Canon S3

[webshark3]

Groucho:

Honestly, the comparison you did is the best kind. It shows real world examples between P&S and a DSLR.

I really don't care how well a P&S performs in a studio on a tripod. I pretty sure 99.9% of my shots will be outside the studio, and in some Creative/auto mode with my P&S. "Normal" shooting conditions with my DSLR would always differ. Throw out resolution, and your photos show the CLEAR advantage of the added sensitivity, and lower noise in the DSLR.

 

[Groucho]

Tigger66, I'm glad that this was what you're after. I tried to do an objective comparison, though I was sure there'd be at least a little controversy no matter what I came up with. There were certainly some blurred or otherwise poor DSLR shots, too, but the big difference is that a bad DSLR shot is generally the fault of the photographer and that a little practice or a more appropriate lens can take a better photo, whereas with the PnS, there are situations where you're going to be completely limited by the camera and there's nothing you can do about it.

- mega-pixels - most people won't find this to be a problem. But, with me, there is a point where I like to crop my photos....or enlarge larger than 8x10, and I've found that even on the highest resolution, the photo sizes just are cutting it for me.

It's not so much megapixels as quality. Note that both cameras in the comparison there are 6mp, though the DSLR is a 3x2 ratio and the PnS is a 4x3 ratio. The larger sensor means a sharper photo that can handle being cropped without the penalty that you get with a PnS.

And needless to say, a 6mp DSLR will easily beat an 8, 10, 12, whatever megapixel PnS as well, since they generally are just cramming more megapixels into same-size sensors, so sharpness goes down and noise goes up.

A higher-mp DSLR generally won't suffer from the same problems, but realistically you're not going to see a world of difference in real-world applications when going up in megapixels with DSLRs. (I've made the example before, how many 10mp XTi owners wouldn't be happy to trade for an 8mp 30D?)

 

[Master Mason]

(I've made the example before, how many 10mp XTi owners wouldn't be happy to trade for an 8mp 30D?)

Actually I think that there is much less advantages in the 30D over the xti than over the xt.

Spot metering, and build quality are really about it. The took most of the other improvements of the 30D over the XT and incorporated them into the xti.

Having said that, and owning an XT, I would still choose the 30D over the XTi at this stage of the game.

 

[Tigger66]

Cheers Guys for all your help and opinions, i'm favouring a Nikon D40 at the Moment it's a good price with cashback till the end of August in the UK so i've nearly 3 months to Save up

 

[Master Mason]

Cheers Guys for all your help and opinions, i'm favouring a Nikon D40 at the Moment it's a good price with cashback till the end of August in the UK so i've nearly 3 months to Save up

Just remember that with the D40 your limiting your lens options to retain full funtionality. The lenses that don't have the motor in the lens will not Auto Focus for you on the d40. As long as you aware and ok with that deficency, your good to go.

 

[Tigger66]

Just remember that with the D40 your limiting your lens options to retain full funtionality. The lenses that don't have the motor in the lens will not Auto Focus for you on the d40. As long as you aware and ok with that deficency, your good to go.

Yes I saw that on another thread, one of my reasons for favouring the Nikon D40 over the pentad K100D both similar in price, was I perceived from other posts/forums that there are slightly more lenses available for Nikon than pentad?
But saying that if I do purchase a DSLR, Additional Lenses would be a long term future purchase rather than in the short term,
that’s one of my dilemmas Do I purchase this year and maybe compromise or wait a year and purchase a better camera/Kit

 

[ukcatfan]

Yes I saw that on another thread, one of my reasons for favouring the Nikon D40 over the pentad K100D both similar in price, was I perceived from other posts/forums that there are slightly more lenses available for Nikon than pentad?
But saying that if I do purchase a DSLR, Additional Lenses would be a long term future purchase rather than in the short term,
that’s one of my dilemmas Do I purchase this year and maybe compromise or wait a year and purchase a better camera/Kit

I have never seen an official count, but I would think it is the other way around when you consider that many Nikon lenses will not auto focus on the D40. I am not getting down on Nikon; I actually came very close to getting a D50 before deciding that the K100D offered more for the money. Also, don't forget that the old K1000 may have been the most popular SLR ever, so there are tons of used lenses floating around for Pentax. Pentax has a number of lenses thsat are due out within the next year. http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/lens/roadmap.pdf One last thing, in terms of build quality, the Pentax kit is better than the Canon or Nikon kit lenses, so it is less likely to break. Optically, I would call it a draw between Pentax and Nikon, but both are better than the Canon.

