OT: which camera?

Andy Howell said:

Things might not go that way. The Nikon 2DH has 4.1 megpixels but
because of the way that the image is scanned it apparently gives a
quality equal to almost 12 megapixels.

Do you mean the D2H? Had a quick look on dpreview and it says nothing
about being equal to 12MP.

Quoted message said:

I don't mean to understand
this at all but the reports of professional photographers using this
camera suggest that picture quality here is better than Nikon cameras
with higher resolution sensors.

Quality is a hard thing to define, but one thing is for sure. If a
camera has 4 million pixels, then that's what its resolution is. Even
if the "quality" is better than certain higher resolution cameras, that
doesn't give the 4MP camera any extra resolution, it simply means that
the cameras they are comparing it to have [censored] sensors.

Quality in sensors usually relates to noise. Better quality sensors
have less noise, but they don't have more resolution. If you
interpolate a 4MP image to 12MP, it won't be as sharp as a 12MP image,
even if it's less noisy. It might look better, but it won't look
bigger.

Quoted message said:

Mind you, have you looked at the digital Hasselblads and Mamiyas? Bet
they're awesome!

Mamiya have only just released their first digital MF camera, the only
one so far I believe. You're probably talking about the digital backs
made by independent companies. Yes, they probably are awesome, and very
pricey to go with it. The new Mamiya digital MF SLR has a 22 megapixel
back!

From a forum discussion I read it seems that most pros won't buy these
cameras or backs because they are so expensive and technology is
changing so quickly. Instead they prefer to hire them for a shoot.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, pvs1
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Will said:

Out of
interest Paul, have you found your media deteriorating over the
months? I'm convinced my CF card (Sandisk) is slower than a year ago
- it must be my imagination, however I think I'll try some
highly-rated media soon just to see if the buffer clears faster.

Can't say I have. I've got a pretty good buffer on my 300D, I can take
3 or 4 shots in very quick succession, so I don't have to worry about
the speed of the card. Sometimes after I've taken a few quick shots I
turn it off, put it back in my belt bag and then notice the flashing
light indicating that data is still being written to the card (after
I've switched it off!).

I'm currently using a cheapo slow flash card as my main card - a Viking
1Gb, cost me around £93 I think, bought for capacity, not speed. I have
a much faster SanDisk Ultra 512, but I really don't notice any
difference with my camera's buffer.

Likewise. My old cards are bog standard CF, while my newer ones are 40x
Lexars. In operation I really can't tell any difference between the two
in the time taken to write shots out of the buffer. It makes my wonder
if the CF architecture within the 300D is not all it could be.

That said, it's hardly ever been a problem. If I was into sports
photography I suspect it may be more of a problem, though I suspect the
relatively small buffer would be a bigger problem anyway.

--
Darren

Darren G said:

In operation I really can't tell any difference between
the two in the time taken to write shots out of the buffer. It makes
my wonder if the CF architecture within the 300D is not all it could
be.

That said, it's hardly ever been a problem. If I was into sports
photography I suspect it may be more of a problem, though I suspect
the relatively small buffer would be a bigger problem anyway.

For landscapes it's no problem at all, in fact it's great. When will I
ever need to take more than 3 or 4 shots in quick succession?

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, pvs1
@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk says...

Quoted message said:

Darren G said:

In operation I really can't tell any difference between
the two in the time taken to write shots out of the buffer. It makes
my wonder if the CF architecture within the 300D is not all it could
be.

That said, it's hardly ever been a problem. If I was into sports
photography I suspect it may be more of a problem, though I suspect
the relatively small buffer would be a bigger problem anyway.

For landscapes it's no problem at all, in fact it's great. When will I
ever need to take more than 3 or 4 shots in quick succession?

fast moving shadows/shafts of light? :-)

Quoted message said:

same for me 99% of the time. Occasionally do a bit of sports
photography of rugby/running/etc as a favour just because I'm involved
with the sport. It's only then I notice it.

