Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: D50 or E-500

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    72

    D50 or E-500

    Hello,
    I have narrowed down my search till D50 and E-500. The reason is that Cannon brand is too expensive for me. Everything is expensive in Finland. You may see the prices here:

    http://www.mbnet.fi/hintaseuranta/tuote.aspx/27597

    runko = body
    ALIN HINTA = lowest price
    KESKIHINTA = average price

    If you'd like to see the prices of non dSLRs then here is the link:

    http://www.mbnet.fi/hintaseuranta/tuote.aspx/26284

    I am confused to select one out of D50 and E-500. I'd like to have a general purpose lense that can be used for wife and teleport angles.
    Would be great to have low noises in high ISOs. As far as I have seen that E-500 has noise problem in highest ISO but..I am not going to print the photos. I'd be keeping that photos in my computer in 1152*864 or 1280 * 1024 resolution.
    I'd prefer to have camera with better night shots/low light performance. For this, good AF would be great for low light situations.
    I don't want shutter lag and/or focusing time (c-765 owners know what I mean). I hate shutter lag
    I may ignore not-so-instant-startup if the camera can go in "sleep" mode.

    I am new to dSLRs so forgive my ignorance in this area. I hope to see some helpful advices from my fellow members

    Cheers!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Ali_baba
    Hello,
    I have narrowed down my search till D50 and E-500. The reason is that Cannon brand is too expensive for me. Everything is expensive in Finland. You may see the prices here:

    http://www.mbnet.fi/hintaseuranta/tuote.aspx/27597

    runko = body
    ALIN HINTA = lowest price
    KESKIHINTA = average price

    If you'd like to see the prices of non dSLRs then here is the link:

    http://www.mbnet.fi/hintaseuranta/tuote.aspx/26284

    I am confused to select one out of D50 and E-500. I'd like to have a general purpose lense that can be used for wife and teleport angles.
    Would be great to have low noises in high ISOs. As far as I have seen that E-500 has noise problem in highest ISO but..I am not going to print the photos. I'd be keeping that photos in my computer in 1152*864 or 1280 * 1024 resolution.
    I'd prefer to have camera with better night shots/low light performance. For this, good AF would be great for low light situations.
    I don't want shutter lag and/or focusing time (c-765 owners know what I mean). I hate shutter lag
    I may ignore not-so-instant-startup if the camera can go in "sleep" mode.

    I am new to dSLRs so forgive my ignorance in this area. I hope to see some helpful advices from my fellow members

    Cheers!
    It is well known that I am not a big fan of the E-500, but only because compared to the other cameras in it's price range, it is a little lacking. That said the pictures I have seen at "normal" ISO are pretty nice. The other limiting factor for me personally is the proprietary lens system. In your case this might not have an immediate impact, but take a very careful look at this limitation.

    As for shutter lag and other speed realted (other than ISO) either camera will be a pleasure to use. That is true for all of the dSLR's currently on the market.

    Even though you don't want to show your pictures at greater than 1280 x 1024, you should take and store them at their maximum quality setting, as this will affect how they look, even at reduced resolution, and you may actually want to print a few some day. Memory is farily cheap, and hard drive cost is even cheaper.

    In my opinion, from your desire to shoot at higher ISO, the D50 might be a better choice. BUT, since I have not used the E-500 I am not going to advise against buying it.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by George Riehm
    It is well known that I am not a big fan of the E-500, but only because compared to the other cameras in it's price range, it is a little lacking. That said the pictures I have seen at "normal" ISO are pretty nice. The other limiting factor for me personally is the proprietary lens system. In your case this might not have an immediate impact, but take a very careful look at this limitation.

    As for shutter lag and other speed realted (other than ISO) either camera will be a pleasure to use. That is true for all of the dSLR's currently on the market.

    Even though you don't want to show your pictures at greater than 1280 x 1024, you should take and store them at their maximum quality setting, as this will affect how they look, even at reduced resolution, and you may actually want to print a few some day. Memory is farily cheap, and hard drive cost is even cheaper.

    In my opinion, from your desire to shoot at higher ISO, the D50 might be a better choice. BUT, since I have not used the E-500 I am not going to advise against buying it.
    Don't ALL DSLR makers use proprietary lens systems??? Nothing more proprietary than Nikon lenses :P
    Olympus is actually the one who made an OPEN system. And Sigma makes lenses for them now. And what is it lacking compared to other cameras? It certainly is much more complete than the D50... and Pentax *istDL....

    Only thing the Nikon D50 has above the E-500 is that it perfoms better above ISO 400, maybe important when you live in a country where it is dark during winter. And that its lens range is bigger, but since you do not want to have a big range of lenses that may not be a point.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124
    Clean high ISO is godly when using cheaper lenses which often are much slower optically.

    I don't see the e-500 as that impressive honestly. If it was cheaper and a year ago maybe but not today.

    Tim

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monterey Bay
    Posts
    6,027
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain
    Don't ALL DSLR makers use proprietary lens systems??? Nothing more proprietary than Nikon lenses :P
    Olympus is actually the one who made an OPEN system. And Sigma makes lenses for them now. And what is it lacking compared to other cameras? It certainly is much more complete than the D50... and Pentax *istDL....

    Only thing the Nikon D50 has above the E-500 is that it perfoms better above ISO 400, maybe important when you live in a country where it is dark during winter. And that its lens range is bigger, but since you do not want to have a big range of lenses that may not be a point.
    In this case Ali-baba stated that clean high ISO was of primary importance. So the recomendation of the D50 over the E-500. I really don't care which dSLR is chosen, but feel that the D50 would serve his requirements better than the E-500.

    Next time try answering the question as your own opinion rather than trying to belittle mine.
    D7000, D70, CP990, CP900, FE.
    50mm f/1.8, Sigma 18-125, Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, Nikon 18-105 VR, Nikon 55-200 VR, Nikon 43-86 f/3.5 AiS, Vivitar 28-90 F/2.8-3.5 Macro, Vivitar 75-205 F/3.8-4.8, SB800.
    Ha! See, I can change...


    http://d70fan.smugmug.com/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by George Riehm
    In this case Ali-baba stated that clean high ISO was of primary importance. So the recomendation of the D50 over the E-500. I really don't care which dSLR is chosen, but feel that the D50 would serve his requirements better than the E-500.

    Next time try answering the question as your own opinion rather than trying to belittle mine.
    I did give my opinion, especially on the ISO part. I just wondered about your proprietary lens mount remark, and that you find it lacking but you do not state what it lacks.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    72
    Peace my friends! These are just cameras

    Thanks for your valueable opinions. The thing in dSLR that bugs me is the units of focusing. I mean in normal digital cameras, the zoom power is classified as 10X - 12X but in dSLRs, the zoom power is in mms.

    I don't want to buy any expensive lense, just something that can falls under general purpose categories.

    No intention to beat the dead horse but...how to understand 18-55mm and so on in terms of zoom. If it was discussed before then please redirect me to that URL.

    Thanks

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Ali_baba
    Peace my friends! These are just cameras

    Thanks for your valueable opinions. The thing in dSLR that bugs me is the units of focusing. I mean in normal digital cameras, the zoom power is classified as 10X - 12X but in dSLRs, the zoom power is in mms.

    I don't want to buy any expensive lense, just something that can falls under general purpose categories.

    No intention to beat the dead horse but...how to understand 18-55mm and so on in terms of zoom. If it was discussed before then please redirect me to that URL.

    Thanks
    It is the other (complex) way around actually, how to understand X x zoom in terms of focal lenght.

    Measure of all focal lenght figures of digital cameras is the lenses and their focal lenghts of 35mm film cameras.

    50mm is the "standard" focal lenght of a 50mm lens, giving on photo the impression closest to what the human eye is used to in terms of distortion.

    Shorter is called wide angle, where distances and perspective get exaggerated and objects can look distorted (most known example, the big nose photos):
    http://www.jojofalk.se/photoblog/blogger/bignose.jpg

    Wide angle lenses are good for giving a wide view, for instance to capture landscapes or to fit a whole building in a frame.

    Longer than 50mm gets into tele range, distances seem to shorten, perspective seems to disappear. They are good for bringing objects closer
    (and the shorter tele lenses are great for portraits, the slight shortening effect is flattering).

    Now what is that X x zoom stuff? Zoom lenses are convenient, they give a range of focal lengths to the photographer without having to change lenses.
    Most compact digital cameras start at about 36 to 38mm equivalent to 35mm film. A zoom lens that goes from 38 to 380mm would be called a 10x zoom lens in the digital compact class. It is just to say how big a zoom range is, it does not say what focal lenghts you get though. A 24 to 240mm lens would also be called a 10x zoom lens, yet the focal lenghts it covers are VERYYYY different. So... X x zoom is not really a convenient way of expressing what kind of lens you have.

    Now comes the confusing part. The sensor of a DSLR is usually a bit smaller than the film of a 35mm film camera. So they talk about a crop factor. A Canon EOS 350D or 20D for instance has a sensor that is 1.6x smaller in width than a 35mm film. So its crop factor is 1.6x. With a Nikon D70s or D50 the crop factor is 1.5x . And an Olympus DSLR has a crop factor of 2x .

    What does this mean for focal lengths?

    To understand the field of view of a lens you have to multiply the focal length of the lens with the crop factor. with a D50 a 50mm lens would give a field of view of a 75mm lens on a film SLR.
    an 18 mm lens will give a field of view of 27mm. An 18-55mm lens would give fields of view of a 27-82.5mm lens, and to get its X x zoom figure, you just divide 55 by 18, giving a 3x zoom range.

    A 18-125mm lens gives a 7x zoom range and a 18-200mm lens gives a 11x zoom range. A 50-500mm lens gives a 10x zoom range.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Northern Colorado, USA
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain
    50mm is the "standard" focal lenght of a 50mm lens, giving on photo the impression closest to what the human eye is used to in terms of distortion.
    I'm not sure if someone has a more academic answer to this or not, but I've always heard the normal lens is the diagonal of the image size. Since the 35mm format is 24x36, that gives a diagonal of 43.27mm. Some of the older members here may recall cameras that had 45 and 48 mm lenses as their normal lens. The 50mm is actually a (very) short telephoto. Using this same concept, the Canon APS normal lens is 26.68mm and the Nikon APS is 28.4mm.

    In the Nikon line, you can get a 28mm, f/1.4 lens for a mere $1694. Not quite the bargain as the now moderately small telephoto 50mm, f/1.8. The 28mm, f/2.8 is a better deal, at $189.95 after rebate.

    Canon has a 28mm f/1.8 for $384.95 and a 28mm f2.8 for $169.95. While I suspect the 1.8 is a very nice lens, I'd guess that the Nikon above is one of those "legendary" lenses. However, I haven't really researched this. Just figure the price says it all.

    Needless to say, normal on APS is a bit more expensive than "normal" on 35mm.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by erichlund
    I'm not sure if someone has a more academic answer to this or not, but I've always heard the normal lens is the diagonal of the image size. Since the 35mm format is 24x36, that gives a diagonal of 43.27mm. Some of the older members here may recall cameras that had 45 and 48 mm lenses as their normal lens. The 50mm is actually a (very) short telephoto. Using this same concept, the Canon APS normal lens is 26.68mm and the Nikon APS is 28.4mm.
    Well, I think the diagonal should actually be treated as if the image is square, since the width gives the maximum field of view, you also take the height as 35mm. With large formats you often have nearly square films too, it would be strange to calculate differently since lenses are round, not oval. Square makes sense.

    Then you get 35^2 x 35^2 = x^2, x being 49.5 mm... pretty close to 35mm, don't you think? (and I believe it is something like 35.2mm, not 36.. but i am not sure.) And it is still true, 50mm is the most natural to our eyes. Not in field of view but in distortion. Maybe those are related anyway, since we do not really see very sharp towards the corners of our field of view and mainly just notice movement... so it does not matter our field of view is wide, we dont really "see" in the extremes.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •