PDA

View Full Version : Any Nikon D90 users here?



JeffrySG
05-20-2009, 09:01 PM
I was looking at possibly getting a D90 (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25446/D90.html) or the new D5000 (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25452/D5000.html). I'm not intending on using it as a video camera all the time but I was really curious to see what the quality is on the 720p video that it takes. Also, how is the audio quality on the videos? It's mono only, right?

Any chance someone can post a full res video taken on a D90 or D5000 for me to look at? I'm trying to avoid purchasing a video camera if I can. Are there limits to how long the videos can be? Any pitfalls to using these cameras for video?

Thanks for any info!

biliousfrog
05-21-2009, 02:22 AM
I don't have the D90, I bought the Canon T1i/500d instead because the compression used on the Nikons is terrible. The Canon's compression is standard H.264 quicktime which is very good but, unless you're mostly working with slow pans or locked off shots, you'll still encounter a lot of 'jello' because of how the video is captured...Nikon's 24fps rate makes the wobble even worse.

I know that it's not as easy to just switch brands but if you're after an all-in-one I can highly recommend the 500d/T1i. The build quality is quite plasticy (although solid) but the tech spec and video quality is much higher than the D90/D5000. Otherwise I'd stick with an SLR and save for a video cam...although the footage with 'proper' lenses is great.

JeffrySG
05-21-2009, 06:49 AM
I don't have the D90, I bought the Canon T1i/500d instead because the compression used on the Nikons is terrible. The Canon's compression is standard H.264 quicktime which is very good but, unless you're mostly working with slow pans or locked off shots, you'll still encounter a lot of 'jello' because of how the video is captured...Nikon's 24fps rate makes the wobble even worse.

I know that it's not as easy to just switch brands but if you're after an all-in-one I can highly recommend the 500d/T1i. The build quality is quite plasticy (although solid) but the tech spec and video quality is much higher than the D90/D5000. Otherwise I'd stick with an SLR and save for a video cam...although the footage with 'proper' lenses is great.

Thanks for the info! I have less experience with the Canons but I would still be open to going that way too. I'd really love to see some actual footage from both cameras. I've seen some scaled down videos but you can't really judge by viewing those.

Do you happen to know of any really good review sites that post actual video and photo samples?

art
05-21-2009, 07:20 AM
There are a few sample videos on dpreview's site:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond90/page18.asp

I've been thinking about D90 for a while but its video capability is of the least interest to me. Due to the video wobbling I would not consider it as a video camera replacement. I wonder what other people think of its photographic qualities.

biliousfrog
05-21-2009, 10:39 AM
Here's some Canon footage: http://www.dpnotes.com/canon-t1i-500d-movie-and-video-clip-samples/

Something to note is that the 500d is able to shoot at 1080p @20fps, personally I haven't used that setting yet but some of the sample footage doesn't look too bad (see the bottom of the page).

akademus
05-21-2009, 12:04 PM
Canon side too. 450D...

don_culbertson
05-21-2009, 08:29 PM
This guy is somewhat controversial, but I like his reviews :)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm

Don

JeffrySG
05-21-2009, 10:16 PM
Thanks for all of the links guys! I'll check out the videos tomorrow. :)

kojean
05-22-2009, 06:55 AM
Vimeo is a good place to search. There's another generation of compression, but you can still get the general idea of what's possible and the flaws.

http://www.vimeo.com/channels/d90

http://www.vimeo.com/videos/search:t1i

realgray
05-22-2009, 02:10 PM
Check out the panasonic GH1

http://prolost.com/blog/2009/5/9/would-you-like-a-little-camera-with-your-mount.html

http://prolost.com/blog/2009/4/30/philip-blooms-gh1-first-impressions.html

JeffrySG
05-22-2009, 10:58 PM
This guy is somewhat controversial, but I like his reviews :)

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d5000.htm

Don
Why the controversy? I liked his reviews too. Thx. :)

JeffrySG
05-22-2009, 11:00 PM
The more I read the more I feel like I might hold off and just get an inexpensive camcorder that shoots at least 720p. I feel like in the next year or two the dslr cameras will have much better video options and less jellovision too.

biliousfrog
05-23-2009, 08:38 AM
The more I read the more I feel like I might hold off and just get an inexpensive camcorder that shoots at least 720p. I feel like in the next year or two the dslr cameras will have much better video options and less jellovision too.

