Entry-Level DSLR or Hi-End Fixed Lens Camera???

[ChrisA]

The other part to this is - everyone thinks about the total pixel count, but somehow many people miss the fact that their photographic technique may very well not be allowing them to capture even 6MP worth of detail. Not to mention that the lowest-end lenses many people are buying probably don't have the resolving power to take advantage of a high-density sensor,

Short answer: Yes photographic technique is the weak link most of the
time. No, even a cheap lens is pretty good in terms of detail.

Let's work it out.....

A 6MP sensor will have 2000 x 3000 pixels. On the Nikon this is 3000 pixels across the 24mm frame. or 3000/24 = 125 pixels per millimeter. Remember the Nyquist sampling theorem (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem)
In real-life a 125 pixel/mm sensor can record about 50 to 40 cycles per millimeter of resolution.
This is about as good some slide film but most negative films are up to twice this good and are in the 90 to 100 cycle/mm range. We have lost about a factor two going from film to digital. Film is 2x sharper.

Nikon does not publish MTF curves for their lenses but Canon does. Let's assume Nikon and Canon lenses are about the same.... Ok back from looks at some graphs. It would seem that lenses are well matched to film.
In thise days the lens was the weak link as film is very good. Today, it seems the sensor is the week link. The best lenses are 2X more sharp than a 6MP DSLR sensor can capture. Even the cheap $90 zoom lenses can do 40 lines/mm

All that said, I have to agree with you. While technically the sensor is the weak link in the system, practically most photos will not have even 40 lines/mm of details do to technique. Some of my best images have about 80 lines/mm but they are on professional type film and shot from a tripod. Most casual snapshots are done with the camera hand help and not at the lens' optimal aperture. The D50 is a good match to this style of shooting


To get back to the quality of my old 35mm film bodies I'd need a 24MP full frame sensor. Some day digital will be there.

 

[Regis27]

The advantages of a P&S:
1. video (can be a real life-saver for those few times you need it)
2. smaller size (any picture is better than the one you miss because the camera is home on the shelf)
3. many have an articulated LCD, that will allow for more creative shots (I really miss that from my G3)
4. They will all take action shots fine (but there might be some lag; see below)
5. enormous depth-of-field
6. Many have very nice lens, that would cost hundreds (if not thousands) to replicate on a SLR with equal zoom range.


Advantages of an SLR:
1. better low-light performance because of larger sensors (higher ISO with lower noise)
2. no lag when turning the camera on, or pressing the shutter. I have missed some shots in the past because it took a few seconds for the camera to power up, or the shutter to fire.
3. shallow depth of field to really emphasize your subjects. (this is the opposite of 5 above, and is directly related to the diameter of the lens glass)
4. In general, the larger size of the SLR body allows for more of the settings to be accessed directly with a physical button, rather than a menu or sub-menu. This will make things much faster for you as you get used to setting up a shot the way you want it (as opposed to just switching it to "auto everyting" and shooting)


I got a 20D last year when my first child was born, but have kept my G3 around for many of the reasons I listed above. It uses the same cards, cables, batteries, and flash -- so it very much complements the 20D. (though I'd probably upgrade to a G6 or G9 if I had the money.)

If it is shutter-lag that is giving you the most problem, check out dpreview.com. Their reviews have a "Timings" section that will allow you to compare quantitatively the lag of your current camera to ones you might be considering.

 

[form]

If you want good quality video, buy a camcorder. The Sony DCR-HC48 should be fine for your uses. Compact digital camera movie quality is simply no match for a dedicated video tool.

 

[ftaok]

Lots of good comments here.

Like I said before, my main complaint with the old Sony is that it takes forever to go from one shot to the next. I'm guessing about two seconds between shots. The shutter lag is pretty bad too. If I use flash, forget about it ... it seems like 10 seconds go by waiting to recharge the flash.

I am leaning towards a DSLR, mainly for the fast shot-to-shot and the fast shutter speed. I'm not interested in movie mode since I have a good camcorder (and I'll be moving up to HD in year or two).

I do like the idea of having a DSLR and a good P&S.

ft

 

[seany916]

Make the P&S really, really small if you get a dSLR. You'll know what I mean in a very short amount of time.

 

[compuwar]

Nikon does not publish MTF curves for their lenses but Canon does.

Bzzzt! Nikon has published MTF charts for their lenses for as long as I can remember. For instance, you can compare the MTFs from the last version of the 400/2.8 and the new nano-coated version and see that they've improved the lens in the new incantation pretty well:
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28g_vr/index.htm
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/telephoto/af-s_400mmf_28d_if_2/index.htm

MTFs are near the bottom right before you get to see how the elements are arranged.

