dslr camera za image
sellingkar
I'm trying to decide whether a bridge-camera will be fine OR whether I should go for a lower range of DSLR..please let me know from your experience. Thx
Answer
Definitely go for a DSLR.
No matter how advanced a so-called "bridge camera" may be it is severely limited by its tiny sensor and permanently attached lens.
The sensor of a compact digicam may measure 7.6mm x 5.7mm while the DSLR sensor measures 23.6mm x 15.8mm. A tiny sensor simply performs poorly at higher ISO settings and in low-light, non-flash photography. Manufacturers have made this worse by stuffing more and more pixels into this tiny sensor. If you have 14.7mp in a compact digicam sensor each individual pixel is very tiny. Place 10.2mp in a DSLR sensor and the individual pixels are comparatively huge. Larger individual pixels gather more detail and perform better at higher ISOs and in low-light, non-flash situations.
The second major advantage of the DSLR is its interchangeable lenses. With a compact digicam you're stuck with the permanently attached lens. If you want to shoot in low-light w/o a flash with a DSLR just attach a 50mm f1.4 and you're good to go. If a compact digicam has an f2.8-4.0 lens you're limited in low light. Your only option is a high ISO to get a shutter speed fast enough to avoid subject motion.
Suppose you're in a situation where a 50mm f1.4 lens at ISO 400 gives you a shutter speed of 1/60 sec. If your compact digicam has an f2.0 lens your shutter speed drops to 1/30 sec. At f2.8 it becomes 1/15 sec. and at f4 1/8 sec. At ISO 800 the f1.4 lens gives you a shutter speed of 1/125 sec., f2.0 1/60 sec., f2.8 1/30 sec. and f4 1/15 sec. At ISO 1600 the f1.4 gives a shutter speed of 1/250 sec., the f2 1/125 sec., f2.8 1/60 sec. and f4 1/30 sec. As you can easily see, a fast f1.4 lens is all but mandatory for successful low-light, non-flash photography. (Yes, IS will help with camera movement but IS does nothing for subject movement. A fast shutter speed is needed to avoid subject movement.)
The DSLR also allows you to use a true macro lens or an ultra wide angle lens or a super telephoto. In other words, with interchangeable lenses you can choose a lens to suit a particular situation.
Although the Pavlovian response in here is almost always "Nikon!" "Canon!" do not ignore the Sony and Pentax DSLR line.
Both Sony and Pentax have their versions of Image Stabilization (IS) in the camera body. Any lens used thus becomes an IS lens. Nikon and Canon have their versions of IS in some of their lenses but not all. Plus you get to pay for the IS every time you buy one of their IS lenses.
The Sony A230 is 10.2mp and is $549.95 w/18-55mm lens at B&H.
The Pentax K2000 is 10.2mp and is $599.95 w/18-55mm lens and AF-200FG flash at B&H.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Since Sony uses the same lens mount as the Minolta Maxxum auto focus 35mm camera introduced in 1985, you can use every Maxxum AF lens made since then. Sony also has (at last count) 26 branded lenses in their catalog plus the Carl Zeiss "ZA" lenses. I doubt you'll ever lack for lenses. Plus, with in-camera IS, a 20 year old Maxxum AF lens becomes an IS lenses. Nikon and canon can't say that.
The Pentax DSLR cameras still use the K-mount forst introduced in 1975. Any K-mount lens can be used (with limitations) so, again, you won't lack for lenses. The Pentax in-camera IS offers the same benefit as the Sony in-camera IS. Just think - a 30 year old lens using technology that wasn't even a dream when that lens was made.
So go for a DSLR and you'll never be sorry.
Definitely go for a DSLR.
No matter how advanced a so-called "bridge camera" may be it is severely limited by its tiny sensor and permanently attached lens.
The sensor of a compact digicam may measure 7.6mm x 5.7mm while the DSLR sensor measures 23.6mm x 15.8mm. A tiny sensor simply performs poorly at higher ISO settings and in low-light, non-flash photography. Manufacturers have made this worse by stuffing more and more pixels into this tiny sensor. If you have 14.7mp in a compact digicam sensor each individual pixel is very tiny. Place 10.2mp in a DSLR sensor and the individual pixels are comparatively huge. Larger individual pixels gather more detail and perform better at higher ISOs and in low-light, non-flash situations.
The second major advantage of the DSLR is its interchangeable lenses. With a compact digicam you're stuck with the permanently attached lens. If you want to shoot in low-light w/o a flash with a DSLR just attach a 50mm f1.4 and you're good to go. If a compact digicam has an f2.8-4.0 lens you're limited in low light. Your only option is a high ISO to get a shutter speed fast enough to avoid subject motion.
Suppose you're in a situation where a 50mm f1.4 lens at ISO 400 gives you a shutter speed of 1/60 sec. If your compact digicam has an f2.0 lens your shutter speed drops to 1/30 sec. At f2.8 it becomes 1/15 sec. and at f4 1/8 sec. At ISO 800 the f1.4 lens gives you a shutter speed of 1/125 sec., f2.0 1/60 sec., f2.8 1/30 sec. and f4 1/15 sec. At ISO 1600 the f1.4 gives a shutter speed of 1/250 sec., the f2 1/125 sec., f2.8 1/60 sec. and f4 1/30 sec. As you can easily see, a fast f1.4 lens is all but mandatory for successful low-light, non-flash photography. (Yes, IS will help with camera movement but IS does nothing for subject movement. A fast shutter speed is needed to avoid subject movement.)
