Which new camera should I buy.

[mightec]

I am looking to upgrade my current camera, I originally used a Minolta film camera and still have and use the lens, that is why I currently use a Sony Alpha 100. Not the best camera I am sure, but I bought it when they first came out. My needs for the future would be to use the Minolta lens or should I take the opportunity and look for something different. In general my photographs have been mainly family holidays, but I now feel that I would like to branch out into a more meaningful direction. I would very interested in photographing wildlife, landscapes and city buildings. What type of camera should I consider.

[fh1805]

Mike,

With those subjects in mind I suggest that you definitely need a DSLR. I doubt you will find any other camera type that will give you the range of magnification that you will likely need. So, thinking in terms of the lens(es) first:

City buildings - do you want a perspective correcting lens?

Landscapes - how wide an angle would you like? (I've always liked the effect of a 20mm lens for landscapes - put something strong in the foreground and get a real feel for the depth of the landscape)

Wildlife - how big is your subject? Insect = macro lens, bird = 400-800mm, squirrel = 300mm, deer = 200-600mm, flowers = macro lens

Family holidays, etc = mid-range zoom

(N.B. All focal lengths are expressed in terms of 35mm film cameras)

What fancy features do you think would be useful on the body?

Last, but probably not least, what will the purse strings permit?

Whatever you end up with, have fun using it!

regards,

Peter

What use will the images be put to? Print, project, display on monitor? Do you want

[Lin Evans]

Hi Mike,

As a wildlife photographer these days (I formerly made my living photographing fine art) I can give you some hints about the advantages and disadvantages of each system.

Essentially there are a range of so called "crop factor" cameras ranging from the 2X factor of the 4/3 (Olympus) dSLR's to the 1.7x of Sigma, the 1.6x and 1.27x of Canon and the 1.5x of Nikon. Then we have the full frame models by Canon, Nikon and Sony.

The advantage really goes to the crop factor cameras for the majority of photographers who must carry their equipment literally on their backs into remote and often physically difficult terrain. The essence is that the crop factor systems have greater pixel density in general, so that they paint the subject with more resolution than most of the full frame systems.

Let's look at this quickly. For most serious wildlife you will be needing somewhere between 600mm and 800mm focal length. To get the full pixel density (vesting the full resolution) on a 2x crop means that a 400mm lens gives the Olympus dSLR the same as one of the so called full frame (24mmx36mm sensor) with an 800mm lens. Add a 1.4x teleconverter and you are up to 1120 mm with the Olympus versus 560mm with the full frame sensor. 560 mm is still quite short for many serious wildlife photographers. Yes, the full frame gives a bit better image quality at 560 than the Olympus at 1120, but if you want enlargement, the 2X still way outperforms the full frame.

I took the extreme example to demonstrate this principle. If you crop a full frame 24 megapixel capture to the 2X crop (frame content) of the Olympus, you have only 6 megapixels painting that subject. This may seem odd because most people intuitively think that you would have 12 megapixels (half of 24) but indeed you only have 6. So your 24 megapixel full frame camera using the identical lens with the image cropped to 2X gives you a whopping 6 megapixels. To get the same number of megapixels painting the frame as with the crop factor Olympus, you must go to much longer, heavier and incredibly more expensive lenses.

Now let's look at the Canon 1.6x crop factor sensors versus the full frame. The effective focal length for a 400 mm lens becomes 640mm. When you crop the 24mm full frame to the 1.6x factor you loose 60% of your pixels. This means your 24 megapixel full frame becomes a 10 megapixel (24mp x.4 = 10mp). So if you are using a 15 megapixel Canon 50D, you have an additional five megapixels painting the subject with the identical lens.

Now let's look at the Nikon 1.5x crop. So cropping the 24 megapixel full frame to the 1.5x crop paints a 12 megapixel subject. This, in effect, is virtually identical to what I believe is the "best" of the Nikon values for the wildlife photographer, the newest version of the Nikon D300.