--
Darren

OK, well thanks for the advice, guys. I had a go with a 300D today, and it
seems pretty easy to use, a lot more than the SLR from my college days 15 or
so years ago!

Still it's like 600 and odd for the camera and a lens, then I need a card at
another 100 or so, then a case.... It's going to be near on to 800 quid if I
go for one now!

However, I don't think I want to go for another compact camera, I just love
the quality and control that I've seen of the SLR's so far.

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that I would have to improve a great deal to
get the most from a decent camera!

tina said:

Chris Street <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Lewis said:

OK, so I have a fairly crappy Kodak compact digital camera right now, and I
really want to improve my photography, but even an "affordable" digital SLR
like the EOS 300D is £800 or so. Now I know I can get a film SLR like the
EOS 3000V for about £150, so I'm tempted to just go back to using film like
in the old college days.

Are these 2 cameras going to be comparable in capability/quality? I'm kind
of hooked on the convenience of digital, but would also like to move to
using an SLR.

1. Are we talking similar quality here?

With a decent slide film and scanner you will be better off than the
digital. That's not going to remain the case for very long, and film does
have high running costs unless you are prepared to process your own. (I run
about 12p per shot, and thats with compunding my own chemicals from the
ground up. Fun though)

Quoted message said:

2. What kind of work is a 28-90mm lens good for?

None if it's a cheap nasty consumer zoom. A camera is a light tight box
with a shutter. The lens is the clever bit. Good glass does not come cheap
however.

Quoted message said:

3. Would a second hand SLR be a good idea?

Assuming you buy a good one yes. If you are going to take landscapes, and
don't need anything fancy then I'd seriously consider a decent manual
camera system. You should be able to pick up an excellent Pentax or Olympus
system with a couple of excellent lenses for under £100. Stretch a little
more and you should get Nikons, FM2's are excellent cameras and dirt cheap.
Just make sure that you buy glass that will fit on the digital body you are
going to buy next year when the price has fallen to what you have left in
your budget....

Quoted message said:

Any help/opinions/advice gratefully received, folks!

Lewis

hi am new just trying to learn how to use this!

Then stop using it in a manner likley to annoy people.

Kirsty15 said:

Chris Street <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Lewis said:

OK, so I have a fairly crappy Kodak compact digital camera right now, and I
really want to improve my photography, but even an "affordable" digital SLR
like the EOS 300D is £800 or so. Now I know I can get a film SLR like the
EOS 3000V for about £150, so I'm tempted to just go back to using film like
in the old college days.

Are these 2 cameras going to be comparable in capability/quality? I'm kind
of hooked on the convenience of digital, but would also like to move to
using an SLR.

1. Are we talking similar quality here?

With a decent slide film and scanner you will be better off than the
digital. That's not going to remain the case for very long, and film does
have high running costs unless you are prepared to process your own. (I run
about 12p per shot, and thats with compunding my own chemicals from the
ground up. Fun though)

Quoted message said:

2. What kind of work is a 28-90mm lens good for?

None if it's a cheap nasty consumer zoom. A camera is a light tight box
with a shutter. The lens is the clever bit. Good glass does not come cheap
however.

Quoted message said:

3. Would a second hand SLR be a good idea?

Assuming you buy a good one yes. If you are going to take landscapes, and
don't need anything fancy then I'd seriously consider a decent manual
camera system. You should be able to pick up an excellent Pentax or Olympus
system with a couple of excellent lenses for under £100. Stretch a little
more and you should get Nikons, FM2's are excellent cameras and dirt cheap.
Just make sure that you buy glass that will fit on the digital body you are
going to buy next year when the price has fallen to what you have left in
your budget....

Quoted message said:

Any help/opinions/advice gratefully received, folks!

Lewis

hi iam learning how to post messages

You are failing badly. Please beat your lecturer with a large volume of
Clue before I gatecrash your next lecture and John Wheatly college and do
it for you.

