MAMA's Techno-Geek Thread

[GadgetGav]

Quote: Originally Posted by snid (original)

Gavin,

Those canon forum links require you to be logged in to see them... so, I have no idea what lens(es) you're talking about.

Oh, sorry.
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 for CDN$320

[Theo]

Quote: Originally Posted by GBMINI (original)

And Theo, don't listen to all those folks saying "just step up a little more to this camera" ... you'll be up at the D300 before you know it!

Really? So I shouldn't be looking at the Hasselblad H3D-31 for $22,500?

Theo

[Actual Size]

Picked up a little Canon A560 snapshot camera at Staples yesterday. $149 including the camera, a free 1GB card, and a free Canon MP210 all-in-one printer.

[GadgetGav]

Theo, one advantage to the XTi being small is that if you take the battery grip off, it's good to travel with. I'm in San Francisco for a couple of days and it fitted easily in my carry on. Of course, once I'm here I wished I'd got my entire camera bag and all the lenses!

[NoNo]

Quote: Originally Posted by Actual Size (original)

Picked up a little Canon A560 snapshot camera at Staples yesterday. $149 including the camera, a free 1GB card, and a free Canon MP210 all-in-one printer.

Oooh! That's a sweet deal. I've been thinking of picking up a small P&S. There are plenty of times where I just don't feel like lugging around the D70, nor is it necessary. It'd be nice to have something I could take with me on bike rides, too. Plus my printer is 8 years old. The quality is still ok, but it's loud and slow!

[Theo]

Quote: Originally Posted by GadgetGav (original)

Theo, one advantage to the XTi being small is that if you take the battery grip off, it's good to travel with...{snip}

Yup. That's part of the reason why I was looking into the D40x and the XTi. With the amount of traveling and hiking done with the camera, a Maymia RB-67 was not quite what I had in mind!

However, I cannot more strongly recommend the Canon ELPH series, whatever number they're up to now. We love our ELPH (wait...that could be read wrong...) for the ultimate in portability. The quality of its images are quite astounding...much better the the photographer's quality .

Theo

[snid]

Quote: Originally Posted by Theo (original)

With the amount of traveling and hiking done with the camera, a Maymia RB-67 was not quite what I had in mind!

Granted, mine's a 6x4.5, not a 6x7... but if you got through the trouble of lugging it around, you can get some amazing pictures. I had my 645 on a chest harness during a snow-cat based skiing / snowboarding trip in British Columbia. It wasn't that bad to carry around, and the pictures were worth it.

The scans from my cheap scanner do not do the negatives justice.



That said, a canon Elph is nice sometimes too.

[Theo]

Beautiful shot, Jason! I imagine the textures are incredible when printed!

In college, a kid on my dorm floor freshman year had a brand-spanking new Mamiya RB-67. I believe he said it had just come out on the market (1969-1970?). Not sure whether it had the 6x7cm or 6x4.5cm back on it. He was a Biology major, and had his room filled with portraits of bugs and plants. Nothing was printed larger than (roughly) an 8x10 size. What detail!

He never would let people play with (or touch) his gear. In retrospect, this was probably a very wise decision!

Theo

[Actual Size]

The RB67 is one of my all time favorites. Although you can't beat contact printing negatives from an 8" x 10" or 11" x 14" view camera.

[Theo]

OK camera geeks, here's a question for you...

I was pouring over the specs of the D40x and the XTi and noticed that the sensor size of the D40x is actually a bit larger than the XTI. In addition, they appear to be different in structure.

D40x: 23.7 x 15.6 mm CCD sensor
XTi: 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor

Can anyone help decipher this difference for me vis-a-vis image quality?

TIA!

Theo

[blalor]

I think you're probably better off comparing photos from both cameras, personally. Theoretically, if the larger sensor has lower pixel density, you may get less noise in the image at higher ISOs because there are fewer photosites per unit-of-measure. However, the image processing logic in the camera may make up for that difference. I'm not sure there's much benefit or detriment due to one sensor technology or another...