The 'jello' effect is because of the way that the footage is captured (rolling shutter), unfortunately a lot of HD camcorders also suffer from it although it is only noticeable on very fast pans...there isn't going to be a solution to the problem any time in the near future.

don_culbertson
05-23-2009, 01:07 PM
Why the controversy? I liked his reviews too. Thx. :)

I don't recall exactly which websites, but some had panned his advice as being oversimplified or something.

In any event, I've bought two cameras and an extra lens based on his opinions and couldn't be happier :thumbsup:

Don

realgray
05-23-2009, 02:04 PM
The foundry (Nuke) is working on a plugin to fix the jello effect. Pretty sweet vid.

http://media.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-ep055.mov

JeffrySG
05-24-2009, 09:09 AM
The foundry (Nuke) is working on a plugin to fix the jello effect. Pretty sweet vid.

http://media.fxguide.com/fxguidetv/fxguidetv-ep055.mov


I saw that episode too. Looked pretty cool. I love those podcasts.

JeffrySG
06-07-2009, 09:14 PM
So does anybody here have the Canon EOS 500D (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos500d/)? How do you like the camera overall and the video?

biliousfrog
06-08-2009, 02:51 AM
So does anybody here have the Canon EOS 500D (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos500d/)? How do you like the camera overall and the video?

Yes I do, see previous comments :D

The camera's nice although feels quite cheap in comparison to the XXD models because of the slightly smaller size and lighter, plastic body...although a battery grip helps and the lighter body makes carrying it easier. It takes great pictures, the increased ISO has made the lower settings more usable, and the auto focus is very fast even in low light. The LCD is very good, I only use it for video and looking over stored images but it is great.

The video is pretty good but there are two sides to it.

The downsides are - no image stabilization (you'll benefit from an IS lens, especially for telephoto shots and hand-held), the focusing in Live-View is slow and awkward (I just focus manually which is fine), the rolling shutter causes jello with extreme moves, it isn't really full 1080p because it only shoots at 20fps at that resolution.

The positives are - the quality of video with the SLR lenses is brilliant (you'd need to spend at least double to achieve similar results with an HD video camera and lenses), the movies are saved as Quicktime H264 which has excellent compression and can be viewed/edited in most packages, the 1080p mode is still quite usable for certain shots and shouldn't be dismissed, the kit lenses are pretty good and come with image stabilization, you can shoot an hour of footage in one hit, the battery life is excellent - approximately 150 photos and 30mins of video on the first charge along with tweaking settings and playing.

If I get a chance I'll upload some video although there's quite a lot on YouTube and I think that I posted some other links earlier.

JeffrySG
06-08-2009, 09:05 PM
^thanks again for the info!

After going back and forth I think I'm leaning towards a DSLR again now. I need one for work anyway so the video will be a bonus. Not really planning on shooting hours and hours of footage. I'd probably only shoot 720p at max anyway.

Do you have the standard 18-55mm lens that comes with it? Do you happen to have any wider lenses also? I was thinking of something in the 11-24 range... I like shooting really wide.

biliousfrog
06-09-2009, 03:12 AM
I had the previous 18-55mm kit lens with my 300d and it's not a bad lens at all, the current IS version is a little sturdier and would steady the video shots nicely as well as allow an extra 3 stops of exposure. The focus ring was quite fiddly on the old version (not sure with the newer model) and the build quality felt a bit cheap but I seem to remember the newer model felt much bulkier.

I've currently got two lenses, a Sigma 28-300mm DG Macro and Canon f1.8 50mm MK2. The Sigma is excellent as a general purpose walkabout lens as it covers such a wide range and the build quality is very good. The Canon lens is a bit of a classic, it's the cheapest lens they produce, it's light, fixed length, made from plastic but is optically very close to their 'L' series lenses...it really is extremely good for the price and great for shallow DOF photos and videos.

pumeco
06-09-2009, 05:20 AM
Hey Jeff, can't comment on the D90 but I will say I envy you if you get it - although only for DOF preview :thumbsup:

I recently bought a Nikon SLR after many many many days/weeks/months researching. I was also very lucky to have the advice of a friend who is an expert in CCD/CMOS technology who has published books on the subject.

Before I tell you which Nikon SLR this led me to purchase, I'll explain why!