When you look at costs, the least expensive of the full frame models is about $2500 from a legitimate dealer. Nikon D700 prices are very similar or perhaps a hundred dollars or so more expensive. Nikon D300 prices are around $1500 on average right now (USD).

I have purposely omitted the pro models such as the Canon 1D Mark III and Nikon D2XS, etc., because they are around $4,000 or so. I've also excluded the Sigma 1.7x dSLR's because even though I often use one of these myself, they are not nearly as well suited for the wildlife shooter. The shot to shot time is low, the high ISO is mediocre and lighting needs to be very good to make them shine.

So for Wildlife, my opinion is that your are better off with something like the Nikon D300 (my first choice) or the Canon D50 (my second choice). The Olympus E3 is quite good, but not quite a good an image with slightly less high ISO and more expensive lens choices. The Olympus has in-body stabilization (important when hand-holding) but this is somewhat offset by better high ISO performance on the Nikon and Canon which "neither" have in-body stabilization. In any event, you will probably want to purchase a stabilized lens for either the Nikon or Canon.

Now for landscapes, the Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon D700 are extremely good. But if you purchase one of these, be prepared to spend "lots" of money for a good wide angle lens. These cameras simply don't function well with even some of the very expensive wide angle lenses. There is chromatic aberration in the periphery of images and it takes a really "top notch" (read expensive) lens to give you excellent, chromatic aberration free and edge softness free images at wide angles.

Frankly, if I were "only" shooting wide angle and landscapes, I would be inclined to look long and hard at a Sigma SD14 or even one of the tiny Sigma DP1 or DP2 models. They take superb landscape images. I have displayed some of my images at Photokina and at the PMA (Photographic Marketing Association) shows (Las Vegas, NV and Orlando, FL) which were printed at A0 and larger sizes from the Sigma 4.7 megapixel X3 captures which were every bit as good as images printed from Nikon D2XS 12 megapixel captures!

So what you must do is decide how much you will shoot wildlife, how much you will shoot landscapes and architecture and how much you can spend for camera body and lenses.

Note: The "crop factors" are always percentage "approximations" so the amount of relative "megapixels" is a close "estimate" and not a mathematically "precise" number, but it will be close enough to give you a very good idea of the relevant differences.

Here are some quick figures for those who want to do their own math:

Full Frame 24x36mm sensor = 864 sq mm of sensor surface

Canon so called 1.3x crop sensor (APS H) = 548 sq mm

Nikon so called 1.5x crop sensor = 370 sq mm

Canon so called 1.6x crop sensor = 329 sq mm

Sigma so called 1.7x crop senor = 286 sq mm

Olympus 4/3 so called 2x crop sensor = 225 sq mm

To compare let's use an example. 864mm is to 1 as 329mm is to x

Solving for x gives us 329/864 = .3807 or converting to a percentage - 38 percent. This means the Canon 1.6x crop factor actually has 38 percent of the area of the full frame sensor. So to reduce the image acquired by the full frame sensor to that of the Canon 1.6x crop we loose 62 percent. So 24 megapixels times .38 equals 9.2 megapixels. The full frame when cropped to the identical frame content of the 1.6x Canon give you 9.2 million pixels painting the image.

You can use the above accurate sensor area to determine how your full frame sensor might perform with an identical lens versus a crop sensor for telephoto use. So which is the better instrument for the task depends primarily on your circumstances and subject matter.

Best regards,

Lin

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Lin/Mike

I think you'll find the D300 has been superceeded by the 300s which now has movie facility.

I've just bought the 50D as the D200 was getting to be old technology & I never liked the rubber button and menu system. The Canon 50D used a joystick & a large and small serrated wheel to access the various functions & up to now I've found easier to use.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

[Hemjr]

Mike,

I am not an expert! But love photography and using PTE. I have an older 35mm Minolta and several lens. I was told that these older lens could not be used with the newest DSLR cameras. I ended up purchasing the Nikon D300 right after it came out. I am using it for volleyball indoors and soccar outdoors. I currently have only one lens, a sigma f2.8 , 24 - 70mm Macro. I like it but I would like to also take extremely closeups of insects and flowers, as well as wildlife. So, I need to purchase additional lens. Need cash or great deal on prices. Good luck on your research.

