Last edited by thechinesebonbon; 2nd April 2009 at 11:10 AM.
I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that the "rangefinder-style" prosumers use a separate window to look through when composing your shots. This would mean you're looking through a glass or plastic cut-out in the camera body at your subject. This way there's no lag, which is the case when you look through an electronic viewfinder (basically a miniaturised LCD screen).
An SLR has the benefit of no lag as well, AND the fact that you are actually looking THROUGH the lens at your subject, there is no optical deviation.
With the rangefinder, you're looking at the subject from a slightly offset position.
my 2 cents
with your budget of $800+/-, you can get a 2nd hand dslr. but at those prices, most kit lens performance will be sub-par and you will need to invest in better optics.
i suggest that you look out for a 2nd hand Panasonic FZ50. its an old model and its zoom range may pale in comparison with the current models, but it has a fantastic lens and has a body design and operation that rivals many entry level dslrs. pair it with a raynox dcr250 macro adapter and you will have an incredible macro setup.
The biggest difference between the G series and the mega zoom SX series is that the zoom is a lot less but in terms of image quality, the G series will not lose out to the SX series.
Perhaps you'd care to explain what standard you define 'par' to be?
anyways, image sensors on a dslr (135 FF - APS-C - 4/3) compared to compact sensors (2/3" - 1/2" - 1/8") has its benefits. better performance at higher resolution, iso and better DOF control. no dispute there.
the TS is unlikely to print larger than A4 size, so cameras with minimum 8mp should suffice.
let's look at lenses, which dslr with kit lens has an equivalent lens compared to the FZ50 or the Fuji S9000 at the same price point (2nd hand market)?
smaller sensors allow lens designers to design better performing lenses, similar to how larger image sensor areas allow engineers to get better high ISO performance.
the FZ50 and S9000's 12x zooms are designed for the smaller sensors, providing good performance wide open (sharpness, distortion, corners, light falloff). most dslr kit lenses and superzoom lenses do suffer in image quality wide open, most perform best when stopped down to f5.6.
of course there are exceptions (EF-S 18-55/f3.5-5.6 IS, ZD14-42/f3.5-5.6), but what would be the cost to achieve a similar zoom range thats offered by the prosumers?
there are pros and cons in either camera type. its up to the user to understand those pros and cons to get the best out of the equipment.
btw, since you asked, my personal opinion of a "par" lens is a lens that performs well across the zoom range wide open. no point getting a f2.8 to have acceptable results at f5.6. and this is the lens i settled for that is "par" to me.
firstly, putting the phrase 'my 2 cents' has little or no relevance, because you're offering some strong advice (along with strong words). Would you even be remotely interested to buy a 'sub-par' lens? Certainly not, right? Would you consider Nikon's 18-55 kit lens to be sub-par? I certainly would not.
Your 'par' lens costs more than a D60 kit. Where's the fair comparison? Of course everything else is sub-par la!
Your post basically says:
Forget about the 2nd hand DSLR + kit lens because the performance is sub-par. For that $800, consider the Panasonic FZ50 instead.
Kindly clarify: Is this meant to imply that the FZ50's performance is better than the D40 (or D60) + kit lens?
It certainly has a much larger focal range, that's about it.
Both cameras side-by-side, wide angle (28mm FX-FOV), widest aperture. I would say: Still the DSLR wins.
You also contradict yourself in your post (highlighted words in bold)
how is this argument helpful in recommending the TS a prosumer?
Try nt to OT.
To TS - if your budget is as stated. there a few model that may satisfy your criteria. For me personally. i would get a D40x(second hang). it should be enough for a beginner hobbyist to go out and enjoy his interest. it does take good(great- depends on the photographer) pictures as well. im not to sure of the other camps equivalent. but im sure they do have a similar spec camera. you might also want to pair it with a external flash to take candids in the low light situation mention.
But that is my take in this. Thanks
| An army of sheep led by a lion are more to be feared than an army of lions led by a sheep. |
*ahem* Kit lenses that are good:
Nikkor 18-105 (based on samples)
Nikkor 18-70 (based on actual use)
Nikkor 18-135 (based on actual use)
Note they're all Nikkors. (that's probably due to me having an interest in them, hah!)
I'd like to contribute something but threadstarter's post is a bit of a WALL OF TEXT. :P Maybe I'll try when I'm feeling more up to it.
^ i'm super naggy and overstate everything at least twice.
the thing with prosumers is that it's not as big as a DSLR and I can use it as a PNS as well for the times when I just want to capture memories and not really do photography. prosumer because I want to explore photography and I don't have enough for both a low end PNS plus a second hand DSLR though all the recommendations were very good and I feel like getting them all. Is this the BBB that i hear so often?
I realised there's a couple of lenses that people all name as fisheye.
there's the one which gives you a warped effect and a circular picture.
one which gives you a warped effect and NO circular picture(ie corners are still there)
and one which isn't warped but lets you take a wide picture.
I'm talking about the second one. When people mention fisheye, which one are they refering to?
Last edited by thechinesebonbon; 3rd April 2009 at 04:52 PM.
Ok, I'm getting a lot of mixed signals here. You don't want to do photography yet you want to explore? Why explore something you don't want to do?
Normally when people talk about fisheyes, they refer to full-frame fisheyes nowadays. Circular fisheyes aren't too popular, for many reasons. (and what's this got to do with the camera you want?)
If you want something small, then something like the Canon SX1 would do fine. Smaller still, tough with your BSBH needs. If you want to do something more (the mixed signals make it hard for me to tell what you really want; I still haven't fully read that wall of text), the Panasonic GH1 might not be bad. Of course it'll be bigger, but that's the price you pay for versatility.
i think he meant that he wants a camera which is small and can function as an "idiot-proof" PnS for occasional snaps (eg. pass to the waiter) but yet has the ability to take beautiful pictures in the right hands.
tough to be a jack of all trades. I guess the entry-level DSLRs (with auto modes) or prosumers fall within this requirement.
btw what is BSBH?
Sorry, obscure abbreviation. It stands for "Bao Sua Bao Hai"
I'd say the entry level DSLRs or similar (like m4/3s) cameras are a better bet. But that's up the the threadstarter.
i'm a fan of DSLRs after crossing over.
But prosumers ARE smaller, and they suffer less from problems like dust.
YSLee: hahas. yeah really picky
But basically it's like what ZerocoolAstra says.
I like the cartoon effect that fisheye gives so I might want the camera to be able to attach some form of fisheye adaptor to it. Which was why I was undecided about the Canon SX1 or the Canon SX10 because I wouldn't be able to do it.
PS: whats the difference between lens adaptors and lenses? I originally thought that they were the same thing but now i'm not so sure.
PPS: i'm a she. haha.
Last edited by thechinesebonbon; 3rd April 2009 at 06:40 PM.
ZerocoolAstra, if you have a thing to pick with me on my opinion, let's take it to PM. i do not see why my opinion should cause you so much distress and why its important to have dslrs "win" over prosumers and compacts.
but please do read and bold my quotes in context and not selectively bold words to imply that i have contradicted myself. to simplify my post:
prosumer / consumer camera = smaller sensor = easier to design superzoom lenses that perform well wide open
dslr = larger sensors = most dslr superzoom lenses do not perform well wide open
my apologies for this OT post.
^ no no, it's not OT.
Correct me if I'm wrong, what you're trying to say is that for superzoom prosumers, the lens would generally work well across the whole range(from you not zooming in on anything to highest possible zoom) whereas for DSLR superzoom lenses it generally doesnt work as well across the range particularly at the part when you're not using it to zoom in on anything.
Ok, now that explains a lot.
Anyway, technically, they're all lenses, but a lens adaptor is a lens that is meant to be used with another lens.