For a start, don't be mislead into those high megapixel counts. I can guarantee you that in the D90 budget you are not going to do yourself any favours by going for such a high pixel count. The problem is that most consumers think that the more megapixels - the better.

This is absolute nonsense, in fact, it more than often has the reverse result.

What you need to look for in a digital camera is the pixel density, not the pixel count - and you need to understand that the lower the pixel density the better! Pixel density is something the manufacturers often fail to tell you when promoting their products - and it's something that is getting worse and worse.

If you look at those big 5000 cameras, you'll notice they all have quite low density ratings. That's because they have bigger sensors and this means the density is less as a result.

Say there were two equally sized sensors, one contains 6 magapixels, and one contains 12 megapixels. The 6 megapixel image looks nicer and smoother with less noise because although the megapixel count is smaller - it also means the all important density is smaller.

Go onto flickr.com and do the following;

1. Search for some 12-14 megapixel camera images.
2. Search for some Nikon D40 images (6 megapixel on a large sensor).
(a Nikon D40 has an even lesser density than most 5000 cameras even though it cost only 250).

Judge for yourself ;)

After many exhaustive research there are only three cameras worth having under 1000

Nikon D40
Sigma SD1
FujiFilm S5 Pro

Basically, the bigger the sensor combined with less pixels the better the image will be. Don't be sucked into the high-megapixel count crap because if you do, you'll find the wiser Nikon D40 users will whip your arse on Flickr - no problem.

Check out the popularity ratings of these models on Flickr and it becomes even more obvious. I feel like I robbed someone the images from this D40 are so incredibly smooth - I honestly can't keep the smile off my face!

That said, I do miss DOF preview and it doesn't have video - but the quality more than makes up for it and it's the image that counts on a camera. I don't envy any camera through owning it because the images it produces are totally professional and it has one of the lowest density ratings of any SLR available.

That's quite an achievement considering it's price - do your research mate!

PS: Nikon D40 density = 1.6 (that's super-low, silky-smooth)!!!

biliousfrog
06-09-2009, 06:34 AM
Hey Jeff, can't comment on the D90 but I will say I envy you if you get it - although only for DOF preview :thumbsup:

I recently bought a Nikon SLR after many many many days/weeks/months researching. I was also very lucky to have the advice of a friend who is an expert in CCD/CMOS technology who has published books on the subject.

Before I tell you which Nikon SLR this led me to purchase, I'll explain why!

For a start, don't be mislead into those high megapixel counts. I can guarantee you that in the D90 budget you are not going to do yourself any favours by going for such a high pixel count. The problem is that most consumers think that the more megapixels - the better.

This is absolute nonsense, in fact, it more than often has the reverse result.

What you need to look for in a digital camera is the pixel density, not the pixel count - and you need to understand that the lower the pixel density the better! Pixel density is something the manufacturers often fail to tell you when promoting their products - and it's something that is getting worse and worse.

If you look at those big 5000 cameras, you'll notice they all have quite low density ratings. That's because they have bigger sensors and this means the density is less as a result.

Say there were two equally sized sensors, one contains 6 magapixels, and one contains 12 megapixels. The 6 megapixel image looks nicer and smoother with less noise because although the megapixel count is smaller - it also means the all important density is smaller.

Go onto flickr.com and do the following;

1. Search for some 12-14 megapixel camera images.
2. Search for some Nikon D40 images (6 megapixel on a large sensor).
(a Nikon D40 has an even lesser density than most 5000 cameras even though it cost only 250).

Judge for yourself ;)

After many exhaustive research there are only three cameras worth having under 1000

Nikon D40
Sigma SD1
FujiFilm S5 Pro

Basically, the bigger the sensor combined with less pixels the better the image will be. Don't be sucked into the high-megapixel count crap because if you do, you'll find the wiser Nikon D40 users will whip your arse on Flickr - no problem.

Check out the popularity ratings of these models on Flickr and it becomes even more obvious. I feel like I robbed someone the images from this D40 are so incredibly smooth - I honestly can't keep the smile off my face!

That said, I do miss DOF preview and it doesn't have video - but the quality more than makes up for it and it's the image that counts on a camera. I don't envy any camera through owning it because the images it produces are totally professional and it has one of the lowest density ratings of any SLR available.

That's quite an achievement considering it's price - do your research mate!