Howard

[jfa]

Mike

Not wishing to start a debate over brands the following is my experience which may be helpful to you.

For 30+ years I used Canon equipment to shoot film and was very happy with it. When it came to changing to digital I had a choice of the brand and equipment to purchase as my old FD canon lenses were not compatible with the new Canon DSLRs.

I was lucky to have a number of photographer friends who lent me various brands of DSLRs and lenses to try, (Nikon, Minolta, Canon and Fuji. Sony was not in the market then). After much reading and testing I settled on Canon equipment.

My photography consists mainly of --

Landscape - My favourite lens is the Canon 10-22mm zoom (16-35mm equivalent) which sells for less than A$1,000 and gives amazing results, it must be one of the best keep secrets at the price.

Macro - Mainly middle range, insects, caterpillars, butterflies and flowers. The Canon 60mm f2.8 macro (96mm equivalent) is also a very pleasing lens with excellent results. Also use it for people, portraits and some landscapes.

Birds - Using the Canon 70-300mm, (112-480 equivalent). Gives very good results. Occasionally used for sport and action photos.

General photography - I have yet to find a lens I am really happy with in the middle range yet. Currently using the Canon EF-S 15-55 zoom kit lens (28-88 equivalent) good but not great results.

For Architecture and city buildings I use the above lenses mainly the wide-angle zoom and do any perspective correction I may need in Photoshop.

If I was to purchase a new DSLR currently it would be the Canon 50D, or the new 60D due out shortly as I can't afford a 1D. LOL.

Good luck with your search Mike.

[jfa]

I've sold off many of my dSLR's, I still have a Canon 1D, a Nikon D2XS, an Olympus E3, a Sigma SD10 and SD14, a Canon 40D, Canon D30 and Canon 10D.

Eric,

You must have a very friendly bank manager to have a stable of cameras like that, epically after you have sold off some!

I am really just envious!!

[Lin Evans]

Hi John,

Sorry for the confusion - that's my fault for answering Eric in his post. Pressed wrong button I think! It's corrected now..

That was actually my reply to Eric. I've made my living for many years as a photographer and like some collect stamps or coins, I have collected tools and particularly cameras. During the good years my wife and I did quite well and did invest a lot of capital in lenses, camera bodies and photography peripherals. When times got tough in the last few years I sold the majority of my professional camera bodies and expensive lenses. Believe me, in terms of investments they were a huge loss - LOL. The Canon 1DS which I paid $8,000 for just a few years ago sold for $2000. Lenses fared a bit better because the good ones hold about 70% of their value while camera bodies rapidly depreciate. The Canon 40D which I believe I paid around $1400 for a short time ago is now worth perhaps $500. The Canon 1D which I paid $5700 for is now probably worth maybe $1,000. My first six megapixel pro-body dSLR was a Kodak DCS 460 which in early 1995 sold for almost $30,000. Fortunately, I only kept it less than a year and recovered about 90% of my investment - LOL. Today, if you can find one in mint condition, it can be had for around $300.

If you really want a good investment, buy vintage automobiles. A McLaren F1 which originally sold for variously two to four million is now worth double that! Now that's an investment. Camera bodies? Not so much.... So don't be envious, I would dearly love to have half of what I've spent on camera bodies right now. Maybe I could pay my mortgage.....

Best regards,

Lin

Eric,

You must have a very friendly bank manager to have a stable of cameras like that, epically after you have sold off some!

I am really just envious!!