Kevin

 

[Groucho]

The other thing to remember is that the K100D will give you image stabilization with every lens. To get IS on a Nikon, you need to purchase specific (expensive) lenses that have IS in them, and it will (obviously) only work with that lens.

You can also do well with used lenses on the Pentax - chances are that if a lens is not available currently, it was available in the past. (27+ million of them are floating around out there! And they all work on the DSLRs will full functionality.) But between Pentax, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc, you can generally find most any lens you're after brand new. If there is something in particular that you're after, you should check to see if it is available or not.

Not that the D40 is bad at all, but that darn lack of a focus motor is a real issue IMHO.

 

[AndrewWG]

Optically, I would call it a draw between Pentax and Nikon, but both are better than the Canon.

Kevin

Huh? Do you mean with the kit lens only? I think with the right lens, the Canon, Nikon and Pentax all produce similar results, do they not? Of course, it may depend on what models we are talking about and the expertise of the user.

Andy

 

[Master Mason]

Huh? Do you mean with the kit lens only? I think with the right lens, the Canon, Nikon and Pentax all produce similar results, do they not? Of course, it may depend on what models we are talking about and the expertise of the user.

Andy

Yes he is talking about the Kit lens. Specifically the 18-55 that canon packs with the xt/xti and has moved away from with the 30d, the higher end cameras do not come with a kit lens.

Canon's kit lens is not a bad lens for the price, it is certainly not a great lens, but in the right conditions it is capable of producing some nice pictures.

But I do agree that the kit lens that nikon and pentax provide is superior.

If you want to go to the high end glass, I'll put canons line up against either of them, and personally feel that canon wins, but that is an opinion only.

 

[Groucho]

With equal lenses, yes... but he's talking the lens in particular.

The kit lenses (18-55mm specifically) work out so that Pentax > Nikon > Canon. From a little bit of glancing, the Olympus one is up there with the Pentax, and the Sony one (18-70mm) is maybe somewhere between the Nikon and the Canon. Also, only the Pentax (and I think the Olympus, but I'm not 100% sure) have a non-rotating front element, so can be used properly with a circular polarizer.

This doesn't mean that you can't get a decent photo with the Canon, but both overall image quality and build quality follow the order above.

 

[Groucho]

If you want to go to the high end glass, I'll put canons line up against either of them, and personally feel that canon wins, but that is an opinion only.

IMHO the issue is that Canon's "good" glass usually costs $1k or more. I believe that this is by design in order to maximize profits. It seems that Canon shooters often accept image/build quality that isn't what it should be on cheaper lenses because "hey, I know it's not an 'L' lens."

As for who wins, that's going to vary on a lens-by-lens basis. Certainly no company has a monopoly on "best" lenses, no matter how much they charge for them.

 

[AndrewWG]

Yes he is talking about the Kit lens. Specifically the 18-55 that canon packs with the xt/xti and has moved away from with the 30d, the higher end cameras do not come with a kit lens.

Canon's kit lens is not a bad lens for the price, it is certainly not a great lens, but in the right conditions it is capable of producing some nice pictures.

But I do agree that the kit lens that nikon and pentax provide is superior.

If you want to go to the high end glass, I'll put canons line up against either of them, and personally feel that canon wins, but that is an opinion only.

Phew! I thought I was looking to buy the "wrong" brand there for a moment. I personally have always enjoyed the Canon line and will mot likely stick with it for a long time now.

I figured Kevin was talking about the kit lens, but just wanted to make sure. I don't think I will buy a kit when I finally decide on my camera. Body only.