PS: Nikon D40 density = 1.6 (that's super-low, silky-smooth)!!!

That information is true, to a point...Increased pixel count increases noise but you can go much higher than 6mp before it becomes a problem and I certainly wouldn't say that the camera's you've mentioned are better than any other current DSLR's with higher pixel count...it's primarily about the lens and the person behind the camera as can be seen here (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://pixinfo.com/img/Nikon/D40/a/07_23mm_oa.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pbase.com/dlcmh/nikon_d40_links%26gcmd%3Dadd_comment&usg=__3pPPaoDTVYAK3lACIR3gFItaJHU=&h=2000&w=3008&sz=2596&hl=en&start=4&um=1&tbnid=VGERGCApBalh-M:&tbnh=100&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnikon%2Bd40%2Bphotos%26hl%3Den%26safe %3Doff%26um%3D1)

As an example, the 500D I'm using can shoot in low light with very little noise at 15mp. Any noise that does appear via the higher ISO or increased pixel density would dissapear when reduced to 6mp...an option that you don't have when already shooting at maximum resolution on a 6mp camera. It's one of those trade-offs that I'd prefer, shooting at higher resolutions with the option of reducing the images in post should I need to.

The biggest problem with the higher resolution sensors is that they show more defects in the actual lenses. A friend with a 5d MK2 can only shoot at full 21mp with his 'L' series lenses, his other lenses only really work up to 10mp. I have also noticed this problem although it wasn't until I borrowed one of his lenses that it became apparent how much distortion is in my Sigma lens at full zoom...most people wouldn't know unless they had a side by side comparison and I can live with it for what I use it for.

art
06-09-2009, 07:31 AM
So does anybody here have the Canon EOS 500D (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos500d/)? How do you like the camera overall and the video?

They just posted a full review of 500d at dpreview.com:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos500d/

art
06-09-2009, 07:39 AM
PS: Nikon D40 density = 1.6 (that's super-low, silky-smooth)!!!

I never noticed that before, but that's quite low indeed.

pumeco
06-09-2009, 07:44 AM
No prob's, I'm no expert - really I'm just passing on findings I got from someone who is.

15 Megapixel cameras are fine as long as the sensor is accordingly larger, but when that happens you're talking serious money for the camera - certainly not D90 prices. My point really is for him to research a bit more before he makes a decision to buy a D90.

If video is not important then a D40 is by far the best bet as it's one of the very few SLR's with such a PRO-density rating unless you break well above the 0000's bracket. Based in the UK I bought my D40 (brand new) complete with lens for 246. When you do the math, I could deduct the price of the lens and my body alone would have cost me about 150.

That is a serious bargain if ever there was one; to get a PRO-grade density SLR body (brand new) for 150 is totally nut's! There is nothing else to touch the D40 in this respect, and when they discontinue it, it'll be the last of it's breed. Because of the increased pixel-counts being released, we'll likely never see it's like again.

I'm certainly holding on to mine very tightly fisted indeed ;)

For the price of a D90 he could get a D40 for photography and a dedicated HD camcorder thrown in and still have change! All that, and he'd have the far better sensor of the D40! Unfortunately, scaling down larger megapixel images doesn't always work out as you might expect. There's a lot of complex technicalities to consider in the process, I tried it myself - the results were not as good as an original 6MP from a D40.

There's only one thing I'm wanting now that I have it, and that's the Nikon AF 1.8 D (prime lens) - and again even that's a bargain of a lens!

I'll have a super lens on a super camera for just about peanuts! :D
After research, such a combination is a no brainer unless there are very specific feature requirements.


@art
Yup, it's totally beautiful, the D40 is photographys best kept (yet incredibly popular) secret :thumbsup:

bobakabob
06-09-2009, 11:38 AM
As a former D50 user and now D80 fanboy I'd thoroughly recommend the Nikon D90 for all round photography. The kit lens is good too. Image quality and handling are superb. Of course it's all subjective but compare a D80 or D90 with the equivalent Canon and you'll notice build quality is worryingly plasticky in the Canon. Here's a link to my Flickr site where you can get a good idea. All these pics are on standard jpeg settings:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyrem/

You'll see some portraits (http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyrem/page6/)taken with a D80 with 50mm lens set to ISO 1600 and I'm sure you'd agree the noise levels are acceptably low. For this kind of photography if you have the money, however, it's worth upgrading to the D300 and D3 which is even better in minimum light.