 

[dwl017]

The G9 does seem pretty nice, but the 6x zoom has me a little put off. The S5 IS has a 12x zoom and the 100IS has a 10x, which is more my speed.

I'm actually thinking DSLR and also a smaller compact P&S. The DSLR would cover the manual and fast action stuff. Something like an ELPH would capture the spur-of-the-moment things (and hopefully would take better pictures than our current Sony - which we could give to a niece or nephew).

anyone have a Nikon D40? I've been reading up on it and it seems to be a good fit for my needs (and wallet).

ft

I have the G9 and the D40 I have taken the D40 out of the house one time since I bought it, I take the G9 with me every where I go seven days a week! I personally found that the time it takes to unpack and prepare my D40 was just way to time consuming, I enjoy the G9 since I can whip it out of my coat pocket and shoot! also since I have a small child I found the portability priceless!

 

[ftaok]

UPDATE

OK, we've decided that we're 95% sure that we're going with a DSLR. However, we'll probably wait and see the newer models, whenever they come out.

We did stop in at Best Buy this past weekend to feel the different models. For whatever reason, the Nikons would not turn on, so perhaps I'll stop in at a different Best Buy or Circuit City to test them out.

In no particular order ...

1. Nikon D40 - I liked the light weight, but it didn't feel that great in my hands. Felt plasticky.

2. Nikon D40x - same comments as above.

3. Sony alpha700 - I really liked this camera, although the price was kinda high (can't remember what the price was). It operated pretty fast.

4. Canon Rebel XTi - The light weight was good. It did feel about as plasticky as the D40, but it was more comfortable in my hands. I tested the flash and continuous shooting features and was impressed. The flash worked as quickly as I could press the button.

5. Canon 40D - WOW!!!! In Sports mode, I could just hold the button down and here click/click/click/click .... forever. And fast. And $$$$$$$$$.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the Canons, but that could change when the newer models come out. So, two questions.

1. When are new entry-level models expected. I see that the D40 is pretty old. Will Nikon make a new model to fill the spot below the D40x? How about Canon?

2. What about lenses. I see on Nikon's and Canon's websites that they have many lenses available. I would like an 18-200 or 18-135 lens with VR/IS as it would mean that I could have it all in one lens. I realize that I'd be looking at $500, instead of the kit lens plus a $300 55-200 lens.

Canon didn't seem to have an 18-200 or 18-135 lens. Only a 17-85 lens ... which I guess is still OK.

ft

 

[OreoCookie]

I think you should decide on how much you want to spend, the 40D and the D40 are very different cameras at very different price points. Perhaps you also want to have a look at Olympus, they have very small cameras with good glass.

If you want to have a look at something in between the Canon 40D and the Nikon D40(X), then perhaps you might want to have a look at the Nikon D80 or the Pentax K10D. If you prefer Canon, I would have a look at (used) 30Ds.

 

[Abstract]

Why do you need to take lots of photos at a really fast rate?


You seem like you have basic needs from a DSLR. You want to take photos immediately after pressing the shutter button. Small is preferrable. Your photographic needs aren't particularly high, which means you have LOTS of options, because almost every DSLR on the market will satisfy your needs.


Here's what I'd consider (in no particular order):

1. Pentax K10D. You get image stabilization with every lens you put on the camera. Fantastic. They don't have the largest selection of lenses, but the ones available are supposed to be really good. Also, you only need 1, 2, or maybe 3 lenses for your needs. The camera is extremely feature rich, with a good solid build, and good image quality. Just go read the review at http://www.dpreview.com and tweak the internal settings a bit to get the best out of the camera. These camera tests always use default settings, and one camera looks better than another. Tweak the settings, and pretty much all DSLRs today will give you very high quality.

My friend has one, and he absolutely loves it.

2. Olympus E410. Have you seen this camera! Fantastic, small, great lenses available for it (although less than the 40 or so lenses that Nikon currently offers), and it....is....small. You really have to go and hold one. In the menus, turn off the noise reduction, set the sharpness to -2, and the thing can shoot at high ISO quite well. Do you know what sounds nice? A 35-100 mm f/2.0 (equivalent to 70-200 mm f/2.0). How about a 90-250 mm f/2.8 (equivalent to a 180-500 mm f/2.8 lens!!). Also, because Olympus lensesa are brand new designs made for digital, all their lenses are top notch. No old designs lying around. Even their kit lenses are VERY good. They also have a selection of Sigma lenses available for Olympus DSLRs.

An Olympus E-510 is also available. It's much bigger than the E-410 (ie: the E-510 is only average size), but it has more features and better controls.


3. Nikon D40 or D40x. It's small as heck, easy to use, and you can get the 18-200 mm VR lens and never take it off.