Purple Fringing, Noise & AF - Canon 30D vs S3 IS

[BigRooster]

Hi

I'm a current user of PowerShot S3 IS. I have the following problems, especially when photographing wild birds:

- Purple fringing. esp. when photopgrahing white birds on wide aperture (need the quick shutter).
- Noise, even on ISO100 when blow up pic to full size.
- Hard to get auto-focus, esp. on birds standing on tree branch. Instead of focusing on the bird, it went to lock focus on the leaves. The MF is hard to work on (unlike the MF in DLSR lens).

Thinking of switching to DSLR, e.g. 30D.

Any expert advice on if my 3 problems could be solved, or at least reduced greatly by the DLSR, e.g. 30D?

* Excuse me if this has been posted in other thread before *

 

[jdredd]

provided u get the right lenses.. yes to all 3

 

[dejected]

The two cameras you are comparing are of different league. The S3 IS has a very much smaller CCD compared to the APS CCD found on DSLRs be it 20D or 30D.

You will definitely get much better results from a DSLR if you match it up with a quality lens. YES to all 3!

provided u get the right lenses.. yes to all 3

 

[kiwi2]

Hi,

A 30D is way way better than an S3IS. About the only reason why I'd think you should get such a bulky cam as the Canon S-series is the convenience of a 12x zoom. (Actually, honestly, I can't quite justify myself or understand why people want to buy such cams when the size for low end DSLRs are just slightly bigger! That's just me.)

With a non DSLR like the S3IS comes a lot of problems as you have noticed. (ACtually, I also don't believe in super zooms cos image quality can never be good if you are a fanatic with high expectations.) With a few hundred more $, you get a much much better cam in a DSLR, even for the 400D, which is sufficient.

Here are some comments:

1. For DSLR, sensor does play a part, but purple fringing is quite dependent on the lens you use. For DSLR, generally even with the cheaper lenses, you should usually see less purple fringing than your S3IS or other compact cams. I've NEVER seen a single compact cam that has superb control of purple fringing. The more expensive lenses for DSLR will have little purple fringing.

2. Noise.. Definitely way better in DSLR. You can go up to ISO800 and see good noise control. No compact (Canon itself also) can beat a Canon DSLR. Not even the much talked about Fuji F-series.

3. Forget about MF in compacts. Though it's available, it's very unwieldly. For bird shots, where timing is so very crucial you can't get be serious about using it. Auto-focusing in DSLR such as the 30D or 400D coupled with a good lens is a lot more lightning quick. Manual focusing is a lot easier too.

Now, I'll bring you back to the ground in case you were lifted up high in the clouds with high hopes for DSLR..

If you are dead serious about bird photography, and you like to use large aperture (you should), then in addition to buying a DSLR body, you need to consider excellent lenses also. And these are not cheap. We are prob looking at something like $1.8k at least and above (probably more than what you would pay for the 30D itself if you do get it). So do take that into account b4 you jump into the DSLR camp.

Hope that helps!

 

[maxlam]

Dun compare lah ... just go get the 30D and let yourself be convinced by what you see.
But that's provided you also get a decent lens ...

 

[ExplorerZ]

Hi,

A 30D is way way better than an S3IS. About the only reason why I'd think you should get such a bulky cam as the Canon S-series is the convenience of a 12x zoom. (Actually, honestly, I can't quite justify myself or understand why people want to buy such cams when the size for low end DSLRs are just slightly bigger! That's just me.)

With a non DSLR like the S3IS comes a lot of problems as you have noticed. (ACtually, I also don't believe in super zooms cos image quality can never be good if you are a fanatic with high expectations.) With a few hundred more $, you get a much much better cam in a DSLR, even for the 400D, which is sufficient.

Here are some comments:

1. For DSLR, sensor does play a part, but purple fringing is quite dependent on the lens you use. For DSLR, generally even with the cheaper lenses, you should usually see less purple fringing than your S3IS or other compact cams. I've NEVER seen a single compact cam that has superb control of purple fringing. The more expensive lenses for DSLR will have little purple fringing.

2. Noise.. Definitely way better in DSLR. You can go up to ISO800 and see good noise control. No compact (Canon itself also) can beat a Canon DSLR. Not even the much talked about Fuji F-series.

3. Forget about MF in compacts. Though it's available, it's very unwieldly. For bird shots, where timing is so very crucial you can't get be serious about using it. Auto-focusing in DSLR such as the 30D or 400D coupled with a good lens is a lot more lightning quick. Manual focusing is a lot easier too.

Now, I'll bring you back to the ground in case you were lifted up high in the clouds with high hopes for DSLR..

If you are dead serious about bird photography, and you like to use large aperture (you should), then in addition to buying a DSLR body, you need to consider excellent lenses also. And these are not cheap. We are prob looking at something like $1.8k at least and above (probably more than what you would pay for the 30D itself if you do get it). So do take that into account b4 you jump into the DSLR camp.

Hope that helps!

then you must be super rich... imho its becos of the cost more than the size for most people who doesn't own dSLR yet.