Andy

 

[Master Mason]

IMHO the issue is that Canon's "good" glass usually costs $1k or more. I believe that this is by design in order to maximize profits. It seems that Canon shooters often accept image/build quality that isn't what it should be on cheaper lenses because "hey, I know it's not an 'L' lens."

As for who wins, that's going to vary on a lens-by-lens basis. Certainly no company has a monopoly on "best" lenses, no matter how much they charge for them.

I agree on the lens by lens thing as to which is best at the time, my statement was about the entire line up of lenses, and was clearly stated to be my opinion only.

Canon has some non l lenses that are incredibly good. One that comes to mind is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS Read the reviews it is a stunning lens, and not an L, of course it cost more that some L's though as well.

Nikon has some lenses in their line up that canon doesn't have, such as the 18-135 and the 18-200, which to me is a hole that canon needs to fill with an equal quality lens. Sorry, I know very little about pentax lenses so I can't say where they excell.

 

[ukcatfan]

One last thing, in terms of build quality, the Pentax kit is better than the Canon or Nikon kit lenses, so it is less likely to break. Optically, I would call it a draw between Pentax and Nikon, but both are better than the Canon.

Huh? Do you mean with the kit lens only? I think with the right lens, the Canon, Nikon and Pentax all produce similar results, do they not? Of course, it may depend on what models we are talking about and the expertise of the user.

Andy

Yes, the kit lens.

 

[ukcatfan]

Phew! I thought I was looking to buy the "wrong" brand there for a moment. I personally have always enjoyed the Canon line and will mot likely stick with it for a long time now.

I figured Kevin was talking about the kit lens, but just wanted to make sure. I don't think I will buy a kit when I finally decide on my camera. Body only.

Andy

If I remember correctly, you have some old Canon glass. If so, you probably do not have anything that is as wide as 18mm. With the 1.6X crop factor, you will probably want something that wide, so even if you do not use the kit often, it is not bad to have around for those situations. Being able to go wider than a typical p&s at WDW was one of the reasons I went to a DSLR.

Kevin

 

[AndrewWG]

If I remember correctly, you have some old Canon glass. If so, you probably do not have anything that is as wide as 18mm. With the 1.6X crop factor, you will probably want something that wide, so even if you do not use the kit often, it is not bad to have around for those situations. Being able to go wider than a typical p&s at WDW was one of the reasons I went to a DSLR.

Kevin

I agree. I guess I may buy it with the kit lens but I may also try to pick one up on ebay. I just don't want to waste money. My old lenses were not great. They will get me started and will be good enough to get me familiar with the camera and all that it can do, but I don't expect big things from them. I will be starting my lens collection soon after I buy the body that I choose. Still undecided....

Andy

 

[S. C.]

Great shots everyone!

 

[Groucho]

Canon has some non l lenses that are incredibly good. One that comes to mind is the 17-55 f/2.8 IS Read the reviews it is a stunning lens, and not an L, of course it cost more that some L's though as well.

Well, it's within a whisker of the $1k price I mentioned.

Nikon has some lenses in their line up that canon doesn't have, such as the 18-135 and the 18-200, which to me is a hole that canon needs to fill with an equal quality lens. Sorry, I know very little about pentax lenses so I can't say where they excell.

FWIW, Pentax's real legacy is their prime lenses, name a prime and chances are that Pentax has one of, if not the, best. The problem is that some go out of production and the price adjusts accordingly... the last 85mm F1.4 that sold on eBay went for about $950. And their lovely 300mm primes... gulp! Fortunately, there are still some great deals in production, like their top-notch 50mm F1.4 for about 1/3rd less than other's F1.4s.

I'm sure Nikon has a particular specialty but I'm not sure exactly what it is. They do get the current Zeiss lenses (along with Sony), which is certainly worth something to many people.

 

[Master Mason]

I'm sure Nikon has a particular specialty but I'm not sure exactly what it is.

Yes their speciality is claiming they are as good as canon....

sorry have to get a dig in every once in a while. But seriously, I think that you really can't go wrong with canon, nikon, or pentax, my verdict is still out on sony, the alpha seams to be good, but lets see what else they do.

And take a look at what Canon's 300mm prime cost... One day perhaps, but certainly not today.