At the other end of the scale check out the quality of the D40 which despite it's miniscule price is my is also a top camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/domanges/sets/72157605118752139/

JeffrySG
06-09-2009, 12:18 PM
They just posted a full review of 500d at dpreview.com:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos500d/

Thanks Art. I've been reading the March review, but I'll have to go in and read this one now too. :)

art
06-09-2009, 01:23 PM
... I'd thoroughly recommend the Nikon D90
I still have not made my move into DSLR, but that's one of the cameras I've been thinking about. It's such a difficult decision: brand, budget, features...
Nice photo gallery. What did you teach in Bydgoszcz?

JeffrySG
06-09-2009, 01:37 PM
I can understand the pixel density having some meaning but it is by far not the only thing to consider. I do appreciate all the feedback from everyone regardless, just fyi! So thanks! :)

Nikon D40
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40/Samples/Compared/Studio/d40_iso0200.JPG

Canon 500D
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS500D/samples/comparedto/studio/500D_NR-Std_ISO100.JPG

Nikon D90
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD90/Samples/Comparedto/Studio/NikonD90_ISO200_ACR.JPG

Look at the small text on the Abernero bottle and see how they each resolve the text. There is a huge difference between the D90 and D40. I know there are other things to consider but pixel resolution does matter if the lenses and the sensor can resolve that information correctly and clearly.

I'm leaning towards the 500D now. Video is playing an important role in my decision too just fyi.

pumeco
06-09-2009, 02:34 PM
I just reduced the D90 image to that of the D40 image and there is no better resolution (only in certain areas being down to the lens, not the sensor), in fact, as was expected the noise causes the D90 downsampled image to be slightly softer. This is exactly what I kept getting when I was comparing them initially.

One other thing to consider is that these tests will use different lenses.

But no, I think you're wise in considering a D90 if video is important to you. If I were needing video I would also have gone for the D90 - no messing. I can't say anything regarding the Canon because I started to dismiss them very early on because they just didn't feel as nicely put together as the Nikon gear. I noticed that some of those Canons felt a bit toy-like with awful buttons, so whatever you buy, don't buy mail order until you've held one in your hand if possible.

nlightuk
06-09-2009, 02:42 PM
I'm going to have to say I would support your decision to get a D90 over the Canon, and that's not because I own a Nikon (not a fanboy). I have a friend who recently wanted to get a DSLR with video capability and did loads of research into which model she would invest in, including going to a number of shops a number of times and playing with the models in question.

After much debate, and the advice of numerous friends who already owned a variety of DSLRs, she chose the D90 - the reason? It just "felt better" when she was using it than any of the others.

Ultimately, your choice will be based on which one you find easiest and most comfortable to operate, and gives you the features you seek in the budget you have - I suggest doing as my friend did and checking them out for real. You'll quickly find one that "feels right".

I agree that image quality is any of the sub-$1000 DSLRs is mostly going to be controlled by the lens and the photographer. All of the models in question offer pretty good bang-for-buck.

If I didn't already own a D300, I'd buy a D90 - in fact I am tempted to "downgrade" simply to get the video mode :D

JeffrySG
06-09-2009, 07:24 PM
I just reduced the D90 image to that of the D40 image and there is no better resolution (only in certain areas being down to the lens, not the sensor), in fact, as was expected the noise causes the D90 downsampled image to be slightly softer. This is exactly what I kept getting when I was comparing them initially.

One other thing to consider is that these tests will use different lenses.

But no, I think you're wise in considering a D90 if video is important to you. If I were needing video I would also have gone for the D90 - no messing. I can't say anything regarding the Canon because I started to dismiss them very early on because they just didn't feel as nicely put together as the Nikon gear. I noticed that some of those Canons felt a bit toy-like with awful buttons, so whatever you buy, don't buy mail order until you've held one in your hand if possible.

Thanks, I will definitely try to hold them before buying. You also might want to try scaling the images up to the largest of them rather than scaling them down to the smallest. This will give you a better comparison to see the difference.



Ultimately, your choice will be based on which one you find easiest and most comfortable to operate, and gives you the features you seek in the budget you have - I suggest doing as my friend did and checking them out for real. You'll quickly find one that "feels right".