Paul Saunders said:

Andy Howell said:

Things might not go that way. The Nikon 2DH has 4.1 megpixels but
because of the way that the image is scanned it apparently gives a
quality equal to almost 12 megapixels.

Do you mean the D2H? Had a quick look on dpreview and it says nothing
about being equal to 12MP.

Quoted message said:

I don't mean to understand
this at all but the reports of professional photographers using this
camera suggest that picture quality here is better than Nikon cameras
with higher resolution sensors.

Quality is a hard thing to define, but one thing is for sure. If a
camera has 4 million pixels, then that's what its resolution is. Even
if the "quality" is better than certain higher resolution cameras, that
doesn't give the 4MP camera any extra resolution, it simply means that
the cameras they are comparing it to have [censored] sensors.

Quality in sensors usually relates to noise. Better quality sensors
have less noise, but they don't have more resolution. If you
interpolate a 4MP image to 12MP, it won't be as sharp as a 12MP image,
even if it's less noisy. It might look better, but it won't look
bigger.

Quoted message said:

Mind you, have you looked at the digital Hasselblads and Mamiyas? Bet
they're awesome!

Mamiya have only just released their first digital MF camera, the only
one so far I believe.

The 645. There's a review in AP which I bought today and haven't read yet.

Chris Street said:

Quoted message said:

Mamiya have only just released their first digital MF camera, the
only one so far I believe.

The 645. There's a review in AP which I bought today and haven't read
yet.

Mamiya ZD and digital back
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that I would have to improve a great deal to
get the most from a decent camera!

but at least a decent camera like the 300D gives you that opportunity to
take control and improve. And for those times when you can't be
bothered, you can always drop back to the auto modes.
--
Darren

"Darren G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Yeah, I think it's fair to say that I would have to improve a great deal
to
get the most from a decent camera!

but at least a decent camera like the 300D gives you that opportunity to
take control and improve. And for those times when you can't be
bothered, you can always drop back to the auto modes.

True. And I think for £600-700, the camera is a steal for what it offers.
Plus, it's a Canon - dozens and dozens of lenses available for it, all of
which will work with your next canon too!

Will

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Darren G" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

True. And I think for £600-700, the camera is a steal for what it offers.
Plus, it's a Canon - dozens and dozens of lenses available for it, all of
which will work with your next canon too!

hopefully! Although the new digi lenses (EF-S ?) aren't backwards
compatible with the old film EF mount. Personally I don't rate the
standard EF-S lens it comes with and bought body only with a Sigma 18-
55. Though ISTR Paul S does. There's a long discussion on it a few
months back if you google it.

--
Darren

On 14/10/04 3:37 pm, in article [email hidden],

Will said:

Great camera that though, the old OM4...

Well, to some extent it was. The spot metering system was just the best
metering system I have ever used. The problem with the OM4 was that it
consumed batteries at an alarming rate.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

On 14/10/04 4:06 pm, in article [email hidden], "GSV Three

Minds in a Can said:

Bitstring <[email hidden]>, from the
wonderful person Will <[email hidden]> said
<snip>

Quoted message said:

Great camera that though, the old OM4...

Nearly as good as the (=really old=) OM2. 8>.

Those OM cameras - and their lenses - were/are superb. I think that Olympus
caught a cold with the OM4. It was released to great reviews but I think
the electrics were dodgy. Mine blew within a few months and the whole
internal circuit array had to be replaced. If that camera had really been
reliable it would have been fascinating to see how they would have built on
it.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

On 14/10/04 4:38 pm, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

Do you mean the D2H? Had a quick look on dpreview and it says nothing
about being equal to 12MP.