The DSLR also allows you to use a true macro lens or an ultra wide angle lens or a super telephoto. In other words, with interchangeable lenses you can choose a lens to suit a particular situation.
Although the Pavlovian response in here is almost always "Nikon!" "Canon!" do not ignore the Sony and Pentax DSLR line.
Both Sony and Pentax have their versions of Image Stabilization (IS) in the camera body. Any lens used thus becomes an IS lens. Nikon and Canon have their versions of IS in some of their lenses but not all. Plus you get to pay for the IS every time you buy one of their IS lenses.
The Sony A230 is 10.2mp and is $549.95 w/18-55mm lens at B&H.
The Pentax K2000 is 10.2mp and is $599.95 w/18-55mm lens and AF-200FG flash at B&H.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
Since Sony uses the same lens mount as the Minolta Maxxum auto focus 35mm camera introduced in 1985, you can use every Maxxum AF lens made since then. Sony also has (at last count) 26 branded lenses in their catalog plus the Carl Zeiss "ZA" lenses. I doubt you'll ever lack for lenses. Plus, with in-camera IS, a 20 year old Maxxum AF lens becomes an IS lenses. Nikon and canon can't say that.
The Pentax DSLR cameras still use the K-mount forst introduced in 1975. Any K-mount lens can be used (with limitations) so, again, you won't lack for lenses. The Pentax in-camera IS offers the same benefit as the Sony in-camera IS. Just think - a 30 year old lens using technology that wasn't even a dream when that lens was made.
So go for a DSLR and you'll never be sorry.
What makes a Canon DSLR better than a Sony DSLR!?
Tristan B
Don't know a lot about the subject but please be specific. Not just that Canon has been in the DSLR biz longer than Sony. Why do they take better shots and such.....
Answer
First, repeat this 100 times: "It isn't the camera its the photographer."
Cameras do NOT "... take better shots ...". As Ansel Adams said: "Pictures are not taken they are made." All cameras are just dumb boxes, whether its a home made pinhole camera or a Canon 1Ds Mark III. The camera is a tool, like a socket wrench or saw or hammer.
I have never owned a camera that made great pictures.
I have never owned a camera that made lousy pictures.
I have used a camera to make some great pictures and I have used a camera to make some lousy pictures. In either case the camera gets neither the credit nor the blame. Both are solely on me, the photographer.
A person knowledgeable about light, composition, exposure and skilled in their use will make good pictures with either camera.
A person who lacks that knowledge and skill will take the same lousy pictures with either camera that they took with a simple point & shoot.
Anyone who criticizes Carl Zeiss lenses because a lens with his name on it is used on a cell phone is completely ignorant. Zeiss needs to have a steady revenue stream in order to design and manufacture their professional quality lenses and keep them reasonably affordable. The sales revenue from lenses for cell phones supports that endeavor.
If I were in the market for a DSLR I'd choose a Sony. I like the idea of having the Image Stabilization (IS) in the camera body so any lens used will have that benefit.
No doubt someone will answer this with the claim that Canon has more lenses. Not true. A Sony DSLR can use every Minolta Maxxum AF lens made since 1985 plus the lenses made for the Konica-Minolta 5D & 7D DSLR cameras plus the Carl Zeiss "ZA" lenses plus the after-market offerings from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.
So with the Sony DSLR you can buy a 24 year old 70-210mm f4 zoom and have an IS lens. Since Canon has its IS in certain lenses (as does Nikon) they can't make that claim.
The bottom line is that either camera in capable hands can be used to make excellent pictures. So handle both cameras and buy the one you think feels the best in your hands. Don't get all hung up on a brand.
First, repeat this 100 times: "It isn't the camera its the photographer."
Cameras do NOT "... take better shots ...". As Ansel Adams said: "Pictures are not taken they are made." All cameras are just dumb boxes, whether its a home made pinhole camera or a Canon 1Ds Mark III. The camera is a tool, like a socket wrench or saw or hammer.
I have never owned a camera that made great pictures.
I have never owned a camera that made lousy pictures.
I have used a camera to make some great pictures and I have used a camera to make some lousy pictures. In either case the camera gets neither the credit nor the blame. Both are solely on me, the photographer.
A person knowledgeable about light, composition, exposure and skilled in their use will make good pictures with either camera.
A person who lacks that knowledge and skill will take the same lousy pictures with either camera that they took with a simple point & shoot.
Anyone who criticizes Carl Zeiss lenses because a lens with his name on it is used on a cell phone is completely ignorant. Zeiss needs to have a steady revenue stream in order to design and manufacture their professional quality lenses and keep them reasonably affordable. The sales revenue from lenses for cell phones supports that endeavor.
If I were in the market for a DSLR I'd choose a Sony. I like the idea of having the Image Stabilization (IS) in the camera body so any lens used will have that benefit.
No doubt someone will answer this with the claim that Canon has more lenses. Not true. A Sony DSLR can use every Minolta Maxxum AF lens made since 1985 plus the lenses made for the Konica-Minolta 5D & 7D DSLR cameras plus the Carl Zeiss "ZA" lenses plus the after-market offerings from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina.
So with the Sony DSLR you can buy a 24 year old 70-210mm f4 zoom and have an IS lens. Since Canon has its IS in certain lenses (as does Nikon) they can't make that claim.
The bottom line is that either camera in capable hands can be used to make excellent pictures. So handle both cameras and buy the one you think feels the best in your hands. Don't get all hung up on a brand.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: What is a good entry-level dSLR camera for an enthusiastic beginner photographer?
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment