-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Help Me Decide on a "Pro-sumer" DSLR...Santa's coming!
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Both cameras are better cameras then you are a photographer (don't read that wrong, they just are). The pixel peepers will all nerd out about the differences at ISO 3200 and such, but it really doesn't matter. Try both and get which ever one feels the best.
That said, the D90 is the better camera. I could write a bunch on why, but to be honest you are the buyer... so just do your own homework, or take my word for it. When you consider price the D90 is currently the best DX camera available.... and yes that includes the D300. Go to kenrockwell's site and do a search for the D90 and learn a lot you haven't thought about yet on what to look for in a camera.
That said, the D90 is the better camera. I could write a bunch on why, but to be honest you are the buyer... so just do your own homework, or take my word for it. When you consider price the D90 is currently the best DX camera available.... and yes that includes the D300. Go to kenrockwell's site and do a search for the D90 and learn a lot you haven't thought about yet on what to look for in a camera.
Flipped Gazelle
Diamond Member
Yup, SR's awesome. I love being able to take shots at 300mm with 1/50s shutter, when a tripod or other means of support is just not available. 😀
Flipped Gazelle
Diamond Member
Uh, it's Ken Rockwell. The guy's a wingnut. His statement, "The Nikon D40, its kit lens, and maybe a separate flash, are all anyone really needs for anything." is classic, almost Bill Gates-esque.
He makes lots of good points, but also too many sweeping statements, generalizations, hyperbole and is too full of his own ego to take seriously on a consistent basis. At least IMO.
D
Deleted member 4644
The D90 is better. More options, more room for growth, and pure, raw sharpness doesnt matter at 12MP. The Nikon default output is less vibrant and less sharp than its competitors, but I think it actually does a better job of preserving the data captured on-site for later modification in Nikon or Adobe software. My workflow always includes minor tweaks for final "keeper" shots.
Hello everyone!
Wow...you guys really know your stuff! After reading all of your informative responses and doing more research, I've come to the realization that:
a.) I need to brush up on definitions and concepts (ISO values, focal legnth equivelents, etc.) since everything's gone digital.
b.) As some have said, it's really hard to buy a bad DSLR.
c.) That the THREE cameras I'm now looking at will suit me just fine.
Did I just say there's now a THIRD camera in the running? Yeah...it's the Canon 50D! I used to be a Canon fan myself back in the film days. I learned on an AE-1, moved up to a used T-90 and finally had an EOS 7e. Alas, I sold everything over time as I stopped shooting all together.
But, yesterday I went to a local photography store to try out the D90 and K20D. While I was there, the salesman asked me what I had used in the past. Based on my answer, he suggested that I try out the Canon 50D, there newest model with a updated imaging engine that made its performance very fast. He offered it to me as the high-end option in my budget range with the D90 and K20D taking the mid- and low-end slots, respectively. We also took some time to evaluate some sample prints from each camara that the store took as a way to compare real-world, in-hand results.
We looked at the 50D first. Straight off, the Canon was extremely familiar to me. It's that "feeling" that it was neither too big nor to heavy in the hand, just right. Also, the over-all shape and control layout was familiar to me as well, with that big jog dial being something I'm glad they kept from their film-SLRs. The performance of the camara itself was awesome! It seemed so fast in everything it did. The focusing system was very fast and accurate. Of the three camaras I tried, it did the least "hunting" before locking onto focus during my (informal) tests. The speed was also reflected in the way it shot. Shot-to-shot times were great, but that burst mode was simply awesome! I'm not a sports photgrapher (I usually end up watching, forgetting that there might be a photo op!) but there are lots of instances where speed like this is a real advantage. The Canon also had the best LCD screen, extremely bright and viewable in any situation. The salesperson told me that the new engine inside the 50D was Canon's response to Nikon's latest DSLRs, especially the D300, by doubling the maximum sensitivity, increasing the pixel count and offering 14-bit imaging. It is a different class of camara though, being more of a semi-pro body than the D90. It's built like a tank! Seemingly, you can adjust and customize almost every aspect of its operation. It gives you the feeling that you have the freedom to get any shot, at any time, becuase of the sheer capabilities and processing power under the hood. I hadn't been looking to buy "this much camara", but it did fall within my budget and the performance was strikingly good!
Next, we went to the Nikon D90, which I must confess, was the camara I was most interested in at the start of the day. Like the Canon, the D90 looks and feels like a Nikon...familiar in shape and layout. Nikons always felt a little cumbersome to me, top-heavy in a way, but the D90 was comfortable to hold and use. While well-built, it's not as solid as the weather-proofed Cannon or Pentax. The control layout was good and easy to learn. Shooting performance was very close to the 50D, not quite as fast, but not slow by any means. There was more "hunting" during focusing than in the Canon and while the shot-to-shot performance felt the same, the burst mode was definitely slower. The viewfinder on the Nikon was the best of the bunch. The Movie-Mode is the D90's stand-out feature and it is a blast! The film clips look terriffic with good sound quality. In Hi-Def mode, you're limited to 5 minutes for each movie clip, but 5 minutes is a lot longer than you may think. The D90 also struck me as easier to use than the Canon, even for someone with limited exposure to Nikon SLRs. It didn't feel at any time to be too much camara, holding features and capabilities I'd never use.
Comparing the prints between the 50D and the D90 was hard, because they were so similar! In terms of quality, they were both exceptional in sharpness, resolution and color fidelity. But, to me, there two differences: I preferred the images of the D90 in low-light and indoor shots. The colors looked better and the over-all effect was richer, where the 50D looked slightly muted in comparison. On the flip-side, the Cannon's outdoor shots were so tack-sharp, even toward the edges of the print. Also, even in extremely brightly lit shots, the Canon's colors stayed true, where I felt the D90 washed-out by comparison.
Then I tried the K20D. The camera was very easy to handle and comfortable to hold, the body being more compact than the other two. Even though, the weather- and dust-sealing of the Pentax is immediately evident! The Pentax had a control layout (ie. jog dials!) that's similar to the Canon, just with fewer buttons. I thought it made for much cleaner look, but it regulated important adjustments like ISO setting & White Balance to a menu screen. As far as shooting performance, while not "slow" or inaccurate by any means, it did not focus as fast nor get from shot-to-shot the way that the Nikon did, not to mention the Canon. The live-view and burst mode are limited in terms of usefulness. Then, the salesman showed me what he thought the Pentax's trump card was by showing me some sample prints. Simply put, the image sensor on the Pentax produces wonderful images! The sample prints that they had for the K20D had a different look to them, seemingly more rich in color, realism and depth, both indoors and out. It's hard to explain, really. It was more of a film-like look, maybe a bit softer over-all, but it is an extremely pleasing look non-the-less. I know that there is a concern in many reviews (and on this thread) about the noise produced by the Pentax at increased ISO is increased levels, but there was no evidence of that in the prints I was looking at! In operation and in print quality, the K20D reminded me more of a traditonal, 35mm film SLR. It's not as good as the other two in terms of shooting performance or features. It doesn't wear all of it's technology and power on its sleeve like the Canon or Nikon, going for a more "purist" feel. I liked that.
So, I have three choices now, in three different price points. The Canon captivates me with its sheer capabilities and performance. It's a top-notch performer with construction that should make it last. But, it's like the old sports car paradox: It's nice to have all that power, but when and where will I ever use it?
The Nikon sits right in the middle, both in terms of price and performance. It offers everything I should need: accessible performance and versitility, has the only movie-mode in the bunch, and is surprisingly easy to use. It has wonderful low-light and indoor performance, especially when shooting people. However, the 50D sits just above it, comfortably within my reach...
Then there's the Pentax. It's not as powerful as the others, nor does it have as many options or features. But it offers such a simple, purist feel in the way it does things. I can see how I'd easily end up just shooting and shooting away with this thing because it's so easy to hold and use. And, at the end, the prints that come from it are beautiful! It is very, VERY well priced. Perhaps this is all the camara I need?
Hhhhmmmm...maybe it'd just be easy to put a pic of each one on a wall, blindfold myself, spin me around and throw a dart! After holding and trying each one, there's probably not a wrong way to go!
Thanks for all your opinions and for dropping the knowledge... :beer:
Twitch
Wow...you guys really know your stuff! After reading all of your informative responses and doing more research, I've come to the realization that:
a.) I need to brush up on definitions and concepts (ISO values, focal legnth equivelents, etc.) since everything's gone digital.
b.) As some have said, it's really hard to buy a bad DSLR.
c.) That the THREE cameras I'm now looking at will suit me just fine.
Did I just say there's now a THIRD camera in the running? Yeah...it's the Canon 50D! I used to be a Canon fan myself back in the film days. I learned on an AE-1, moved up to a used T-90 and finally had an EOS 7e. Alas, I sold everything over time as I stopped shooting all together.
But, yesterday I went to a local photography store to try out the D90 and K20D. While I was there, the salesman asked me what I had used in the past. Based on my answer, he suggested that I try out the Canon 50D, there newest model with a updated imaging engine that made its performance very fast. He offered it to me as the high-end option in my budget range with the D90 and K20D taking the mid- and low-end slots, respectively. We also took some time to evaluate some sample prints from each camara that the store took as a way to compare real-world, in-hand results.
We looked at the 50D first. Straight off, the Canon was extremely familiar to me. It's that "feeling" that it was neither too big nor to heavy in the hand, just right. Also, the over-all shape and control layout was familiar to me as well, with that big jog dial being something I'm glad they kept from their film-SLRs. The performance of the camara itself was awesome! It seemed so fast in everything it did. The focusing system was very fast and accurate. Of the three camaras I tried, it did the least "hunting" before locking onto focus during my (informal) tests. The speed was also reflected in the way it shot. Shot-to-shot times were great, but that burst mode was simply awesome! I'm not a sports photgrapher (I usually end up watching, forgetting that there might be a photo op!) but there are lots of instances where speed like this is a real advantage. The Canon also had the best LCD screen, extremely bright and viewable in any situation. The salesperson told me that the new engine inside the 50D was Canon's response to Nikon's latest DSLRs, especially the D300, by doubling the maximum sensitivity, increasing the pixel count and offering 14-bit imaging. It is a different class of camara though, being more of a semi-pro body than the D90. It's built like a tank! Seemingly, you can adjust and customize almost every aspect of its operation. It gives you the feeling that you have the freedom to get any shot, at any time, becuase of the sheer capabilities and processing power under the hood. I hadn't been looking to buy "this much camara", but it did fall within my budget and the performance was strikingly good!
Next, we went to the Nikon D90, which I must confess, was the camara I was most interested in at the start of the day. Like the Canon, the D90 looks and feels like a Nikon...familiar in shape and layout. Nikons always felt a little cumbersome to me, top-heavy in a way, but the D90 was comfortable to hold and use. While well-built, it's not as solid as the weather-proofed Cannon or Pentax. The control layout was good and easy to learn. Shooting performance was very close to the 50D, not quite as fast, but not slow by any means. There was more "hunting" during focusing than in the Canon and while the shot-to-shot performance felt the same, the burst mode was definitely slower. The viewfinder on the Nikon was the best of the bunch. The Movie-Mode is the D90's stand-out feature and it is a blast! The film clips look terriffic with good sound quality. In Hi-Def mode, you're limited to 5 minutes for each movie clip, but 5 minutes is a lot longer than you may think. The D90 also struck me as easier to use than the Canon, even for someone with limited exposure to Nikon SLRs. It didn't feel at any time to be too much camara, holding features and capabilities I'd never use.
Comparing the prints between the 50D and the D90 was hard, because they were so similar! In terms of quality, they were both exceptional in sharpness, resolution and color fidelity. But, to me, there two differences: I preferred the images of the D90 in low-light and indoor shots. The colors looked better and the over-all effect was richer, where the 50D looked slightly muted in comparison. On the flip-side, the Cannon's outdoor shots were so tack-sharp, even toward the edges of the print. Also, even in extremely brightly lit shots, the Canon's colors stayed true, where I felt the D90 washed-out by comparison.
Then I tried the K20D. The camera was very easy to handle and comfortable to hold, the body being more compact than the other two. Even though, the weather- and dust-sealing of the Pentax is immediately evident! The Pentax had a control layout (ie. jog dials!) that's similar to the Canon, just with fewer buttons. I thought it made for much cleaner look, but it regulated important adjustments like ISO setting & White Balance to a menu screen. As far as shooting performance, while not "slow" or inaccurate by any means, it did not focus as fast nor get from shot-to-shot the way that the Nikon did, not to mention the Canon. The live-view and burst mode are limited in terms of usefulness. Then, the salesman showed me what he thought the Pentax's trump card was by showing me some sample prints. Simply put, the image sensor on the Pentax produces wonderful images! The sample prints that they had for the K20D had a different look to them, seemingly more rich in color, realism and depth, both indoors and out. It's hard to explain, really. It was more of a film-like look, maybe a bit softer over-all, but it is an extremely pleasing look non-the-less. I know that there is a concern in many reviews (and on this thread) about the noise produced by the Pentax at increased ISO is increased levels, but there was no evidence of that in the prints I was looking at! In operation and in print quality, the K20D reminded me more of a traditonal, 35mm film SLR. It's not as good as the other two in terms of shooting performance or features. It doesn't wear all of it's technology and power on its sleeve like the Canon or Nikon, going for a more "purist" feel. I liked that.
So, I have three choices now, in three different price points. The Canon captivates me with its sheer capabilities and performance. It's a top-notch performer with construction that should make it last. But, it's like the old sports car paradox: It's nice to have all that power, but when and where will I ever use it?
The Nikon sits right in the middle, both in terms of price and performance. It offers everything I should need: accessible performance and versitility, has the only movie-mode in the bunch, and is surprisingly easy to use. It has wonderful low-light and indoor performance, especially when shooting people. However, the 50D sits just above it, comfortably within my reach...
Then there's the Pentax. It's not as powerful as the others, nor does it have as many options or features. But it offers such a simple, purist feel in the way it does things. I can see how I'd easily end up just shooting and shooting away with this thing because it's so easy to hold and use. And, at the end, the prints that come from it are beautiful! It is very, VERY well priced. Perhaps this is all the camara I need?
