Digital cameras: Recommendation for SLR
Recommendation for SLR
by lbuchmann - 10/6/08 3:19 PMI am not a professional photographer. I need a high end camera to take photos in the operating room and of patients faces. Was thinking about the nikon d90 but really have no idea what would be the best set up. Any recommendations would be appreciated. Cost not really an issue but keep it simple.
lb
um
by B123456H - 10/6/08 5:14 PM In reply to: Recommendation for SLR by lbuchmannare you needing super high-resolution pictures?
Take a look at cnet's slr buying guide-
http://reviews.cnet.com/dslr-buying-guide/?tag=leftColumnArea1.0
If you aren't going super macro, the kit lens should suffice-
18-55mm
Recommendations-
sensor based image stabilization
high quality lens
long battery life
take a look at what canon has to offer, along with pentax.
Thanks
by lbuchmann - 10/11/08 10:22 AM In reply to: um by B123456HI pretty much got lost in the rest of the reply's to my post. When I use a little handheld digital camera tend to use the macro setting up close so that would be nice. I would like to be able to hand hold the camera at close range and you'd think the lighting would be good but sometimes the shutter speeds are slow so image stabilization features that would allow that would be nice. I'll check out cannon and pentax as suggested. thanks for the help.
Perhaps the best available today is the Canon 1Ds III which
by Kiddpeat - 10/6/08 6:35 PM In reply to: Recommendation for SLR by lbuchmannhas a VERY high resolution. Almost as good is the Canon 5D II which will be available in the next few months. The 5D is about half the price of the 1Ds, and includes a high definition video capability. Canon has a very large range of lenses, but your uses suggest something that works well at close range. Canon has several 50mm lenses, or the 24-70mm f2.8L if you prefer a zoom capability.
In camera image stabilization is not recommended. If you need stabilization, an optically stabilized lense is the best approach. There is also, of course, the tripod which is always the best way to stabilize a camera.
what?
by B123456H - 10/6/08 6:52 PM In reply to: Perhaps the best available today is the Canon 1Ds III which by Kiddpeatwhy is in-camera image stabilization not recommended? I'm not talking about digital stabilization, an optical stabilizer in the camera body.
Why do you think an optical stabilizer in the lens only is better?
don't think it's not recommended, but
by kalel33 - 10/6/08 7:07 PM In reply to: what? by B123456HIn body image stabilization has two negatives. Most in-body has a three stop advantage, where the better in-lens IS have a 4 stop. That's beneficial for static objects by being able to handhold a shot that's double the length of shutter being open. The in-body have a little bit of movement while your shooting and is disconcerting to some. Both the in-body and in-lens are very beneficial. The in-body has the advantage of making any prime lens stabilized.
I really wouldn't mind either, but other factors would make a larger decision. Just my opinion.
Optical image stabilization in the lense is
by Kiddpeat - 10/6/08 8:39 PM In reply to: what? by B123456Hsuperior to electronic stabilization in the camera. I don't think that is a controversial point. It simply produces better results. That's why I would not recommend in-body stabilization. It looks like both Nikon and Canon agree on this point. Both use optical stabilization in the lense on their DSLR cameras.
Aside from producing superior results, optical stabilization in the lense can be seen through the viewfinder while shooting. This means that the shooter can see when the OIS kicks in, and when the image is stabilized. None of these things can be done by in-body electronic stabilization in a DSLR.
Some people see an advantage in electronic stabilization since each lense does not need to be stabilized, and the lenses are cheaper as a result. That is not a factor here since a large number of lenses are not needed for the photographic needs of the OP. What the OP wants, I think, is the ability to obtain high quality images in perhaps two situations.
don't know about optical stabilizer, but
by kalel33 - 10/7/08 5:07 AM In reply to: Sorry, but I missed one point in your question. by KiddpeatI talked about image stabilization, which the Sony's, Olympus, and Pentax have.
Those are electronic stabilizers.
by Kiddpeat - 10/7/08 5:30 AM In reply to: don't know about optical stabilizer, but by kalel33That is my understanding. They simply don't work as well as an optical stabilizer as I have pointed out.
I'm simply asking what cameras have an in-body optical stabilizer.
Not more physical than electronic
by kalel33 - 10/7/08 2:34 PM In reply to: Those are electronic stabilizers. by KiddpeatThey are sensor shift and stabilizes the sensor instead of the lens. If your wanting to know which ones do that then:
Any of the Sony DSLRs
Olympus E-520
Pentax K-m and K10D
Samsung GX-20
Some more stated here
http://asia.cnet.com/digitalliving/ask/0,3800004928,62042676,00.htm
And an article from Bob Atkins discussing the differences and advantages/disadvantages. I agree that the in-lens is better, but how many people need a 4 stop IS compared to a 3 stop IS?
