Groping cameras

[Rhys]

I finally had my paws on an Olympus E-300. Comparing the feel of the camera with the Canon, I think I prefer the Canon XT. The vibrating sensor and side-swing mirror are interesting but the thing just feels wrong in my hands. Too clinky and chunky. It's a cult camera which - in my opinion - will have a very loyal user base for good reasons. It's just the feel of it that I didn't much care for.

I liked the feel of the Canon but wasn't so keen on the feel of the Nikon D70. That just felt chunky and heavy. The XT felt light and right.

That leaves the Pentax to try. I must admit that I'm not at all keen on Pentaxes but I'd like to handle one anyway.

[TheObiJuan]

I have to agree. ;)

[scalia]

and wait til you have to change ISO settings ;)

[jeisner]

and wait til you have to change ISO settings ;)

On which camera?

[erichlund]

On which camera?

Must be the XT. I think I read somewhere that you have to go into the menu system to change ISO. On the D70, you press a button and twist a thumbwheel.

[TheObiJuan]

There IS an ISO button on the 350D! Hit the button and instead of being on the top lcd sceen, you see it on the back LCD screen. Big difference.
Having the 20D now I see no difference.

[Rhys]

As far as I can see, the Olympus E-300 lacks a suitable array of lenses. I can see no independent support. What there is, is made by olympus at $500 per lens. That's a lot of wonga!

Pentax own-brand lenses are largely decried for being poor quality yet, 15 years ago, they were cheap and really quite good.

It's an interesting quest to find the perfect DSLR. Increasingly, I'm leaning toward Canon and Pentax. I'd love to have had the Olympus but the quirky style and expensive lenses put me off - as does the high ISO noise (not that I take photos using other than the lowest ISO).

I keep coming back to the Pentax and Canon.

[jamison55]

...not that I take photos using other than the lowest ISO...

If you start shooting weddings you will. In fact, I'd rate high ISO performance as one of the top criteria for a wedding camera. Being able to shoot available light allows you to shoot in the (more and more) common churches where a flash is not allowed, and sets you apart from all of the guests with their PnS wonders.

[jeisner]

Pentax own-brand lenses are largely decried for being poor quality yet, 15 years ago, they were cheap and really quite good.

Really??? There are many insults you could throw at Pentax but that is not one I could agree with...

Out morbid of curiousity, I haven't been a member of this forum that long, how long have you been trying to decide which camera to buy???

[Rhys]

Really??? There are many insults you could throw at Pentax but that is not one I could agree with...

Out morbid of curiousity, I haven't been a member of this forum that long, how long have you been trying to decide which camera to buy???

Since it was suggested I went into wedding photography - about a month. I'm trying to get my hands on all the cameras so I can see what they're like. I managed to find an Olympus a few days ago. I liked it but it just seemed the wrong camera for the job.

I've just remembered that my wedding photographer was using a Pentax *ist. I note that a few days ago, somebody said that the *ist had a problem with its colour balance which meant that occasionally it took greenish pictures. I can relate to that - several of the wedding photos are greenish and need their colour-balances corrected. I'd still like to handle a *ist though.

As far as actually buying a camera is concerned, I have to watch exchange rates and can't buy before the 21st of this month.

[serafin]

[QUOTE=Rhys]I finally had my paws on an Olympus E-300. Comparing the feel of the camera with the Canon, I think I prefer the Canon XT. The vibrating sensor and side-swing mirror are interesting but the thing just feels wrong in my hands. Too clinky and chunky. It's a cult camera which - in my opinion - will have a very loyal user base for good reasons. It's just the feel of it that I didn't much care for.

I liked the feel of the Canon but wasn't so keen on the feel of the Nikon D70. That just felt chunky and heavy. The XT felt light and right.

===========

I think it depends upon your hand size, personally. I have big clunky hands, and the Rebel feels like a toy in them. The D70 feels just right, with the right heft (important at low shutter speeds) and control positioning. For someone with smaller hands (and perhaps not so keen on carrying any extra weight - the camera, I mean ;) ), I could see how opinion might swing in the opposite direction...

Both are perfectly good cameras - go with what you like!

serafin

[Rhys]

Having been into independent travel for many years, I value lightness. The XT is very light and felt good in my hands. I might get the DReb though. I'll have to see how the money supply holds up.

[jeisner]

I've just remembered that my wedding photographer was using a Pentax *ist. I note that a few days ago, somebody said that the *ist had a problem with its colour balance which meant that occasionally it took greenish pictures. I can relate to that - several of the wedding photos are greenish and need their colour-balances corrected. I'd still like to handle a *ist though.

I have never noticed that, was it a D or the DS??? There was however a fix in the latest firmware to fix a greenish cast on long exposure shots, but as far as I know it was only on long exposures...

[Rhys]

I have never noticed that, was it a D or the DS??? There was however a fix in the latest firmware to fix a greenish cast on long exposure shots, but as far as I know it was only on long exposures...

The shot in question was outdoors in bright sunlight. There was a green bush and some people. So why was the sky bright green? Seems to me to be dicky auto-white balance to me.

[jeisner]

The shot in question was outdoors in bright sunlight. There was a green bush and some people. So why was the sky bright green? Seems to me to be dicky auto-white balance to me.

Seems like a dicky photograher who may have been using manual white balance, and had it set to the wrong setting... In 3000 odd photos I have never got a green sky ;-)

[aparmley]

I was just recently at 2 weddings back to back and both wedding photographers were using the Fuji S3 cameras, they both had an assistant working with them and one used a D70 and the other used a Fuji S2. Just thought I'd share that with you, for what its worth...

[Rhys]

The Fuji S3 is a camera that could be great if the price were lower. As it is, it is easily eclipsed by cheaper dSLRs. The Fuji S2 is in the same boat. Essentially they're Nikon D100s with Fuji written on them and AA batteries instead of funky manufacturer's special batteries (their only saving grace).

[D70FAN]

The Fuji S3 is a camera that could be great if the price were lower. As it is, it is easily eclipsed by cheaper dSLRs. The Fuji S2 is in the same boat. Essentially they're Nikon D100s with Fuji written on them and AA batteries instead of funky manufacturer's special batteries (their only saving grace).

You might want to do a little light reading before calling an apple an orange.

While the D100 and the S3 share some common parts they are totally different cameras. Sensor, controller, and interface are all different, as are the resulting photos. The S3 also kept the compatibility of Nikons very fine speedlights.

If I had the money the S3 would be my primary camera with the D70 as a back-up.

For those interested in the differences...

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/s3pro.html

[jeisner]

Essentially they're Nikon D100s with Fuji written on them

But with very different sensors and image proecssors...

[Rhys]

But with very different sensors and image proecssors...

:) Finally I got myself a dSLR. Where did I end up? Ritz. I managed to get a Dreb XT plus 18 - 55 and 55 - 200 for $1250 approx.

[Ray Schnoor]

:) Finally I got myself a dSLR. Where did I end up? Ritz. I managed to get a Dreb XT plus 18 - 55 and 55 - 200 for $1250 approx.
Congratulations. Hope you like it.
Ray.

[Rhys]

Congratulations. Hope you like it.
Ray.

Thus far I love it. I might buy the battery grip though.

I wonder how many people said they'd eat their hats if I bought a dSLR and whether they actually will :P

[D70FAN]

Thus far I love it. I might buy the battery grip though.

I wonder how many people said they'd eat their hats if I bought a dSLR and whether they actually will :P

Having now consumed my favorite bowler...

...I never thought this day would come. Congratulations!

[erichlund]

Thus far I love it. I might buy the battery grip though.

I wonder how many people said they'd eat their hats if I bought a dSLR and whether they actually will :P

Congrats on the new camera. :D

But...But...But: If you get the battery grip, doesn't that make the camera heavier than the D70, which, IIRC, was one of your primary reasons for getting the Canon? :rolleyes: Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Cheers,
Eric

[Rhys]

Congrats on the new camera. :D

But...But...But: If you get the battery grip, doesn't that make the camera heavier than the D70, which, IIRC, was one of your primary reasons for getting the Canon? :rolleyes: Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Cheers,
Eric

Maybe but it has the following advantages...

1. I can take the handgrip off and have a lightweight camera - try doing that with a D70!
2. I can use either AA or funky batteries - try doing that with a D70!
3. I have 2 more megapixels or 1/3rd more resolution than a D70.

[D70FAN]

Maybe but it has the following advantages...

1. I can take the handgrip off and have a lightweight camera - try doing that with a D70!
2. I can use either AA or funky batteries - try doing that with a D70!
3. I have 2 more megapixels or 1/3rd more resolution than a D70.

Are these really advantages? Only time will tell. But it should take great pictures. We look forward to the new gallery.

Enjoy!

P.S. The gallery would be nicer without the PROOF watermark.

[Bluedog]

I have to agree with George on the Watermark: PROOF ... kinda takes away from any of your images.

[jamison55]

:) Finally I got myself a dSLR. Where did I end up? Ritz. I managed to get a Dreb XT plus 18 - 55 and 55 - 200 for $1250 approx.

Congrats Rhys. Many happy pictures!

[jamison55]

I was just recently at 2 weddings back to back and both wedding photographers were using the Fuji S3 cameras, they both had an assistant working with them and one used a D70 and the other used a Fuji S2. Just thought I'd share that with you, for what its worth...

I am a member of a professional digital wedding photographer's community, and many of the folks there are dropping their Fuji S2/S3's in favor of Nikon D2h/x's. The general consensus is that they miss the colors and dynamic range that the Fujis gave them, but couldn't deal with how SLOW the cameras were (slow to focus, shutter lag, slow to review/chimp, etc). There's a reason Kodak and Fuji own so little of the pro market...

I think I have to agree with Rhys here (never thought I'd say that), that the Fuji may have a better sensor, but it performs like a D100 (which is mediocre at best). Wonderful color and dynamic range are useless if you miss the moment because your camera is too slow to keep up!

[Rhys]

I think I have to agree with Rhys here (never thought I'd say that), that the Fuji may have a better sensor, but it performs like a D100 (which is mediocre at best). Wonderful color and dynamic range are useless if you miss the moment because your camera is too slow to keep up!

That reminds me of my old Olympus C820L. I remember that was a 1 megapixel camera that used Smart Media and I was walking through the park when I saw some squirrels closeby, playing. I took a picture and the camera took 8 seconds to write the image (all 70k) to the card. Lord Lucan could have ridden past on Shergar and I would have been unable to take a picture of it - it was that slow.

Fortunately my XT has a 5 frame buffer so I can take shots in quick succession. Focussing's good too. Sample photos coming sometime soon.

[Rhys]

I have to agree with George on the Watermark: PROOF ... kinda takes away from any of your images.

Ahh but you don't get "proof" on the pictures when you pay for them :D

[Ray Schnoor]

Ahh but you don't get "proof" on the pictures when you pay for them :D
I can understand that when you are doing the weddings or other paid jobs, but not when you ask us to look at your photos to make comments/observe camera capabilities.
Ray.

[Rhys]

I can understand that when you are doing the weddings or other paid jobs, but not when you ask us to look at your photos to make comments/observe camera capabilities.
Ray.

It is a commercial site and by default I've set all photos to be done with "proof" accross them. I'm still in the process of updating the entire site as well.

[erichlund]

Maybe but it has the following advantages...

1. I can take the handgrip off and have a lightweight camera - try doing that with a D70!
2. I can use either AA or funky batteries - try doing that with a D70!
3. I have 2 more megapixels or 1/3rd more resolution than a D70.

Sorry Rhys, just pulling your chain. As for the above:
1. There is a maker that does a handgrip for the D70, though I have no intention of getting it. I don't have a problem with the weight of the D70.
2. I'm glad I don't have to deal with AA batteries. I wish my flash used the "funky" batteries. I have two of the "funky" batteries, and I've never really needed the second. I swap them all the time, but only because I like to start a day of shooting with a battery I know to be fresh. I suppose if I were a pro, I might occasionally have to get into that second battery, but that would mean more photos than I would want to deal with in post processing. Shooting raw, I'll run out of CF space before I run out battery, so I better have my iPod and adapter with me.
3. Weren't you the one who insisted that we really don't need more than 3 megapixels? :p Who's gonna eat his hat now? Actually, I'm on the side of "the more megapixels, the better", so I'll actually give you this one. Big of me, eh.

Enjoy the camera. As soon as you can, get yourself the 85mm f1.8. It's supposed to be an incredible portrait lens, specially designed for excellent bokeh. Perfect tool for weddings.

Cheers,
Eric

[Rhys]

Well, really we don't need more than 3 megapixels. Nobody really prints to much more than 10 x 8 (that's almost 2 megapixel territory). But since I was buying a new dSLR, I figured I'd buy one that I could use commercially.

I've taken two test photos with the kit lens. http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/rhys_sage/album?.dir=/e61c
One looks a bit blurry - I guess that's because of the low shutter speed and the fact I'm so used to the IS on my S1. Both shots were taken with the lens wide open at f3.5 for the 18mm picture and f5.6 for the 55mm picture. The brickwork seems pretty straight until you see a slight bend at 18mm. On the whole, it seems a good lens although I had to wait a few minutes for the condensation to remove itself from the front element.

[Warin]

At the risk of being pedantic (since I have made many a good print from 3.2 and 4mp cameras), to get a "lab quality" print, you want 300dpi. At 8x10, that means you want 2400x3000 images, which works out to about 7.2 megapixels.

Glad to see you finally got a DSLR, Rhys!

[Rhys]

At the risk of being pedantic (since I have made many a good print from 3.2 and 4mp cameras), to get a "lab quality" print, you want 300dpi. At 8x10, that means you want 2400x3000 images, which works out to about 7.2 megapixels.

Glad to see you finally got a DSLR, Rhys!

I wonder who originally came up with the figure of 300 dpi. I have seen prints done at 100dpi that looked fantastic although I seem to print mostly at 144 or 150 dpi. Why 144? Well, Microsoft Photo Editor seems to choose that by default and it seems to make nice prints.

[jamison55]

Enjoy the camera. As soon as you can, get yourself the 85mm f1.8. It's supposed to be an incredible portrait lens, specially designed for excellent bokeh. Perfect tool for weddings.

I love my 85 f1.8, but find it to be a little long on a 1.6CF camera. I get far more use out of my $70/50mm f1.8. My suggestion for your next lens...

[Rhys]

I've got the Canon 18-55 f3.5 and a Quantaray 55 - 200 f4. Neither are what I'd call stunningly sharp lenses but they're usable, handheld at 100 ISO.

[Warin]

I wonder who originally came up with the figure of 300 dpi. I have seen prints done at 100dpi that looked fantastic although I seem to print mostly at 144 or 150 dpi. Why 144? Well, Microsoft Photo Editor seems to choose that by default and it seems to make nice prints.

Virtually all of the dys sub printers I have seen print at 300dpi, so I assume this is some sort of "lab quality" setting. Considering dye sub prints at 4x6 look as good as what comes out of the local Fuji Frontier, I figure they are doing something right.

[Ray Schnoor]

Virtually all of the dys sub printers I have seen print at 300dpi, so I assume this is some sort of "lab quality" setting. Considering dye sub prints at 4x6 look as good as what comes out of the local Fuji Frontier, I figure they are doing something right.
I believe that Rhys is actually talking about pixels per inch, which has nothing to do with the dpi of printers.
Ray.

[jamison55]

I've got the Canon 18-55 f3.5 and a Quantaray 55 - 200 f4. Neither are what I'd call stunningly sharp lenses but they're usable, handheld at 100 ISO.

That is until you want to shoot indoors without a flash. Trust me, the $70 that you spend on the 50, you will never wish you had back!

Or do what I did. Return that Quantaray 55-200 to Ritz, and buy this identical (http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=SIG55200C) Sigma 55-200. That should net you close to the $70 you need to buy the Canon 50...

[Rhys]

That is until you want to shoot indoors without a flash. Trust me, the $70 that you spend on the 50, you will never wish you had back!

Or do what I did. Return that Quantaray 55-200 to Ritz, and buy this identical (http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=SIG55200C) Sigma 55-200. That should net you close to the $70 you need to buy the Canon 50...

Hmm. I haven't turned up in-camera sharpening and have no intention of so doing. It's still at the default level. I put my XT on a tripod, put the self-timer on, put the aperture to wide open, aimed at a brick wall some 30 feet away on maximum zoom (200mm). The resultant photo is only describable as horridly soft. I get the same quality from the Quantaray at 55 as at 200.

I like my XT although it's not quite as intuitive as I'd like. The kit lens I've now given the same treatment with the tripod and a brick wall. The resultant photos were equally soft.

I ran a photo through photoshop giving the sharpening a tweak and it improved the image.

Try viewing the photos on my lens hall of shame
http://uk.share.geocities.com/rhys_sage/

You might have to wait a couple of hours though as yahoo does funny things after an upload. (uploaded at 5:33pm)

Having now (90 minutes later) found the geocities site still isn't working, I uploaded to http://www.sageworld.co.uk/BadLenses/index.html. This site does work (I pay for it as opposed to Geocities - which is allegedly free).