Yeah, I really need to test them both myself. I wish I still lived close to B&H Photo... I really miss that place now!

pumeco
06-09-2009, 08:21 PM
Thanks, I will definitely try to hold them before buying. You also might want to try scaling the images up to the largest of them rather than scaling them down to the smallest. This will give you a better comparison to see the difference.

No it won't, that's my point, but no matter :)

All that will do is tell me that the 12 megapixel captures more detail, not that it's smoother. It's technically impossible for that 12 megapixel sensor to offer a smoother image than the 6 megapixel one because the area of the 12 megapixel sensor is not proportionally larger than the 6 megapixel sensor. While the 12 megapixel image looks fine on the screen, it's a different story when it's printed. In print the 12 megapixel image will start to show it's noise a lot more than the 6 megapixel image.

Not much I'll admit, but there will be a difference. This is why all the expensive cameras have very low density ratings; more suitable sensors better suited to big enlargements.

The Sigma SD14 for example has the finest sensor technology of any SLR available in my opinion, and when that sensor is broken into RGB it is even lower still (only 4.x megapixel), yet it's enlargments are mind blowing thanks to the technology it uses - not to the amount of megapixels.

If Sigma ever use the same technology to make an even larger sensor to accomodate more pixels, I think they'll really have the competition worried.

Food for thought: http://www.sigma-sd14.com/feature/index.html

JeffrySG
06-09-2009, 08:31 PM
I understand that scaling them up will not necessarily show how 'smooth' the sensors are but it will give you an idea of how much detail they will capture. Knocking both the images down the lowest common denominator is not really the end all test either. They both show something that matters. Only viewing one method doesn't give you the whole story. In the end, I trust my eyes the most as that's what will be viewing the final prints or the on-screen images. :)

JonW
06-09-2009, 08:37 PM
Whichever camera you get, you really need to buy the top end glass (L glass etc), not the consumer lens. All the 12+ mp cameras are clearly showing up the faults of the lenses & to be blunt the user as well, get a good tripod & if you are doing video get a Fluid Head. I have found on the 5D2 even with the mirror locked up there is micro camera shake which I never had before, if one isn’t careful.

Also, even expensive zooms are looking very ordinary, if you can try to stick with prime lenses. I use a couple of my old Mamiya lenses on the Canon, they would have become door stops otherwise. Some of them are just as good as Canons best prime lenses.

Every time you go up a format, 35mm crop - 35mm - 645(Phaseone etc). The depth of field is about half, so you will need to use a much higher f-stop. This can be good or bad depending on the picture you are after, just be aware of it.

On the 5D2, for a given f-stop, things in the scene can look more out of focus because of the high pixel density. On the much lower mp cameras that grey area of in or out of focus was not so obvious.

I am finding that I’m using f11 - f16 more often, but then there is additional diffraction issues. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html for the technical minded!

JeffrySG
06-09-2009, 08:42 PM
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html for the technical minded!

You can say that again! lol

Cheers on that info. :)

Hey, do you know of any sites that show the difference between some of the lenses - consumer vs. L glass, etc? Maybe that shows the same shot with the different quality lenses? I know I would be looking to get a very wide lens as well and it would be really great to see the difference you are talking about.

JonW
06-09-2009, 10:25 PM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ there are enough reviews here to give a good idea of each lens, I like these reviews as they are from the end user.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ there are some pictures here & chart test lens comparison here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=404

http://luminous-landscape.com/ for more overall reviews rather than technical.

Last but not least http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/Canon_1ds_pinhole.html I made one of these for my niece & she was blown away!


Raw v Jpg

Shoot RAW to fix chromatic aberations, its worth the effort. You also get more exposure latitued which can be very handy in high contrast scenes. Expose to the right but try not to clip the highlights. The lastest cameras are now much better in the shadows. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

biliousfrog
06-10-2009, 02:49 AM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ there are enough reviews here to give a good idea of each lens, I like these reviews as they are from the end user.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/ there are some pictures here & chart test lens comparison here http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&Lens=404

http://luminous-landscape.com/ for more overall reviews rather than technical.

Last but not least http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/Canon_1ds_pinhole.html I made one of these for my niece & she was blown away!


Raw v Jpg

Shoot RAW to fix chromatic aberations, its worth the effort. You also get more exposure latitued which can be very handy in high contrast scenes. Expose to the right but try not to clip the highlights. The lastest cameras are now much better in the shadows. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

They are all great links, Miranda's site is an excellent resource.

