Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: RichA on 21 Mar 2010 23:04 Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs. The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was film.
From: stephe_k on 22 Mar 2010 02:29 RichA wrote: > Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some > shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end > model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs. > The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't > expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent > film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless > they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was > film. Not shocking since the marketing people "design" most things today. If the D3000 took the same IQ shots as a more expensive model, why would anyone buy the more expensive version of "the same thing"? In film bodies the higher end models have a better viewfinder, better metering etc too. I agree that with film cameras, they had a harder time dumbing down cheaper models IQ when used with the same optics, yet another reason the manufactures struck gold with digital cameras. Stephanie
From: NameHere on 22 Mar 2010 04:03 On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:29:56 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >RichA wrote: >> Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some >> shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end >> model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs. >> The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't >> expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent >> film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless >> they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was >> film. > > >Not shocking since the marketing people "design" most things today. If >the D3000 took the same IQ shots as a more expensive model, why would >anyone buy the more expensive version of "the same thing"? In film >bodies the higher end models have a better viewfinder, better metering >etc too. I agree that with film cameras, they had a harder time dumbing >down cheaper models IQ when used with the same optics, yet another >reason the manufactures struck gold with digital cameras. > > >Stephanie A perfect example being all the CHDK capable P&S cameras. That hacker's software unlocked all the built-in features that were locked out just in an effort for the pencil-pushing geeks to keep their jobs. Newer models without the earlier super-fine JPG modes are now found to have them and were re-enabled in those models where it was removed. All models with RAW data access that had been removed is now re-enabled, including all those that never even had that option. Models with no manual controls over aperture and shutter speed now all have them again. Models with the exposure and focus bracketing features removed were all put back in. All models had no video compression choices so as not to compete with their video camera division, they now all have compression settings surpassing the image quality of their video cameras. Models with crippled intervalometer options on their menus now have intervalometer options that surpass anything that Canon originally had on their menus. All models now have shutter speeds from 64s or 2,147s to 1/20,000 or 1/40,000 of a second. All models that only had flash-sync up to 1/500 second, so as not to compete with their DSLR market too much, now have perfect flash-sync up to the highest shutter speeds, including 1/40,000 second. All these cameras had these features built-in, it just took some creative programmers finding ways to unlock what the pencil-pushing-geeks decided to lock-out in their attempts to design their cameras for profits, not for photographers. Put a feature in one year, remove it the next or forever (because it cut into their DSLR market too much), just to see how many people will beg to have it put back in so they have to buy a camera 2 or 3 years later to get that feature back, or be forced to buy a DSLR so they have to buy even more expensive glass just to get that feature Digital cameras, DSLR or P&S, are the con-man's best wet-dream.
From: Neil Harrington on 22 Mar 2010 13:04 "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:eeac76d5-8335-4579-a6ac-2dfc7c264ccd(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > Pentax's KX suffers from strong mirror slap that blurs images at some > shutter speeds. I.S. cannot compensate for it. The K7 (higher-end > model) has dampening. Nikon's D3000 is seriously noisy at high ISOs. > The D5000 (model above) is much better. For $699 or so, you can't > expect miracles, but I remember that $699 would buy a pretty decent > film body, that didn't have drawbacks and could shoot images (unless > they needed a 5fps motor drive) on-par with pro bodies since film was > film. But $699 then was more money than $699 is now, of course. I recently added a D3000 to my Nikon collection and really like the little guy a lot. I haven't done any high-ISO shooting with it and don't have a D5000 anyway so I can't make that comparison. But its image quality is great in the shooting I've done with it so far. I like these small-body Nikons a lot, and this is my third -- I have the D40 and D60 also. While they don't have all the features of my larger Nikons there are many times when I don't need those capabilities and really appreciate their compactness and light weight. Thank heaven for polycarbonate, Rich! ;-)
From: stephe_k on 22 Mar 2010 19:07
NameHere wrote: > > Digital cameras, DSLR or P&S, are the con-man's best wet-dream. > Yep! While some companies have suffered from the loss of film sales, these others have more than made up for it with their marketing. Stephanie |