Digi-Cam Question: dSLR or not?

[AlbertSiegel]

I study print journalism and do need to photograph sometimes. I do not think I need all the lenses and such offered by a dSLR, but I do like the picture quality and options. I have used a Sony F505v for the past few years and have been quite happy with it, but I need something better than 2.7mp. What advice can you fellow photographers offer?

[omae mona]

I study print journalism and do need to photograph sometimes. I do not think I need all the lenses and such offered by a dSLR, but I do like the picture quality and options. I have used a Sony F505v for the past few years and have been quite happy with it, but I need something better than 2.7mp. What advice can you fellow photographers offer?

Speaking as a dSLR owner, I will say: do not start sinking the money into dSLR because of picture quality. The photographer is WAY more important than the equipment in most cases]
[*] Exchangable lenses (which can be much higher quality and have different focal length range than fixed digicam lenses if you buy the right ones)
[*] better low light performance
[*] better autofocus
[*] hotshoe for external flash (though many digicams have this too)
[*] faster burst rate
[*] less shutter lag
[*] you want people to stare at you and say "that's a big f**king camera"
[/list]

It's also, in my opinion, way easier to take terrible pictures with a dSLR if you don't learn it thoroughly; they usually let you get yourself into much more trouble than non-SLR digicams. It only took one beer at the last FG party to get me to flip on some extremely stupid settings that ruined the rest of my shots.

And don't underestimate the convenience of a smaller digicam; you'll take it with you more often. Better to have a worse camera that you use than a better camera you don't use!

I bet FG Lurker will have something more intelligent to say.

[tetsujin gaijin]

Sounds like you just need a great point and shoot digicam. The best out there is the Cannon S70. It's 7.1 megapix of pure joy with great options and terriffic picture quality. Of course, the photographer takes the picture not the the camera, but the S70 will make it easier.

[jingai]

Check out dpreview.com or luminous-landscape.com for some good reviews of cameras to pick one to suit you. The Minolta A2 has been widely praised for its image quality and it's a bit more compact than a full DSLR.

[Charles]

It's all in the lenses. You can buy two non-SLR digital cameras, and due to the difference in lenses, the quality will be radically different. A pocket camera with a tiny retractable lens will usually be inferior to a camera with the same specs but with a larger nonretractable lens. I bought a Canon S50 with 5Mpixels, it's a pocket camera with a retractable lens, but I find the chromatic aberration and barrel distortion is far worse than I'd like, I should have bought something like the fixed lens Canon G6 (which came out a month after I bought the S50, of course).
The main reason you'd want a DSLR is for the lenses, which will almost always be better quality than anything in a nonSLR camera. And you can also change lenses if the standard one doesn't suit you.

[kotatsuneko]

annoying thing about the g6 is that they didnt include digic 2 of course..

[Blah Pete]

The Minolta A2 has been widely praised for its image quality and it's a bit more compact than a full DSLR.

I bought a Konica-Minolta A2 about a year ago and like it. The lense is pretty good. You can use it in fully manual, fully auto, and settings in between. Size prevents me from carrying it everywhere, but still smaller than a SLR. The price has come down a lot since I bought it.

[Charles]

annoying thing about the g6 is that they didnt include digic 2 of course..

I could live with that, if the "blue fringing" effect of chromatic aberration was solved. According to the reviews, the G6 lens is better, less blue fringing and barrel distortion, but it's still noticeable and annoying. Maybe it's just my particular application, I'm using my S50 on a copystand for repro work, barrel distortion and slight vignetting at the corners just kills my pictures. But it was the best camera I could afford at the time.

Suffice to say, if your lens diameter is about the size of a dime, you're just not getting a very good lens.

[jingai]

In the digital world, image quality is a combination of lens, sensor hardware and internal software, whereas in the film world the film is a constant and the lens is the only variable.
Here is a good article on this:
http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/digitaloptics/

Also don't forget sensor size- if you have a tiny lens on a tiny camera it also has a tiny sensor.
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/

Still for camera-buying purposes check out a site like dpreview.com to see if the camera you want has any noticable image quality flaws. Me, I still shoot film.

[emperor]

I use both a Sony W1 and a Nikon D70.

The D70 is my weapon of choice, but the neat size of the W1 is what has me actually bringing it places.