[Lin Evans]

Hi Eric,

Yes the 300s is "the latest version of the D300." I still love the D300and right now there are great price breaks on it viz the 300s. On theother hand, if you want video with your dSLR, then the 300s would bethe obvious choice, but really the Canon 5D Mark II has higher resolution video for whatever that's worth to one.

Even though I've sold off many of my dSLR's, I still have a Canon 1D, a Nikon D2XS, an Olympus E3, a Sigma SD10 and SD14, a Canon 40D, CanonD30 and Canon 10D. The new batch are great cameras with outstanding performance so it would be difficult to not find any of them suitable.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin/Mike

I think you'll find the D300 has been superceeded by the 300s which now has movie facility.

I've just bought the 50D as the D200 was getting to be old technology & I never liked the rubber button and menu system. The Canon 50D used a joystick & a large and small serrated wheel to access the various functions & up to now I've found easier to use.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I thought my email system had gone berserk this morning, went to bed, 7 hours later 5 wnsoft emails now I've read them & see why. I bought the d200 in June 2007, 2 months later Nikon brought out the 300, so the relative value dropped by over 50%. At the other end of the spectrum I sourced a compact for a customer in the Canon Sureshot range & recently for a colleague. For their size and price the picture quality is amazing. Just to be able to store it in your top pocket without all the trappings associated with a modern DSLR must be great. Just to finish, when I bought my current 50D, I bought the 28-135 Canon zoom which was neither use nor ornament, it rattled like a tin can wouldn't focus accurately and the range was too big at the low end & not big enough at the max zoom end, having used the Nikon 18-200 IS for 2 years as my sole lens. I sent the 28-135 back & got a 17-40 L series which with the 70-200L series will hopefully last until I can only carry around a Sureshot

Eric

Yachtsman1.

[mightec]

Hi Guys

Well that must have been a good question, reading your responses, I do appreciate all of your comments. The problem now is how do I choose, the problem is that I live in a third world country, were everything is so expensive, but I like the sound of the Nikon D300 and will also look at the Sigma SD14. I'll let you know how I get on.

[davegee]

Mike,

The Nikon D300 and the Sigma sd14 use totally different technologies.

Research the Sigma THOROUGHLY before deciding.

If, like me, the last thing you want in a DSLR is video, then the D300 (not 300s) is the way to go.

DG

[mightec]

DG

Thanks for your advise, I think that I am favouring the D300. Although I am by default a SONY man, TV's DVD Players, etc and I do use the Alpha 100 at the moment. We will have to see how the cost pan out.

[xahu34]

Mike,

You may also have a look at http://www.dpreview.com/.

Regards,

Xaver

[mightec]

Xaver

Thanks I will take a look, I have also being using Camera Lab,click the link.

[davegee]

Mike,

One thing that I would advise is that IF you decide to go with the NIKON D300 - PLEASE consider downloading Nikon NX2 60 day trial.

The two go hand in glove, like M&S, Pinky and Perky.

You won't regret it but it will cost about £100 extra after the 60 day trial. The money you save by not going for a D300s will more than cover it.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

The inventor of the Foveon X3 technology was a personal friend, and I'm "intimately" familiar with things Foveon and Sigma.

If there is "anything" you or Mike want to know about these cameras or the technology, just ask and I will be more than happy to tell you the excellent, the good, the bad and the ugly. I've been using Sigma X3 cameras since they were introduced and for landscapes with a tripod and, they produce absolutely stellar results. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't recommend them for wildlife or sports even though I've made award winning wildlife photos with them. The reason is that the buffer capacity and shot to shot time is problematic compared to my other dSLR's. But the image quality they produce is, in my opinion, unparalleled.

If I were "only" shooting portraits or landscapes and had to watch my budget, my first choice today would be the little Sigma DP2. This camera is shirt pocket size but has the same size sensor as used in the SD14 which produces an amazing 4.7 megapixel output capture obtained with 14 megapixels of data capturing red, blue and green independently at each pixel location. So unlike a 4.7 megapixel bayer type camera which interpolates red and blue, the X3 technology captures and uninterpolated 4.7 megapixel image comprised of 4.7 megapixels of red, 4.7 megapixels of blue and 4.7 megapixels of green. The measured resolution for black and white is approximately the same as a 10 megapixel conventional dSLR using bayer CFA technology. The measured resolution for color is equal for each of RBG and superior to even the 12 megapixel Canon 5D in comparison testing by Mike Chaney, the developer of Qimage Pro.

The issue with conventional CFA technology (everything except Sigma/Foveon) is that green has decent resolution and the resolution for other colors varies tremendously with red being quite poor. This is primarily evident when one views captures made side by side with the X3 and conventional cameras using identical settings. The differences are quite apparent with certain colors.

Also the Sigma/Foveon uses no anti aliasing filter so there is no "mush" in background vegetation for landscapes. Because of the lack of "mush" introduced at the Nyquist boundaries, the files interpolate much better than CFA equivalent captures. This means that you can successfully enlarge a Foveon capture and print at sizes where 12 megapixel CFA images begin to fall apart. It's difficult for people to grasp this until they examine one of the huge prints made from the relatively tiny 4.7 megapixel output files.

As I said, for the uninitiated and casual photographer, I only recommend these for portrait or landscape work because there are plenty of decent dSLR's which have better burst, better high ISO, faster shot to shot times and essentially are more useful for general photography.

Best regards,

Lin

Mike,

The Nikon D300 and the Sigma sd14 use totally different technologies.

Research the Sigma THOROUGHLY before deciding.

If, like me, the last thing you want in a DSLR is video, then the D300 (not 300s) is the way to go.

DG

[davegee]

That's excellent info Lin and my advice to Mike was to thoroughly research and make up his own mind.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

The reason I posted was that you put "thoroughly" in all caps about the Sigma, but didn't mention even in lower case thoroughly researching the other options. This leads one to think that there might be something about the Sigma which you believe to be somehow in need of more thorough research than the others.

My reply was simply to let you know that research can start here with someone who "thoroughly" understands CFA as well as Foveon technology including the strengths and weaknesses of each.

There is lots of "misinformation" floating around the web by people with a strong bias against Sigma. This is primarily based on lack of experience with the technology and the belief that the term "megapixels" in terms of image output dimensions is the be all, end all, which determines image quality and enlargeability. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many dismiss the Foveon because they hear 3.5 megapixels or 4.7 megapixels and believe that this means yesterday's technology. Or, conversely, they may hear someone say that the SD14, DP1 or DP2 are 14 megapixel cameras and take issue because the output file size is 4.7 megapixels. The bottom line is that using output file size as synonymous with optical "resolution" is totally wrong. Resolution is a measurement of, in the relevant sense, how many lines vertically and horizontally can be discerned at a particular point on the target from a capture made from a specific distance of a standardized resolution chart. Generally these charts only give black and white resolution, but there are alternative charts made which also give color resolution.

Researching Foveon technology can be very deceptive for an amateur photographer or for someone not thoroughly schooled in both CFA and Foveon image acquisition technology. So telling somone to "THOROUGHLY" research a particular technology, without knowing that person's familiarity with research techniques and where to fine accurate and truthful information is a recipe for disaster.

I just want to be certain that no viable option for Mike or anyone else who wants to consider a particular camera is overlooked because of faulty information found on the web. There are numerous reviews which give Sigma cameras bad press because the reviewer hadn't a clue how to either use the camera or properly convert the RAW data. A misunderstood technology and bias based on the major players who all use CFA technology can often lead to very incorrect conclusions.

Best regards,

Lin

That's excellent info Lin and my advice to Mike was to thoroughly research and make up his own mind.

DG

[Photo99]

I am new to DSLRs only been using one for 10 weeks and went through the long process of finding the right one to buy.