 

[calebk]

Hi,

...
With a non DSLR like the S3IS comes a lot of problems as you have noticed. (ACtually, I also don't believe in super zooms cos image quality can never be good if you are a fanatic with high expectations.) With a few hundred more $, you get a much much better cam in a DSLR, even for the 400D, which is sufficient.

...

Realise that the better lens for the fanatic with high expectations isn't going to come cheap. In the case of an SLR system, it's the lenses that make or break your photo; having a cheap, soft lens just won't cut it at times.

...
2. Noise.. Definitely way better in DSLR. You can go up to ISO800 and see good noise control. No compact (Canon itself also) can beat a Canon DSLR. Not even the much talked about Fuji F-series.
...

Now, I've tried the Fuji F-series. I admit it can't beat a DSLR, but it can match the Canon up to maybe ISO400. It can't beat, but matching it up to ISO400 is quite a feat.

...
Now, I'll bring you back to the ground in case you were lifted up high in the clouds with high hopes for DSLR..

If you are dead serious about bird photography, and you like to use large aperture (you should), then in addition to buying a DSLR body, you need to consider excellent lenses also. And these are not cheap. We are prob looking at something like $1.8k at least and above (probably more than what you would pay for the 30D itself if you do get it). So do take that into account b4 you jump into the DSLR camp.

Hope that helps!

Uh uh. Take a look at the large aperture telephoto lenses for birding. I think if they were priced at 1.8k, everyone would be jumping for a chance to get them.

EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM : (Yen690,000/US$3900) RS$11,500 - CP $7,488
EF 300mm f/4L IS USM : (Yen203,000/US$1150) RS$2,590 - CP $2,100 / MS $2050
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM : (Yen1140,000/US$6600) RS$19,500 - MS $12,000 / CP $11,980
EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM : (Yen770,000/US$5300) RS$12,380 - MS $8,000 / CP $8,150
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM : (Yen980,000/US$5500) RS$16,300 - MS $10,190 / CP $10,250

(ouch)

What you say makes perfect sense; the SLR system is anything but cheap, so to TS, it's really a bigger decision than the immediate. There are future lenses to be considered, flash, accessories, bags, the list goes on forever (really :bsmilie: ).

 

[BigRooster]

Thanks everyone for the advice.

I understand the importance of getting quality lens. Problem is, don't have the budget now for the L series ones. Am thinking of starting with something intermediate first, and if my interest proceeds well into future, and if my $$$ increases, then switch to something more solid.

Considering if get the 30D with kit lens 17-85, to supplement with either (1) EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM, or a third party lense like (2) Tokina 80-400. Considering a 1.6 crop factor for 30D, I am getting at least an effective max 480mm. Any one has advice/experience to share on my above options?

Not considering 400D, as I need spot metering and 5 fps for birding. Ya, also need new accessories like a more solid tripod.

Regards.

 

[kiwi2]

Yo bros...

Actually I'm only stating what I personally feel in my previous post. As always, opinions differ. I'm a mix between a near perfectionist and a photog who wants value for money. Difficult mix but possible. I'm not super rich.. I think there are many more amateurs in CS who are even super richer judging by their discussions of high end L lenses and top end bodies even though they are not pros. Some are even students.

Since I already own a DSLR, my wish for a compact is that it's small enough to carry around in my pocket. Not a biggy like the S3IS. Note: My opinion again! And prices of DSLR's have dropped so much now compared to say in the days of D30, D60 and 10D. So for quality and good value, a lower end 400D is a better buy, IMHO. And that's assuming you want versatility and good image quality. Lenses may be expensive but you can't have quality and expect to pay peanuts. The budding birder will one day save enough and grow in experience to be able to afford something more.

At long focal lengths of 400+ like the S3IS, it may be fun with the superzooms but you get all the usual "cons" that BigRooster mentioned, esp from a compact cam. And really, what does the layman need to shoot at that kind of focal lengths, and even then, how often? BigRosster has found those shortcomings less tolerable already.

Caleb, as with all forms of photography, there's no hard and fast rules for what lens to use for a particular type of shoot. We often hear photogs assuming Landscapes -- use wide angles; Portraits -- mid-telephoto to telephoto, but we know this is certainly not true. For $1.8k, you can certainly get a few good choices as a basic starter. You can consider the 70-200mm f/2.8 or f4/L with or without IS, 70-300mm, and what I had in mind was more of a second hand 300mm f/4L. Don't want to shock BigRooster with the prices of a 400mm, 500mm or 600mm L rite? Dun tink many who are progressing from an S3IS to a DSLR will splurge so much so suddenly.

BigRooster, seems like a good start with the options you have there, whether for birding or general photography.

 

[calebk]

Agreed. We all have to mix and match to a certain extent.

Bigrooster, what you must learn is the 1.6x is not a magnifier/multiplier; it's a crop. So effectively, 300mm is still 300mm. The difference is, on a 1.6x camera, the angle of view/field of view that you are getting is similar to that of a 480mm lens.

kiwi2, birders are limited in the sense that it's difficult to use a shorter lens and crop, as you will lose detail. Furthermore, the rear/foreground compression is very different from a 200mm to a 400mm lens.

 

[kiwi2]

caleb, most certainly. But IMHO, BigRooster is just starting out. So using a 200mm lens or 300mm lens is very good for starters. I mean, we are comparing a high quality quality DSLR with his S3IS! ;p How worse can cropped images from the 30D be compared to the S3IS. Anyway, 400mm f/5.6L is well within $1.8k if he can still find one 2ndhand. That's a recommended birding lens for amateurs and even some pros.

Btw, I see that you are a strong supporter of the term "different angle of view" rather than focal length "multiplier". How is it so? I've been seeing this word multiplier used in many areas, even books. Yes, the image is cropped on smaller than non-full frame sensors. But of course, there isn't any magic, a 300mm lens doesn't suddenly change its optical properties to become a 480mm lens.

I think the "multiplier" term comes about becos the lens' focal length has been effectively multiplied by a factor when you fix it to bodies with smaller than full-frame sensors. Of course, this multiplication does not come about optically but thru cropping. For eg, a 300mm lens will have the angle of view (as you correctly pointed out) of a 480mm lens if you fix it to a 30D, say.

How do we get that? We have to MULTIPLY 300 by 1.6, ie 300 x 1.6 = 480. So I guess that's how the word "multiplier" comes about. I can't see how it is used wrongly. In fact, the 1.6x is often referred to as a 1.6x FLM, or Focal Length MULTIPLIER. It does not imply in any way that the lens has changed physically to become more telephoto.

Is there a website or article you can direct me that debates this issue cos I'm interested. Tnx bro...

 

[ExplorerZ]

caleb, most certainly. But IMHO, BigRooster is just starting out. So using a 200mm lens or 300mm lens is very good for starters. I mean, we are comparing a high quality quality DSLR with his S3IS! ;p Anyway, 400mm f/5.6L is well within $1.8k if he can still find one 2ndhand. That's a recommended birding lens for amateurs and even some pros.

Btw, I see that you are a strong supporter of the term "different angle of view" rather than focal length "multiplier". How is it so? I've been seeing this word multiplier used in many areas, even books. Yes, the image is cropped on smaller than non-full frame sensors. But of course, there isn't any magic, a 300mm lens doesn't suddenly change its optical properties to become a 480mm lens.

I think the "multiplier" term comes about becos of the increased focal length stated on the lens when you fix it to bodies with smaller than full-frame sensors. For eg, a 300mm lens will have the angle of view (as you correctly pointed out) of a 480mm lens if you fix it to a 30D, say.

How do we get that? We have to MULTIPLY 300 by 1.6, ie 300 x 1.6 = 480. So I guess that's how the word "multiplier" comes about. I can't see how it is used wrongly. In fact, the 1.6x is often referred to as a 1.6x FLM, or Focal Length MULTIPLIER. It does not imply in any way that the lens has changed physically to become more telephoto.

Is there a website or article you can direct me that debates this issue cos I'm interested. Tnx bro...

dono if they are called multiplier or wat... but for sure they are commonly called crop factor. :sweat:

 

[calebk]

caleb, most certainly. But IMHO, BigRooster is just starting out. So using a 200mm lens or 300mm lens is very good for starters. I mean, we are comparing a high quality quality DSLR with his S3IS! ;p How worse can cropped images from the 30D be compared to the S3IS. Anyway, 400mm f/5.6L is well within $1.8k if he can still find one 2ndhand. That's a recommended birding lens for amateurs and even some pros.

Btw, I see that you are a strong supporter of the term "different angle of view" rather than focal length "multiplier". How is it so? I've been seeing this word multiplier used in many areas, even books. Yes, the image is cropped on smaller than non-full frame sensors. But of course, there isn't any magic, a 300mm lens doesn't suddenly change its optical properties to become a 480mm lens.

I think the "multiplier" term comes about becos the lens' focal length has been effectively multiplied by a factor when you fix it to bodies with smaller than full-frame sensors. Of course, this multiplication does not come about optically but thru cropping. For eg, a 300mm lens will have the angle of view (as you correctly pointed out) of a 480mm lens if you fix it to a 30D, say.

How do we get that? We have to MULTIPLY 300 by 1.6, ie 300 x 1.6 = 480. So I guess that's how the word "multiplier" comes about. I can't see how it is used wrongly. In fact, the 1.6x is often referred to as a 1.6x FLM, or Focal Length MULTIPLIER. It does not imply in any way that the lens has changed physically to become more telephoto.

Is there a website or article you can direct me that debates this issue cos I'm interested. Tnx bro...

I know of one photo, but it's with +evenstar.

Oh gosh, we can debate on this til the cows come home, but to show you that it's a crop and "multiplier" is used for the sake of equivalent field of view calculations, there's an example below. So actually, the word "multiplier" not used "wrongly", but rather, can become a confusing term for newbies.

Take your 50mm lens
Mount it on a FF camera and look at a range of items through the viewfinder.
Now, keep the lens in the same position as much as you can, and remount it on your DSLR (1.6x crop)
You will notice the subjects are still the same size, and neither magnified nor diminished, however, your field of view is noticeably less on both the horizontal and vertical axes.

Hope this is a clear enough, layman explanation.