Yep that's right. There's a profile of a wildlife photographer who is using
one in last months Outdoor Photography. The gist of the article was, 'has
this guy can bonkers by going back to 4 mp?'. Apparently this new custom
chip works in a radically different way and produces results that are better
than 8 mp. The photographer in question reckoned that other pros were
finding similar results. I'll hunt the article out and report back!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

Andy Howell said:

Quoted message said:

Do you mean the D2H? Had a quick look on dpreview and it says
nothing about being equal to 12MP.

Yep that's right. There's a profile of a wildlife photographer who
is using one in last months Outdoor Photography. The gist of the
article was, 'has this guy can bonkers by going back to 4 mp?'.
Apparently this new custom chip works in a radically different way
and produces results that are better than 8 mp. The photographer in
question reckoned that other pros were finding similar results. I'll
hunt the article out and report back!

Sorry, but no matter how good this chip is and no matter what it does,
it can't produce 8MP of resolution from 4MP. The quality may be very
good, but any 8MP camera will be twice as sharp.

I'm wondering if this is just Nikon comparing older Nikon sensors to
newer Nikon sensors. All these pros who were finding similar results,
were they all Nikon lens owners comparing the results from one Nikon
body to another? Most pros stick with one brand because of the
investment in lenses.

The general agreement is that Canon make the best sensors, while the
Nikons are/were much noisier, particularly in long exposures apparently.
Perhaps they've finally designed a new quiet Nikon sensor, but there's
no way that I can see a high quality Nikon 4MP sensor outperforming a
Canon 8MP sensor. The Canon sensors are famed for their virtually
non-existent noise, so even if Nikon has finally designed an equally
quiet sensor, it'll still be only half the res.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

On 15/10/04 9:15 pm, in article [email hidden], "Paul

Saunders said:

Sorry, but no matter how good this chip is and no matter what it does,
it can't produce 8MP of resolution from 4MP. The quality may be very
good, but any 8MP camera will be twice as sharp.

Sorry - see the new post I've made about D2H. Don't profess to understand
this and it might be all bollocks. But it does suggest that there may be
other development routes for digital (which was the point of my first
post!).

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

Andy Howell said:

Sorry - see the new post I've made about D2H. Don't profess to
understand this and it might be all bollocks. But it does suggest
that there may be other development routes for digital (which was the
point of my first post!).

Of course people will continue to design newer and better sensors,
that's good for everybody in the long run, but it really annoys me when
people make claims about digital cameras having a higher resolution than
they actually do.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

Darren G said:

Quoted message said:

True. And I think for £600-700, the camera is a steal for what it
offers. Plus, it's a Canon - dozens and dozens of lenses available
for it, all of which will work with your next canon too!

hopefully! Although the new digi lenses (EF-S ?) aren't backwards
compatible with the old film EF mount.

No, but they are forward compatible with the new digital cameras. I
strongly suspect that these digital lenses will become a new standard,
especially as more and more of them appear. A good thing IMO, since
they are smaller and lighter than equivalent full frame 35mm lenses, a
bonus for walkers.

Quoted message said:

Personally I don't rate the
standard EF-S lens it comes with and bought body only with a Sigma 18-
55. Though ISTR Paul S does. There's a long discussion on it a few
months back if you google it.

When you say "rate it", I wouldn't say it's a great lens (not likely at
that price), but it's not a bad lens IMO. That is to say that I haven't
seen any nasty vignetting or softness in the corners, or bad distortion.
There is a slight curvature at the wide end but it's not too noticeable.

Mind you, I always stop the lens down to at least f8, often f11, so I
haven't seen any nasty artefacts that may appear when wide open. I've
noticed slight chromatic aberration once or twice, but very rarely.

Of course, at the moment I have no other lenses to compare it to, so I
don't know how good or bad the sharpness is compared to other lenses. I
can't make a direct comparison with my film camera lenses since they
won't fit the Canon.

It may be that when I get some better lenses I'll realise how bad it is,
but I haven't seen anything obviously bad in my photos. Just keep it
stopped down - the classic method of getting reasonable quality from a
budget lens.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk