|
Canon or Nikon?? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| kamil |
| quote: | Originally posted by lentej
Cheers to everyone. From what I've researched and witnessed, I'll go with the Canon T3i and f1.4 lenses. Will run me around $1200 though :D .... |
Don't let megapixel count let it be your final deciding factor, higher pixel counts dont always mean better pictures. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, the Canon T3 (as opposed to the T3i) has less megapixels but costs much less. Its something worth looking into and seeing the other differences between the T3 and T3i. |
|
|
| Lira |
[/obligatory] |
|
|
| chinamon |
| quote: | Originally posted by kamil
Don't let megapixel count let it be your final deciding factor, higher pixel counts dont always mean better pictures. I may be wrong, but as far as I know, the Canon T3 (as opposed to the T3i) has less megapixels but costs much less. Its something worth looking into and seeing the other differences between the T3 and T3i. |
correct!
megapixels really is only useful for printing images. a 1MP sensor is enough to print 5x7" photos.
read this: http://renderinglight.com/welcome/?p=3
like everyone has already said before, the lenses are where you want to invest your money. i started off with a rebel xt with kit lens and the photos already looked quite a bit better than a P&S. then i upgraded to a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the photos looked a lot sharper but that was still only a mediocre lens. now i shoot with a canon 7D with canon 16-35mm f/2.8L and i will only buy L lenses from now on. they are expensive but worth every penny. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by chinamon
i will only buy L lenses from now on. they are expensive but worth every penny. |
+1 to that. <3 my L gear so much. |
|
|
| AnomalyConcept |
Try them out in a store if you can to get a feel for the controls. Personally, I think the low end Canons are more bang for the buck than the Nikon ones (comparing a XSi to a 3100; not sure about the latest gen), especially the user interface, but that's something you'll need to try out and decide for yourself.
Depending on how serious you are or what your goals are, buying a used body and better lenses may be more beneficial. If you're not completely set on a SLR, you should also give the various mirrorless offerings some consideration as well.
Disclaimer: I'm a Nikon shooter.
Edit: Nice photos, Sushipunk :) |
|
|
| kamil |
| quote: | Originally posted by chinamon
correct!
megapixels really is only useful for printing images. a 1MP sensor is enough to print 5x7" photos.
read this: http://renderinglight.com/welcome/?p=3
like everyone has already said before, the lenses are where you want to invest your money. i started off with a rebel xt with kit lens and the photos already looked quite a bit better than a P&S. then i upgraded to a tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and the photos looked a lot sharper but that was still only a mediocre lens. now i shoot with a canon 7D with canon 16-35mm f/2.8L and i will only buy L lenses from now on. they are expensive but worth every penny. |
1mp is roughly 1024 x 768 pixels (technically 0.8, but close enough), which if printed would result to at best around 2x3 inches. To print a 5"x7" at 300dpi (ideally) you need a 3mp sensor.
Use this site megapixel calculator;
http://web.forret.com/tools/megapix...500&height=2100
However, don't ignore some of the third party lenses out there. I've got a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (yes, f/2.8 constant) lens and even wide open it is as sharp as my Canon 70-200mm f/4L. There are some fantastic lenses out there made by other manufacturers who unfortunately don't get full credit for. Typically, you get what you pay for, but there are instances where that is surprisingly untrue.
I'd recommend taking a look here;
http://thedigitalpicture.com/Review...ens-Review.aspx
Also, you should probably bookmark that website, as the reviews on it are by far the best anywhere on the net. Specifically the 'ISO 12233 Crops' section, it gives an GREAT and precise look at the image quality from lenses. I always use that site when looking for a new lens. |
|
|
| chinamon |
| quote: | Originally posted by kamil
1mp is roughly 1024 x 768 pixels (technically 0.8, but close enough), which if printed would result to at best around 2x3 inches. To print a 5"x7" at 300dpi (ideally) you need a 3mp sensor.
Use this site megapixel calculator;
http://web.forret.com/tools/megapix...500&height=2100
However, don't ignore some of the third party lenses out there. I've got a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (yes, f/2.8 constant) lens and even wide open it is as sharp as my Canon 70-200mm f/4L. There are some fantastic lenses out there made by other manufacturers who unfortunately don't get full credit for. Typically, you get what you pay for, but there are instances where that is surprisingly untrue.
I'd recommend taking a look here;
http://thedigitalpicture.com/Review...ens-Review.aspx
Also, you should probably bookmark that website, as the reviews on it are by far the best anywhere on the net. Specifically the 'ISO 12233 Crops' section, it gives an GREAT and precise look at the image quality from lenses. I always use that site when looking for a new lens. |
i stand corrected.
any dslr on the market today would be enough for the average person in regards to megapickles. the last time i saw a 3MP camera was when i owned a Sony DSC-P72 back around 2003 and started to learn how to take photos at Guv. lol |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by chinamon
megapickles |
lol |
|
|
| kamil |
| quote: | Originally posted by chinamon
i stand corrected.
any dslr on the market today would be enough for the average person in regards to megapickles. the last time i saw a 3MP camera was when i owned a Sony DSC-P72 back around 2003 and started to learn how to take photos at Guv. lol |
To be completely honest, I'd rather have Canon focus on improving ISO noise levels rather than cramming their sensors with higher pixel count. I think one of Nikons latest cameras does about 35mp. ing useless for 98% of photographers out there. The only people that would benefit from it are the ones doing billboard size advertising, and even then that high of a pixel isnt completely necessary as printing images that large has its maximum capabilities.
Fact is, Canon's always been better at producing less noise than Nikon. Its not even a fair comparison since Nikon doesnt manufacture their own sensors, they get them from Sony.
What needs to happen is for Canon and others to focus on spreading out the sensors so that less heat is produced in the sensor when photos are taken, which ultimately creates less noise... basically, heat = noise.
I dont care for 15, 18, 24 or 30 megapixels. I'd be happy with just 8-12 and id gladly take that if it meant ISO 3200 looking like ISO 800 on my 50D.
But yes, all SLR cameras have more than enough for the average user. I very much doubt anyone is going to print their photos beyond 8x10, which requires roughly a 6-8mp camera to attain 300dpi at that size. I've got 15mp on my 50D, and it really doesnt phase me, im more concerned about ISO, i like shoot as low ISO as possible; typically no higher than 400 ISO and 800 when I really need to. 1600 ISO is acceptable but not ideal. Anything beyond that I'm not satisfied with. However, if printed, 3200 ISO still looks alright. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by kamil
I think one of Nikons latest cameras does about 35mp. ing useless for 98% of photographers out there. |
Yep, that would be the new D800. 36MP, lol.
| quote: | Originally posted by kamil
I dont care for 15, 18, 24 or 30 megapixels. I'd be happy with just 8-12 and id gladly take that if it meant ISO 3200 looking like ISO 800 on my 50D.
...
I've got 15mp on my 50D, and it really doesnt phase me, im more concerned about ISO, i like shoot as low ISO as possible; typically no higher than 400 ISO and 800 when I really need to. 1600 ISO is acceptable but not ideal. Anything beyond that I'm not satisfied with. However, if printed, 3200 ISO still looks alright. |
I couldn't agree more. I still have a 50D body as well as my 5Dmk2. Don't get me wrong, I love having a full-frame camera, but being into bird photography like I am, I feel like it's a real trade-off sometimes. I love using the 50D because with the APS-C sensor I get heaps more range out of my telephoto lenses. My longer lens (100-400L f/4.5 - 5.6) is pretty slow though, so if I'm shooting in low light like a forest or something, I have to jack the ISO right up to get a quick shutter speed, and it looks pretty damn bad. The other way around, if I use the 5D at 1600+ ISO, it has all noise, so I can use that lens far more effectively... but with considerably less range :/
First world problems, lol :p
Why can't I have an APS-C camera that handles noise like a full-frame? :mad: |
|
|
| kamil |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sushipunk
Why can't I have an APS-C camera that handles noise like a full-frame? :mad: |
I bet if they brought down the pixel count to around 10-12 (I think 8mp would be a little low) then they could probably give similar results to a full frame canon, especially with todays advancements.
I know what you mean about the zoom range though. I havent upgraded to a 5D myself, but I can only imagine what it will mean with my zoom ranges. I'm actually buying a 24-105mm f/4L in a few days before I go to europe for 2 months. Should be the perfect walkaround lens for travel and street photography. That said, I'm selling my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.
I'll buy a 5D Mark XXX whenever they get autofocus figured out in movie mode, otherwise, movie mode in my opinion is a write off (for people like me, who just need basic movie capabilities). |
|
|
|
|