A slightly less feature-laden D50 and a slightly improved D70s are coming soon. From what Ive read of the D50 it should offer you everything the D70 would for a smaller pricetag.

[gkanai]

I'm putting my 6 month old Canon S70 up for sale if anyone is interested in the Tokyo area. It's not a DSLR- however it does have a great wide-angle lens and received a "Highly Recommended" rating from dpreview.com (the only other 7 megapixel digicam to receive the same highest rating was the Sony P150 which has fewer manual options.)

PM me if you're interested. I'll let it go for a reasonable price.

[AlbertSiegel]

Thank you for all the tips. I have been looking at the Panasonic Lumix with the 12x zoom Leica lens. It does offer most of the features that a low-end dSLR does sans the changable lens.

Keep on mind that I will use this for journalism and I need something that can produce very high quality images for print. I was thinking a small pocket cam would be nice since I could sneak it around. But image quality is what I need most.

I also worry about low-light shots. I tried a Casio and a Minolta in low-light, both of them did poorly. I found that Sony cameras do very well in very low-light even with the flash off.

[omae mona]

Thank you for all the tips. I have been looking at the Panasonic Lumix with the 12x zoom Leica lens. It does offer most of the features that a low-end dSLR does sans the changable lens.

I also worry about low-light shots.

In that case, don't rule out dslr cameras quite yet. In low light situations, assuming you can't compensate by slower shutters or wider apertures, then you will end up using higher ISO to get the right exposure. On all cameras, this means a noisier picture than low ISO, but DSLRs have much less noise than non-DSLRs. You might want to think about whether the photos will be too noisy to publish when you go to print.

Check out examples of that Panasonic Lumix & Konica Minolta DiMAGE at ISO 400:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/page7.asp

By comparison, it looks like several Canon & Olympus DSLRs have much cleaner images even at ISO 800 (and in some cases, at ISO 1600).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page26.asp

I was thinking maybe the cleaner DSLR images might result in more "keeper" photos for you in low light.

[drpepper]

I have done high ISO shots on my Nikon D100 and they were not that great but the lens makes all the difference in the world. With a non-slr camera you will have lenses which have a low range of F stops making you have to use a higher ISO (or flash) but with a good lens where you don't need a massive depth of field you can take great shots in low light situations 1.8 or 2.8 lenses will save you from having to flash or use a grainy/noisy high ISO. Both Canon and Nikon have good low-end slr's that are not that huge (I think people have become a bit spoiled now due to all the min-cameras now but geez even my big old D100 is not that big).

[Charles]

In that case, don't rule out dslr cameras quite yet. In low light situations, assuming you can't compensate by slower shutters or wider apertures, then you will end up using higher ISO to get the right exposure. On all cameras, this means a noisier picture than low ISO, but DSLRs have much less noise than non-DSLRs. You might want to think about whether the photos will be too noisy to publish when you go to print.

Also consider the pro DSLR cameras with image stabilization, from what I've seen, they do a better job than the digital stabilization in the all-in-one cameras. I was just shopping around for a Canon 20D, you can buy the camera and the entry-level zoom lens for about $1600, but if you want the IS lens, the kit is about $1950. Everyone says the IS lens is much better quality, although you lose one stop (IIRC it's an f/4.5 instead of f/3.5 for the cheaper lens).

Also consider there are software tools to reduce sensor noise, Kodak has a well-regarded plugin for Photoshop that has settings tailored to various types of cameras. If you're into serious pro work, there are other high-ISO noise reduction strategies. I saw one interesting article that suggested taking a black-frame reference shot that would capture only low-level noise, and use it as a Photoshop adjustment mask, to adjust the specific sensor pixels that tend to be noisier.

[jingai]

It's called dark-frame subtraction and is built into higher end cameras that have a "night shot mode."
You can do a similar process in software:

http://www.photo.net/learn/dark_noise/

http://www.anandtech.com/digitalcameras/showdoc.aspx?i=2351&p=2

http://www.tawbaware.com/is_help/imgstack_help.htm

[AlbertSiegel]

OK... I may look into the sub $1,500.00USD dSLR range. What is the better camera to go with? How is the Nikon D70 or the Olympus model compared with the Canon D10 or D20? I know Canon is thought of as the best dSLR, but what is your opinion?

[Charles]

OK... I may look into the sub $1,500.00USD dSLR range. What is the better camera to go with? How is the Nikon D70 or the Olympus model compared with the Canon D10 or D20? I know Canon is thought of as the best dSLR, but what is your opinion?

It all depends on whose lenses you like best. I've always been partial to Canon lenses, others prefer Nikon. But both companies' products are a lot more similar in quality today than it was in the 1970s when I got hooked on Canon SLRs. Also look into accessories. I remember the olden days when I bought a nice bellows for macrophotography work for $25. I looked at the auto-bellows for the Canon 20D and was shocked to see the cheapest one was a 3rd party job for around $900.

[AlbertSiegel]

I have my camera! I bought a new Canon 10D for $599.99USD at a local computer store that only had one left. I do have two Canon EF lenses, but they have some (like 3 specs) dust inside the glass. I called a camera shop and was told it will cost about $100USD to clean each one. This is not worth it to me as I can buy both of the same lenses on eBay for $300USD. Would it be a bad idea for me to clean the lense?

[jingai]

Does the dust affect image quality? Have you done tests to determine?
Generally you can have quite a bit of dust without degrading the image at all, so it might be a poor use of your money to get them cleaned.

[Charles]

Does the dust affect image quality? Have you done tests to determine?
Generally you can have quite a bit of dust without degrading the image at all, so it might be a poor use of your money to get them cleaned.

Dust inside the lens should have zero effect on image quality. My photo professor once told me that camera collectors highly prize antique lenses with bubbles in the glass, the bubbles don't affect the image quality, but are a sign that the lens elements were ground by hand, and the glass was handmade in a certain way that occasionally caused bubbles to occur.

Suffice to say that a mote of dust inside a modern lens will reduce the light-gathering ability of the lens by a few photons, but will almost never introduce visible defects in the image. Mirror lenses, I believe, are a different story though.

[AlbertSiegel]

What's the deal with a Canon Ultrasonic lens? Does it matter if the lens is Ultrasonic or not? Just what is Ultrasonic? Should I stick only with Canon products, or will a Sigma or other brand lens be a better choice?

[Charles]

What's the deal with a Canon Ultrasonic lens? Does it matter if the lens is Ultrasonic or not? Just what is Ultrasonic? Should I stick only with Canon products, or will a Sigma or other brand lens be a better choice?

Ultrasonic just refers to the motor used to drive the lens focus in autofocus mode. It's ultrasonic because it's ultra quiet when it's focusing (or something like that). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual image quality.

I guarantee that Canon lenses are superior to Sigma. Sure, you could probably find a more expensive Sigma lens that could beat a low end Canon lens in image quality, but that would be rare. With lenses, you generally get what you pay for, cheap third party lenses like Sigma are generally crap, and expensive Canon lenses are top quality.

Let me put it another way. I mentioned I was thinking of buying a Canon 20D to a friend of mine who owns a 10D. He said he'd give me his $350 Sigma zoom lens for free, he's saving up money to buy the $1200 Canon version. He said the lens is such crap that he really can't use it and can't sell it. Oh boy, what a deal, I'm just dying to get his crap lens.

[AlbertSiegel]

You were right! I was looking at some samples from random people and the Canon lenses produced better looking photographs than any Sigma lens I came across.

I bought a Canon 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 USM lens. I figure I will start with this. It seems to be very highly rated. I am still wondering if I should have bought the 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM. What do you think? Should I stick with the one I bought, or get the other one?

[Charles]

I bought a Canon 24-85mm 3.5-4.5 USM lens. I figure I will start with this. It seems to be very highly rated. I am still wondering if I should have bought the 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM. What do you think? Should I stick with the one I bought, or get the other one?

The IS lens is considerably more expensive, but I'm thinking of getting the IS anyway. The image stabilization should allow slower shutter speeds for handheld shots, and the reviews say it's better optics. But is it really worth hundreds of bucks more? I don't know, I haven't used either of the lenses, so I have no way to tell. If you mostly use a tripod, I suppose the image stabilization wouldn't matter so much. I'm going to mostly do work on a copystand, so I probably should buy fixed lenses, not zooms. But I figure I'll do my share of field photos so the IS lens would be good to have.