[jwardell]

CCDs are a big reason why nikon had been behind canon for so many years. They are much noisier in longer exposure or higher ISOs. They're used in cheaper cameras but SLRs deserve something better. I think there were large noticeable differences between the two...up until this year (so that doesn't necessarily help you)

Also....Nikon's CCDs are actually Sonys. That's enough to send me running.

For me, the last word is always DPReview's side-by-side comparison tests. And that exact test is here:
Nikon D40X Review: 23. Compared to...: Digital Photography Review

....and honestly in the first time in the history of dslrs, the two really are neck and neck. So nitpick your own choice, and know you made a good decision either way.

[Theo]

I love DPReview! Can always depend on the info and comparisons there.

Theo

[Theo]

Warning: Much More Than You'll Ever Want to Read!!

So, we're getting closer to a DSLR purchase. In the last week, I have had the following cameras for my amateur evaluation:

- Nikon D40x
- Nikon D80
- Nikon D200
- Canon 350D (XT)
- Canon 400D (XTi)

The Nikons had their kit lenses attached (D40x 18-55, D80 18-135), the D200 had the 18-200 VR, and the Canons had an 18-55 kit lens, a 24-105 f4 IS L-series, and a 17-55 f2.8 IS Non-L series lenses to swap about. I took a bunch of shots mounting each available lens on each camera. I probably would not have been able to do this comparison without the exceptional help of our photo/film faculty member and his commercial photography connections in Manhattan. The only hitch in the giddy-up for this effort was the inability to secure a 40D to compare with the D200.

The cameras were reset to their default settings except the color space, which I set to Adobe RBG. I shot several SD and CF cards full of RAW images. Frankly, I am glad to get rid of all that stuff since I have been laboring over the same images for a number of days! Time to take some new shots!

Nikon format NEF images were adjusted and converted in PS CS's Camera Raw 2.1 plug-in, and Canon's CR2s were converted to DNG format by Adobe's DNG Converter, then opened in PS. I had to do the DNG conversion because my version of PS does not have a Camera Raw plug-in for the CR2 format.

Selected images were brought into PS and adjusted in 16-bit color depth mode. They were then adjusted for shadows, mid-tones, and highlights using the PS Curves tool and an Adjustment Layer to ferret-out the exact point of greatest shadow and greatest highlight. Mid-tone was set by reading the RGB value of the exact shadow point and the highlight point, halving the difference, and searching for a 3X3 pixel location that reflected the halved value. The final color balance of the mid-tones was then slightly modified by dragging the middle of the curve graphic to add a bit of saturation in that range.

The result: ...the hell with the cameras...I'm learning a lot about Photoshop!

But seriously, the test I performed was so uncontrolled that it was hard to tell the difference among the D40x, the D80 and the 400D. I think I would have had to have all three cameras on tripods with their f-stops adjusted to each lens' sharpest setting, and fire all three at the same time. Even then, the difference in the default settings of the camera's would, I suspect, affect the results. I should note that it seemed that the 350D images seemed to be just a bit inferior to the D40x, D80, 400D...not quite as sharp and a bit muted. The D200 images were on par with the D40x, D80, 400D group, but my eye saw a bit more "pop" in the color of the NEF images. Again, these differences are VERY subjective and camera default settings could have had a significant effect on the RAW image.

The D200 and 40D are out of my price range and, while I was unable to play with a 40D, I found the D200 a bit massive for my hands. I also felt that the additional size and weight might prove to be a bit ponderous after a couple of hours of use. Perhaps I am only justifying my inability to cough-up the clams to purchase either of them!

The D40x, D80, and the 400D were the group that I favored most; the 350D put me off a bit by my image evaluation. The thrifty side of me noted the price cut on the 350D, however. Of these three finalists, I jettisoned the D40x because it does not have the ability to have a battery grip mounted on it. The battery grip is something with which I have just fallen in love; both the D80 and the 400D (and 350D) have ones available.

Of the D80 and the 400D, I must say that the D80 has a brilliant viewfinder! It is noticeably larger and brighter than the 400D. In addition, you can toggle-on a horizontal and vertical alignment grid in the view finder that can help frame shots. A tad more shooting information was shown in the D80 view finder. The D80 also has a small (very small for 56-year old eyes!) LCD screen on the top of the body showing most of the current camera settings. There is a back-light button to illuminate the LCD screen in low-light conditions. The D80 is a bit larger and heavier than the 400D according to the specifications, but I was unable to really *feel* a difference. I must say that the grip area on the D80 feels better to my hands than the same area on the 400D. Camera settings can be adjusted by pressing a combination of buttons on the camera back. Nikon's software menus are very complete, though I had a bit of trouble negotiating them (PEBKAC).

The 400D's viewfinder was not quite a good as the D80 version. It is smaller (noticeably) with a subset of the Nikon info displayed (if I remember correctly...i forgot to make notes about viewfinder info). The 400D lacks the top-mount LCD screen like the Nikon, but instead uses the large LCD on the camera back...much more readable for my eyes! I really didn't miss the top-mount and grew to really like the 400D method of presenting this info (black lettering on a white background). The 400D has a nifty IR emitter/collector that turns off the LCD if the camera is against your face or your body...think "saves batteries"! I also adjusted to and, eventually, preferred using the cross-rocker switch and a tap on the shutter release to adjust the settings I use most frequently between shots: metering mode, white balance, ISO, and AF.

Perhaps it is just my familiarity with Canon's menu software, but I found it to be a bit more intuitive than the D80. Having said that, I suspect that once either camera's menu settings have been adjusted to preferred values, further adjustments would only require camera-back button twiddling rather that a journey into the software.

After about a half-day with the D80 and the 400D, my hands, eyes and arms preferred the layout and overall ergonomics of the 400D. Now if they could just bulk-up the grip area a bit like the D80...

What's missing? Lenses!

I actually felt that the D40x kit lens (18-55) was very nice...much more smooth and sturdy-feeling than its Canon 18-55 counterpart. Ditto with the D80's 18-135, though I did not test a comparable Canon lens. I did find that with all the shooting I did, the EXIF info for most images showed that I spent more time in the 18-50 mm range than at other settings. I guess Canon and Nikon have a handle on that as evidenced by their kit lens choices.

I really fell in love with the quality and capability of the Nikon 18-200 VR lens. For the shots where I wanted to use telephoto, I preferred it to the D80's 18-135. However, for me, it is a bit heavy, especially when mated to the D200. Ian has this combo...have you noticed that his upper body is looking pretty "buff" these days?

The Canon 18-55 kit lens was okay; it certainly didn't seem to have quite the same sturdy and smooth quality of the Nikon version. This was my first experience with a Canon L-series lens, about which I had heard much praise. It was certainly of professional quality...like butter! It wasn't the lightest lens, either! My tests were too uncontrolled to discern an immediate advantage in sharpness, but I understand that this lens is an excellent performer and reasonably priced for an L-series.

I really fell in love with the 17-55 f2.8 IS lens, however. I suspect that it's barrel isn't quite up to L-series specs, but it was very smooth, with quick AF performance, and with images that compared to the L-series in my unscientific tests. Plus, it has image stabilization, is fairly fast at 2.8, and seems to be in my "sweet-spot" for usable ranges. The pricing is also below $1,000 with a Canon rebate available.

So, I feel like this is about as much as I want to analyze this purchase; and perhaps more than you ever really want to know! For my eyes, hands, and projected use, I am looking to purchase the 400D with the 17-55mm f2.8 IS lens, hood, and battery grip.

And Josh -- thanks for the tip about OneCall.com. Now I know how I will be able to afford all this gear!

Theo

[Pamlico]

Who needs dpreview when Theo is on the job...

Nice evaluation. You're right about the 40D in terms of size. It is a chunk in the hands, but I found the XTi a bit too small for my mitts.

Enjoy the new camera.

- dl