhere, very pretty of a small watercraft somewhere in Vietnam. Taken with a Canon 20D, says Opanda. I exported the EXIF info to a text file. I'm not quoting all of it because beyond the portion quoted below it's just stuff like:

000D = 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, etc.

Other than pure numeric info consisting of 0 - 9 characters in the first portion (quoted below), there's this:

Custom Functions = 38, 0, 257, 512, 768, 1024, 1280, 1536, 1793, 2048, 2304, 2560, 2816, 3072, 3328, 3584, 3840, 4096, 4352
0010 = 2147484021
0012 = 9, 9, 3504, 2336, 3504, 2336, 78, 78, 8, 64981, 571, 64605, 8, 947, 64981, 571, 8, 504, 270, 270, 4, 4, 4, 65274, 65274, 65040, 475, 65535
0013 = 0, 159, 7, 112
0015 = 2684354560
0019 = 1
0083 = 0
0093 = 32, 21196, 105, 0, 0, 0, 65535, 65535, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
00A0 = 28, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 32768, 5200, 0, 0, 0, 0
00AA = 10, 1222, 1024, 1024, 855
00D0 = 0
00E0 = 34, 3596, 2360, 1, 1, 84, 19, 3587, 2354, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
4001 = 1164, 833, 1024,

What appears interesting in the export consists of the following:
- - - -
[Image]
Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS 20D
Orientation = 0
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Picasa 3.0
Date Time = 2007-12-31 02:47:40
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 202

[Camera]
Exposure Time = 1/250"
F Number = F10
Exposure Program = Normal program
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2007-12-31 02:47:40
Date Time Digitized = 2007-12-31 02:47:40
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Shutter Speed Value = 7.97 TV
Aperture Value = 6.64 AV
Exposure Bias Value = -0.33EV
Metering Mode = Pattern
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 70mm
Maker Note = 8368 Byte
User Comment =
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = Uncalibrated
Exif Image Width = 3504
Exif Image Height = 2336
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 9326
Focal Plane X Resolution = 3959.322
Focal Plane Y Resolution = 3959.322
Focal Plane Resolution Unit = inch
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Scene Capture Type = Normal
Image Unique ID = 5308e32776d74fa23cf580d4d34dda01

[GPS]

[Interoperability]
Interoperability Index = ExifR98
Interoperability Version = Version 1.0

[Thumbnail Info]
Compression = JPEG Compressed (Thumbnail)
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
JPEG Interchange Format = Offset: 9450
JPEG Interchange Format Length = Length: 5249

[Thumbnail]
Thumbnail = 160 x 112

[MakerNote (Canon)]
Camera Settings 1 = 92, 2, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 32767, 3, 2, 0, 1, 65535, 65535, 300, 70, 1, 65535, 65535, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 65535, 65535, 0, 0, 0, 0, 65535, 0, 32767, 0, 32767, 65535, 65535
0002 = 2, 70, 907, 605
0003 = 100, 0, 0, 0
Camera Settings 2 = 68, 0, 224, 236, 213, 255, 65524, 0, 3, 0, 8, 8, 0, 0, 0, 65524, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 208, 420, 149, 0, 0, 252, 0, 65535, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Image Type = Canon EOS 20D
Firmware Version = Firmware 2.0.3
Owner Name = unknown
Camera Serial Number = 620330094

- - - -

I'm wondering now, though, if the D50 is the camera for me. The D70 (or is it the D70s? Maybe both.) has some features that look desirable that the D50 has not: depth of field preview (that really seems valuable) and grid lines in the viewfinder (I know I'd utilize that often).

 

[Ballatician]

Perhaps you have already found a camera as indicated in the title but check out these threads about people getting ridiculous deals on the A100

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/843669/

http://forums.slickdeals.net/s...ad.php?threadid=870366

 

[SZLiao214]

I was actually looking at the cameras the op was talking about.

The link below may be helpful to you.

http://www.adorama.com/Catalog...emy_new&article=042706

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
Perhaps you have already found a camera as indicated in the title but check out these threads about people getting ridiculous deals on the A100

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/843669/

http://forums.slickdeals.net/s...ad.php?threadid=870366

Eye opener there. A100K's purchased for as low as $178! I think my odds of finding one at this point are less than 1 in 1000, even if I comb the woods. Even 4 days ago people were having problems finding them. All my "local" Sears are showing up OOS.

 

[Muse]

Seller of "slightly used" D50 emailed me 3 JPGs, and Opanda's EXIF info indicates the "Total Number of Shutter Releases for Camera" to be 1341. I guess that is fairly light use, actually. That was in the info for the first shot, which was 822 kb. The other two shots (574 kb and 1087 kb) have only about 1/2 as many records of info and no "Total Number of Shutter Releases for Camera" record.

 

[jpeyton]

1341 shutter releases is VERY light use; I probably run through that many releases every 2-3 weeks. It has a lot of life left in it; I've seen lots of D50s still going strong after 30k-40k releases.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Ballatician
Perhaps you have already found a camera as indicated in the title but check out these threads about people getting ridiculous deals on the A100

http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/hot-deals/843669/

http://forums.slickdeals.net/s...ad.php?threadid=870366

Eye opener there. A100K's purchased for as low as $178! I think my odds of finding one at this point are less than 1 in 1000, even if I comb the woods. Even 4 days ago people were having problems finding them. All my "local" Sears are showing up OOS.

I tried to find them in my area, but I think they've all been bought up already by ebay and Craigslist sellers (3 went up for sale on C-list for $375 ish lately).

Based on the poor high ISO performance and excessive NR of the A200, I'm going to get the D40 with 18-55 lens. Thanks for all the help!

 

[Heidfirst]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Based on the poor high ISO performance and excessive NR of the A200,

we're talking relative here - in reality there is little in it & of course in RAW as already mentioned NR doesn't apply.
Noise, detail & sensitivity are related & Sony's current approach typically gives better IQ at the ISOs that most people use (<800) at the cost of being not so good at those that relatively few use.

There was an interesting comment in Amateur Photographer (probably the most respected UK photography magazine) this week in a comparison of the Canon 450D & the Sony A350 - they said that the Canon was the better SLR but the Sony was the better DSLR ...

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
1341 shutter releases is VERY light use; I probably run through that many releases every 2-3 weeks. It has a lot of life left in it; I've seen lots of D50s still going strong after 30k-40k releases.

The seller is on vacation for the next 3 weeks. He says when he gets back he will check with me before relisting the item, so I have time to think about it. Again, this is:

"Slightly used Nikon D50 (6.1 megapixels) for sale in great shape. Includes two auto-focus lenses: Nikkor 18-55mm lens (f/3.5-5.6G), and Nikkor 55-200mm lens (f/4-5.6G)."

It has ~1341 shutter clicks on it.

I have a question: Can I use either of these lenses with it:

Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF]

If so, which would be the better lens? Or are those lenses specifically designed for Canon DSLRs?

 

[jpeyton]

There are Canon and Nikon versions of both those Tamron lenses.

The 17-50mm is an awesome lens; much more useful range on a D50. Sharpness is fantastic.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There are Canon and Nikon versions of both those Tamron lenses.

The 17-50mm is an awesome lens; much more useful range on a D50. Sharpness is fantastic.

Wouldn't it have a range similar to the Nikkor 18-55mm lens (f/3.5-5.6G)? Would the benefits only be:

1. Sharper

2. f2.8 throughout the range, which would give me less depth of field should I want it and faster shutter speeds, should I want them?

What do you mean by "much more useful range on a D50?" Do you mean more useful than the Nikkor 18-55mm or more useful on the D50 than on a Canon DSLR?

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There are Canon and Nikon versions of both those Tamron lenses.

The 17-50mm is an awesome lens; much more useful range on a D50. Sharpness is fantastic.

Wouldn't it have a range similar to the Nikkor 18-55mm lens (f/3.5-5.6G)? Would the benefits only be:

1. Sharper

2. f2.8 throughout the range, which would give me less depth of field should I want it and faster shutter speeds, should I want them?

What do you mean by "much more useful range on a D50?" Do you mean more useful than the Nikkor 18-55mm or more useful on the D50 than on a Canon DSLR?

No, I believe he means that the 17-50mm will have a much more useful range than the Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), which was designed for full-frame cameras. If you put the latter lens on a D50, your actual focal range will be 37.5mm to 112.5mm...not really useful unless you don't care about having decent wide angle coverage.

The Di II lens was designed specifically for crop sensor cameras, and if you multiply the 17-50mm focal range by 1.5 (for Nikon) or 1.6 (for Canon), you still get a very usable wide angle to slight tele range.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: 996GT2

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: jpeyton
There are Canon and Nikon versions of both those Tamron lenses.

The 17-50mm is an awesome lens; much more useful range on a D50. Sharpness is fantastic.

Wouldn't it have a range similar to the Nikkor 18-55mm lens (f/3.5-5.6G)? Would the benefits only be:

1. Sharper

2. f2.8 throughout the range, which would give me less depth of field should I want it and faster shutter speeds, should I want them?

What do you mean by "much more useful range on a D50?" Do you mean more useful than the Nikkor 18-55mm or more useful on the D50 than on a Canon DSLR?

No, I believe he means that the 17-50mm will have a much more useful range than the Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), which was designed for full-frame cameras. If you put the latter lens on a D50, your actual focal range will be 37.5mm to 112.5mm...not really useful unless you don't care about having decent wide angle coverage.

The Di II lens was designed specifically for crop sensor cameras, and if you multiply the 17-50mm focal range by 1.5 (for Nikon) or 1.6 (for Canon), you still get a very usable wide angle to slight tele range.

Thanks. Yes, I should have realized that. What about my two questions:

1. Tamron 17-50 = Sharper - sharper than the kit lens??

2. Tamron 17-50 is f2.8 throughout the range. Is the advantage that it which would give me less depth of field should I want it and faster shutter speeds, should I want them?

IOW, what exactly is the advantage of the Tamron 17-50 over the kit lens?

And am I right that both the kit lens and Tamron 17-50mm have similar ranges. What is the telescopic effect of the lenses involved (except the 55-200mm, although I'm curious about that too)? 3x optical? When I looked through the viewfinder of a Canon XSi at Circuit City a few weeks ago it appeared to me that the maximum magnification through the kit lens was very similar to that of my my Samsung Digimax V3, which is P&S and has 3x optical telescopic range.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Muse
Thanks. Yes, I should have realized that. What about my two questions:

1. Tamron 17-50 = Sharper - sharper than the kit lens??

2. Tamron 17-50 is f2.8 throughout the range. Is the advantage that it which would give me less depth of field should I want it and faster shutter speeds, should I want them?

IOW, what exactly is the advantage of the Tamron 17-50 over the kit lens?

And am I right that both the kit lens and Tamron 17-50mm have similar ranges. What is the telescopic effect of the lenses involved (except the 55-200mm, although I'm curious about that too)? 3x optical? When I looked through the viewfinder of a Canon XSi at Circuit City a few weeks ago it appeared to me that the maximum magnification through the kit lens was very similar to that of my my Samsung Digimax V3, which is P&S and has 3x optical telescopic range.

sharper, narrower DoF if you want it, and faster shutter speeds if you want that. it's also bigger, heavier, and costs more.

zoom ratio on the 17-50 is 3x, though talking about zoom ratios is about as pointless as herding cats. 'normal' is a focal length equal to the diagonal of the recording medium. wide angle is anything shorter, and telephoto is anything longer. by tradition, anything from about 40 to 60 mm on 35 mm is considered normal, 35 and below are wide angle, and 85 and above are telephoto.

longer telephoto lenses capture narrower fields of view. a 24 mm lens has an FoV of ~73.75 degrees. a 50 mm lenshas an FoV of ~36.6 degrees. a 100 mm lens has an FoV of about 20.4 degrees. a 200 mm lens has an FoV of about 10.3 degrees. a 400 mm lens has an FoV of about 5.1 degrees. going up in focal length by a factor of 2 means you basically capture the center half of the shorter lens's image.

magnification has nothing to do with the telephoto properties of the lens. magnification is the the ratio of sensor size to dimensions of the focal plane captured in the image. for most lenses magnification isn't very good, somewhere under 1:4 at their shortest working distance and longest focal length. dedicated macro lenses start at 1:2, which is to say that it can focus on something that is twice the size of the image frame and fill the frame with it. some lenses can do 4:1 or more, which is good enough to fill a frame with a grain of rice.

a longer macro lens does not necessarily have more magnification, but they do give a longer working distance for any given magnification.

 

[Muse]

So, if I buy this used albeit presumably like-new D50 with the Nikkor kit lenses, 18-55mm and 55-200mm I may not want the Tamron 17-50mm unless I want smaller depth of field shots or faster shutter speeds, right? Those are basically the advantages of the Tamron over the 18-55mm kit lens. Or is there another advantage? Is the Tamron significantly sharper, for instance?

I was kind of mixed up about the concept of magnification versus telephoto effects. They are quite different.

 

[996GT2]

Originally posted by: Muse
So, if I buy this used albeit presumably like-new D50 with the Nikkor kit lenses, 18-55mm and 55-200mm I may not want the Tamron 17-50mm unless I want smaller depth of field shots or faster shutter speeds, right? Those are basically the advantages of the Tamron over the 18-55mm kit lens. Or is there another advantage? Is the Tamron significantly sharper, for instance?

I was kind of mixed up about the concept of magnification versus telephoto effects. They are quite different.

Here's a review of the Nikkor 18-55mm kit lens:
http://www.bythom.com/1855lens.htm

One thing to note; you'll have to shoot at f5.6-f8 for maximum sharpness, so in low-light situations that would require bumping up the ISO, using a flash, or having a tripod for slow shutter shots.

 

[Muse]

People are saying here that the Sony A200 has poor high ISO performance but the Imaging-Resource review says it has "Very good high ISO performance." See the Sony A200 Conclusion section near the bottom where they list Pros and Cons side by side. Their cons look relatively trivial. Did those guys simply get it wrong (i.e. blow off their responsibility in evaluation the A200)?