BTW, I just had dinner with my old photo professor last weekend. We were reminiscing about the great cameras we owned back in the Good Old Days(tm). I told him about my $1700 Hasselblad rig that costs $4500 today. He told me how back in the late 1960s, he bought a new Leica M3 for $300, with the 50% employee discount at the Leica dealership he worked for. The dealership closed a few years ago and is gradually selling their massive Leica collection on eBay. Their collection is rumored to be one of the largest collections of Leica gear in private hands, I used to drool over the display case every time I went into the store. Must be worth hundreds of thousands of bucks.
My professor did an odd project, he did a portrait of every single person in his small town, a few hundred people. Took him months to get every person to sit for the picture. He used a 4x5 view camera, and laid down all the negatives side by side and contact printed them on huge sheets of photo paper. Now he's going to redo the project 15 years later, this time he's going to buy a Canon 20D and use that instead of the view camera. His big pride and joy is no longer his camera gear, it's his new 72 inch Epson inkjet printer. I couldn't resist poking fun at his ancient 400mhz G4 Mac running his $7000 printer.

[FG Lurker]

I have a Canon EOS 20D and the following lenses:

17-40 F4L
28-70 F2.8L
70-200 F2.8L
50mm F1.8 Mark I (metal mount version)
Sigma 180mm F3.5 HSM Macro
(various others)

Some Sigma lenses are just as good as some Canon lenses, and sometimes they are better. The Sigma 180mm Macro is a good example of this -- it kicks ass. As good or better than the Canon 180mm F3.5L lens. Sigma also makes an excellent 18-50 F2.8 lens for digital cameras. Their 50mm Macro lens is awesome. Their 120-300 F2.8 zoom is very good, as is their 70-200 F2.8. The 50-500mm "Bigma" is very highly thought of by many, as is their 300-800mm zoom. Finally, they are the only company ever to make a 12mm full-frame 35mm lens for an SLR.

Sigma however does have two problems:

1. Quality control. Especially in their consumer lenses there can be big variances between two copies of the same lens. This is less so in their pro lenses, but it is still a good idea to compare a couple if you can.

2. Compatibility. I blame this more on Canon than Sigma, but I suppose it is a bit of a toss-up. Occasionally when a new body comes out it does not work with some Sigma lenses. Canon seems to fiddle with the spec just enough to screw up some of the lenses because Sigma reverse-engineers the spec instead of paying big bucks to license it from Canon. Sigma re-chips non-working lenses free of charge, but it is still a pain in the ass.

Sigma has one huge advantage over Canon L glass though -- price. Again using my 180mm macro as an example, I paid about US$500 for it in HK. In Japan that lens is about US$850, but the Canon version is US$1700 here and t wasn't any cheaper in HK.

If you know your lenses well you can get some very good deals with 3rd party glass without losing overall quality.

[FG Lurker]

Some shots taken with the Sigma 180mm Macro. [color="White"]redacted photo [/color]:ninja2:
[

[AlbertSiegel]

OK.. I am thinking of returning my 24-85mm USM and buying the 17-40mm L USM lens. Is it worth the $730USD I will pay? Will I notice that big a change? Is it worth that extra money? Is it that much more sharp?

[FG Lurker]

OK.. I am thinking of returning my 24-85mm USM and buying the 17-40mm L USM lens. Is it worth the $730USD I will pay? Will I notice that big a change? Is it worth that extra money? Is it that much more sharp?

I'd consider the Sigma 18-50 F2.8. It's a stop faster, smaller, lighter, a whole lot less money, *and* it has more reach on the long end. However it does not use HSM, Sigma's version of USM.

I love my 17-40 4L though, it's a very very good lens.

Overall how much difference you notice will depend a lot on how you take pictures. If you are using the 24-85 wide open all the time then you will notice a difference. If you are stopping it down to F8 or so then the differences will be much less significant -- but still there. You can expect better contrast, more accurate colors, and even stopped down sharpness of the "L" glass will be better, especially at the edges. Of course if you want to shoot at focal lengths longer than 40mm then you won't be happy at all with the 17-40.

What sorts of issues have made you unhappy with the 24-85?

[AlbertSiegel]

What sorts of issues have made you unhappy with the 24-85?

Nothing really. I am happy with it. I just thought if I can spend a little more for a much better lens maybe I should. I could use the money to buy a 75-300mm IS USM lens though....