Lots of mis-information
by HTHMAN - 10/7/08 6:15 PM In reply to: Those are electronic stabilizers. by KiddpeatLens vs in body stabilization depends on what you want to do.
First of all, in-body in the DSLRs is a sensor shifting technology, not electronic stabilization. It works very well on normal to medium telephoto lenses. As the lenses get longer, you need more stabilization and there is a finite amount of shift that you can build into the body. So, with a 200-250mm lens, both systems may be about equal, but as you go to longer lenses, the in-lens stabilization will become more superior.
With in-body stabilization, ALL lenses will be stabilized, even the old prime lenses. You can not even buy a stabilized lens in many focal lengths, let alone primes. In shorter lenses, it is less important, but given the hand held rule of 1/focal-length for your hand held speed, you could hand hold a 50mm prime at about 1/60 sec. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to hold that low light shot at 1/30 or 1/15 or even 1/8th second. Well, you can do that with in body stabilization if you get a 3-stop improvement. That IMO is a BIG advantage over Canon and Nikon. Even if you are using a 300mm lens, that 1/300 speed could easily go to 1/125 or maybe even 1/60. I shoot my 300mm lens hand hels all the time on my Sony Alpha body and the images are very sharp, even at slow shutter speeds.
So, if you are only going to own one or two lenses, in-lens stabilization may show slightly better results especially in the longer ranges. If you plan to expand your system and want a larger variety of stabilized lenses, in-body makes more sense, especially when you look to the used lens market. There is no clear cut winner just like there is no perfect camera. You buy what works best for you.
You didn't address the issues raised.
by Kiddpeat - 10/7/08 8:30 PM In reply to: Lots of mis-information by HTHMANYes, the sensor is physically shifted. How is it shifted? With electronics. It is not optical stabilization.
If you read my posts, I pointed out that the usual argument is based on cost. In-body stabilization is cheaper, but it is not better. Again, that should not be a controversial point. I pointed out at least three reasons why optical is better.
I am quite comfortable with Canon and Nikon. They are camera companies, and they know how to make their products. From what I have seen, their cameras provide the best support to the photographer.
Then both are electrical
by kalel33 - 10/8/08 4:51 AM In reply to: You didn't address the issues raised. by KiddpeatBoth in-body and in-lens need electricity to do the job. I've never heard my IS lens stabilizing while it wasn't hooked to the camera. In lens is just as cheap as in body. Look at the 18-55IS, it costs $180. How much of budget to make the lens was used on IS.
Advantages of Image Stabilized lenses
There is a body of opinion (mostly from Canon and Nikon...) which states that optically stabilized lenses are capable of better stabilization than moving sensor body based systems. The claim is that since each stabilization hardware is dedicated to a single lens, the performance parameters can be tuned to that particular lens. In addition, a very small displacement of an optical element can result in a large image shift, so large amplitude shifts can more easily be corrected. This may be more of an issue with long telephoto lenses than wideangle lenses, since the image shift for a given amount of camera movement is proportional to the focal length of the lens in use.
A second, and undeniable, advantage of image stabilized lenses is that not only do they stabilize the image on the sensor, they also stabilize the image in the viewfinder too. This leads to a better user experience and allows the photographer to chose a moment to release the shutter when image movement appears to be at a minimum.
Advantages of senor shift body based image stabilization
The primary advantage of body based stabilization is that it's effective with every lens mounted on the camera. It doesn't matter if it's the latest autofocus super-zoom, or a 30 year old manual focus lens, in each case the image is stabilized. To make matters even better (or worse depending on your point of view), you can stabilize wide angle and normal primes. As far as I know there are no image stabilized Canon or Nikon wide angle prime lenses at all, so it really doesn't matter if lens based IS would be better, since there are no such lenses!
I have been with Canon, and thus am with in lens IS. I don't think it would make a difference to me if I had a 4 stop in-lens IS or a 3 stop in-body IS. For the average photographer, it wouldn't make any difference. Now, I wouldn't buy a Sony because of the noise in high ISOs.
"Canon and Nikon. They are camera companies"
by HTHMAN - 10/8/08 11:44 AM In reply to: You didn't address the issues raised. by KiddpeatWho also happen to make printers, copiers, binoculars, rangefinders etc....
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