It came down to a choice between the Nikon D300 and the Canon 50D. Both are excellent cameras and very similar in results quality - build - functions - price and so on. When I actually got them in my hand the decision was made for me. The Canon just felt right and the controls joystick and wheels felt much better to use than the Nikons. Someone mentioned this in a earlier post.

also I must second Johns comment on the Canon 10-22 zoom it is a stunning lens at the price and gives me excellent results.

So Mike whatever you decide make sure you get to handle one before you buy. You will only know the right camera for you by how it feels in your hands.

[mightec]

Hello Photo99

Thank you for your advise, I am sure that you are right. I have welcomed everyone's input, it does help, but in the end it will have to be my decision and I need to be happy with the final selection. Has Lin as mentioned there is a lot written on the web, some based on preferences of one sort or another. At least here within the forum, I feel that I can obtain a balanced opinion.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

This is aimed at UK members mainly due to the laws in the UK, but broadly at anyone making a camera or any substantial internet purchase. The post is based on my expeience with an on-line etailer Cx, shortened for legal reasons

After searching around I decided to buy a new Canon camera system, I decided to buy the camera, two lenses & a speedlight. Next decision where from, after checking all available alternatives I decided Cx had the best price, just under £2000, the nearest alternative being almost £300 more expensive.

I placed my order for delivery the following day, sure enough the order arrived, one large cardboard box containing the camera one lens and the speedlight. The second lens was in a mailing sack. I opened the mailing sack & found the second lens in a kit type box, not a printed Canon box. There was no additional protection for the flimsy kit box and an ominous rattle when shaken, there was no lens manual.

Thoroughly deflated I checked the remainder of the order. The camera had no paper manual, the software was for Oceania not Europe, when I switched on the camera it was set in oriental iconic script giving no indication of how to change the language.

With steam coming out of my ears I rang Cx, a mechanical voice informed me their answering service was full and to ring back later. This happened a further 4 times, so in- between calls I sent emails listing what I had found. I also discovered they were not a Canon UK etailer, the guarantee was with them & if I sent something back I could incurr a £50 charge if they thought the item was not faulty, obviously I had made a cardinal error.

Further checking of the order revealed the camera charger was not CE marked therefore it was illegal to be sold in the UK

Rather than drag out the whole sorry tale, I will now summarise what has happened, I eventually got through to them by phone and 5 minutes into the conversation they terminated the call. I contacted trading standards, they confirmed the facts regarding the charger. I eventually sussed out the way to change the language. I told CB to issue a waiver regarding the £50 charge, which they wouldn't. I contacted my credit card company who said I must get an indipendent report on the lens, which took two weeks. My credit card company then issued a return of the cost of the lens, but had missed the charger replacement cost, but issued this a week later.

I received an abusive call from Cx's so called sales manager, I started proceedings in the small claims courts, filled in the form incorrectly & lost £35, the saga went on and on.

So my warning is, before deciding where to by from ensure the following-

Ensure the seller is a registered manufacturers trader. Make sure the gaurantee is with the manufacturer. Try to find a e/retailer with a good reputation, do a Google search entering the companys name and court or trouble. Check if the company has a full postal address, not a box number.

This is not my first experience with e buying, I have bought and sold numerous items via Ebay & Amazon over the last 5 years with very little trouble, in this case my pocket ruled my head. To date my error has cost me at least £100, buying the paper manual, software, court costs, recorded delivery letters etc etc plus all the stress, it just isn't worth it, be warned.

Yachtsman1

[davegee]

Edited: This post was in response to Mike's post above.

Eric and I were apparently typing at the same time.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Bet I know who's got one of these???

Yachtsman1

[Photo99]

Thank you for your advise, I am sure that you are right. I have welcomed everyone's input, it does help, but in the end it will have to be my decision and I need to be happy with the final selection.

I was not trying to tell you which camera to buy Mike my point was for you to Try before you Buy.

The camera controls layout menu system body shape balance and so on will suit different people in different ways and after you have your short list from your research I was just pointing out that it is well worth trying each piece of equipment before making the final decision. It worked for me.