Hhhhmmmm...maybe it'd just be easy to put a pic of each one on a wall, blindfold myself, spin me around and throw a dart! After holding and trying each one, there's probably not a wrong way to go!
Thanks for all your opinions and for dropping the knowledge... :beer:
Twitch
Gooberlx2
Lifer
Again, don't forget the sensor-based shake reduction in the Pentax; which adds some value to the camera when up against the superior speed and focusing of the Nikon and Canon.
Were you looking at store-made prints or prints from manufacturer marketing materials? I'd also wonder if there was any post processing done by the store or machine on those shots. How recently was the machine calibrated, adobeRGB or sRGB, etc...
Frankly, unless you're comparing printers, I don't think print comparisons in the store really mean all that much.
Were you looking at store-made prints or prints from manufacturer marketing materials? I'd also wonder if there was any post processing done by the store or machine on those shots. How recently was the machine calibrated, adobeRGB or sRGB, etc...
Frankly, unless you're comparing printers, I don't think print comparisons in the store really mean all that much.
I believe that while in P, Tv or Av, you can remap the ISO or exposure to one of the two wheels.
What exactly are you planning to shoot? Remember you are buying into a system. For example, Pentax has outstanding primes in the wide to short tele range (Limited series), but they do not have any current choices beyond 300mm
AFAIK, the 50D is only partially sealed.
Flipped Gazelle
Diamond Member
Pentax doesn't market such a lens, but Sigma does.
Yes, I do like that the IS is built into the K20D body vs. the lenses. In fact, it was one fo the features that I learned about first.
The prints were made by the store using one of their Epson commercial printers. According to the saleman, they were not post-processed in any way, were taken with each camara's default settings and programs. The photos consisted of:
- A close-up the storefront's sign, one taken during daylight and then with the sign lit up at night
- A photo of a church down the street from the store (archetectural-type)
- A photo of the store's owner and various employees (indoor portrait) using the built-in flash
- Panoramic photos of the Baltimore skyline, one during a sunny day and another at dusk
- Several other photos shot by various employees of the store
Obviously, the photos were not all taken at the same times and under similar conditions. This example was in no way meant to be scientific. The salesman offered this to give me something tangible I could see and hold. Also, because many of the photos featured subjects that I knew well or could see in the store, I could easily compare how faithfully the image was rendered by the camara. Obviously, the factors that go into a scientific evaluation can only be duplicated under controled conditions. But there is something to be said for just enjoying a really good PHOTOGRAPH, no matter how or when it was taken, with what settings, etc.
Your comment on this being not "really meaning much" strikes me as funny. If we weren't comparing prints, and just looking at images brought up on a monitor, couldn't we then say that we were comparing monitors? Or how about how good the video card is in the PC we were using? Or what software we were using to view those images? Where does this end?
IOW, while I do appreciate the fact that there are a lot of us who care about the raw, imperical data and scientific measurements to claim one item's superiority over another, I tend to boil it down to the end result which is, "Does this thing take a good looking picture?" For that, to me at least, is the point. I don't want to share bits and bytes and data and settings with my friends and family. I don't want to breakdown the color pallete that composes that ray of light piercing the clouds in a photo. I just want to capture a moment of beauty, joy, awe and wonderment so that it stays with me and with those I can share it with.
As it is with almost anything, applying scientific principles definitely has its place. It provides evidence and explination, sets the basis for improvement and innovation, etc. But, for all the good that it does, I have yet to find a test that can accurately "measure" the satisfaction and joy in seeing a photograph that makes you say, "Wow..."
Twitch
It's interesting that you asked me this, because that was something I couldn't really answer without thinking about it.
After thinking for a bit, I guess I would be shooting people, scenery and...buildings! I love archetectural photography...building, brideges, inerior, exterior, it all fascinates me. I also like the conceptual/abstract stuff where you're not really sure what this is a picture of, but then you see that it's really a portion of a photograph that's just been blown-up and cropped. Like what you though is a picture of some sand dunes is actually a enlarged section of a woman's form. Not sure if I'm explaining this right...?
Twitch
just on Tuesday afternoon as the sun was setting I pulled off a shot at 300mm @ 1/15s using my A700 with anti-shake. Now, I'll give you that it wasn't absolutely razor sharp but it was sharp enough.
My friends shooting with me (1 using a D300 & one with a 40D/300mm f2.8 L IS) had both given up & were laughing at me still shooting until they saw the result ...
In-body IS is definitely a nice feature to have.
Flipped Gazelle
Diamond Member
1/15's awesome! My best @ 300mm is 1/20s - got a pretty darn sharp photo of a squirrel - but I was also braced very well against a tree.
One of these days I have to try with SR off, just to see how well I can do.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