My 2c regarding the D90 Vs 500D, the Nikon build quality feels slightly more sturdy but, for video, it isn't even in the same league...and that's why I went for the 500D among other things. As I mentioned in a previous post, I also use the 50mm MK2 lens which is the cheapest, most flimsy, disposable lens ever produced but the optical quality is excellent...and that's what's most important when taking photographs/video for most people.

Honestly, check the specs of Nikon's video capture technology and read the comparison reviews if you can't test them yourself. I'd certainly recommend trying them out in a store though because all cameras feel different. My Dad bought a D2XS the other week and for a 2.5k camera I thought that it had the ergonomics of a brick...but it's perfect for what he needs.

pumeco
06-10-2009, 03:40 AM
I understand that scaling them up will not necessarily show how 'smooth' the sensors are but it will give you an idea of how much detail they will capture. Knocking both the images down the lowest common denominator is not really the end all test either. They both show something that matters. Only viewing one method doesn't give you the whole story. In the end, I trust my eyes the most as that's what will be viewing the final prints or the on-screen images. :)

Ok, well I tried - but I think you already knew what you wanted :)

As you're not getting the D40 (no video anyway) there's no point me adding anything else. There's only so much that can be explained without hard proof and that's something I can't give you. All I will say is that simply scaling an image up or down is not the way to understand it.

I'd love to have a 14 megapixel camera but never will because of the reasons I mentioned. There's only one 14 megapixel SLR that truly gives pro-grade output and that is the Sigma SD14 I gave in the link, but it was out of my price range so I had to go for the D40.

@OthersConsideringSLR
Do yourselves a favour and read ALL sections of the Sigma site (especially regarding the sensor and colour accuracy), hopefully it will spare you the mistake of high-density sensors :)

>>> http://www.sigma-sd14.com/feature/index.html

JeffrySG
06-10-2009, 07:52 AM
Thanks again for all the great links and feedback everyone. Cheers!

The http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/ site is really great.

art
06-10-2009, 08:17 AM
There's only one 14 megapixel SLR that truly gives pro-grade output and that is the Sigma SD14 I gave in the link, but it was out of my price range so I had to go for the D40.

Isn't it a 4.6 megapixel camera, looking at output dimensions? Their sensor design makes sense btw.

JeffrySG
06-10-2009, 08:51 AM
http://www.sigma-sd14.com/feature/index.html
This site won't load on my Mac... in FireFox or Safari.... weird... I have the latest version of Flash as well... oh well.

JeffrySG
06-10-2009, 08:52 AM
Isn't it a 4.6 megapixel camera, looking at output dimensions? Their sensor design makes sense btw.

No I think it's 4.6 million pixels. 2640x1760

pumeco
06-10-2009, 09:02 AM
Isn't it a 4.6 megapixel camera, looking at output dimensions? Their sensor design makes sense btw.

Yup, sure is, the sensor is 14 megapixel in total but it is unique in that it's broken into three layers of RGB of 4.6 megapixels each. That's what the FoveonX3 sensor does. Unlike normal sensors, it builds the image from three colours per pixel instead of just one (detail and colour accuracy is mind blowing).

I can't wait until they pump that sensor up from 4.8 to, say, 8 or 10 megapixel per layer. That would be perfection for that technology type and sensor size. It'll come eventually, and when it does I'll be all over it like a rash :thumbsup:

Check this out : http://www.sigma-sd14.com/sample-photo/portrait/img/sd14-po-005.jpg

There is not a four megapixel camera on earth that can come anywhere near to that quality. So can you imagine what the quality will be like if they make the sensor even larger and bang it up to 8 or 10 magapixels?

In short, it'll be major drool time - because remember, that is just a 4.6 megapixel resolution image - so imagine the difference! Although I'm over the moon with my D40, I still have this nagging feeling that I should have gone for that Sigma even at 4.6 megapixel.

Looks like I'll wait for the Sigma SD16 whenever that may be :)

pumeco
06-10-2009, 09:11 AM
This site won't load on my Mac... in FireFox or Safari.... weird... I have the latest version of Flash as well... oh well.

Sorry to hear that, Jeff, it's a cool site as well. Maybe the link in my previous post will work for a sample if you're curious :)