Camera Choice - further thoughts

Hi All

At the beginning of December a number of you gave me some useful
thoughts about possible camera choices - I was considering the Sony
Alpha, Canon 400D, Canon 30D and Nikon D80.

I had almost convinced myself that the 30D was the most likely but
since then I've had some opportunity to handle the latter three
cameras and found that the 30D felt a bit heavy/tiring and doesn't
really fit my hands. The Nikon was rather better in that regard while
the 400D felt much closer to my old Contax 159. So I've now narrowed
the choice to the 400D or the D80 and have started to look more
closely at lenses.

As a mainly landscape snapper (with the occasional foray into theatre
work) I need a decent wide angle of around 28mm in film terms so I
guess I'm looking at 17 or 18 mm for the bottom figure. The salesman I
was talking to recommended the Canon 17-85 IS or a Sigma 18-50 (2.8).
Does anyone have any experience with either of these two?
His pricing for the latter along with the body came out around £850
with the Canon lens being a bit more.

What about Nikon alternatives if I were to go with the D80? Looking at
the catalogues so far it looks like the 18-70 DX or the 18-135 DX and
from looking at online prices that would be about £100-130 less.

Any other lenses from either camp that I should be considering?

(I'm a bit wary of the Sigma as the last time I saw one in use - ok it
was 20 years ago - they seemed to be rather soft and were considered
the lowest of the 4 main independents at the time Vivitar, Tamron,
Tokina and Sigma)

Thanks again for any suggestions

Bill Marshall

William Marshall wrote:
Hi All

At the beginning of December a number of you gave me some useful
thoughts about possible camera choices - I was considering the Sony
Alpha, Canon 400D, Canon 30D and Nikon D80.


I would suggest you add and look at the Pentax K10D, it has the same
Sony CCD as the Sony Alpha A100, and the Nikon D80. The K10D feels
solid, and is similar to the D80 in the human engineering aspect. (more
follows below)


I had almost convinced myself that the 30D was the most likely but
since then I've had some opportunity to handle the latter three
cameras and found that the 30D felt a bit heavy/tiring and doesn't
really fit my hands. The Nikon was rather better in that regard while
the 400D felt much closer to my old Contax 159. So I've now narrowed
the choice to the 400D or the D80 and have started to look more
closely at lenses.

As a mainly landscape snapper (with the occasional foray into theatre
work) I need a decent wide angle of around 28mm in film terms so I
guess I'm looking at 17 or 18 mm for the bottom figure. The salesman I
was talking to recommended the Canon 17-85 IS or a Sigma 18-50 (2.8).
Does anyone have any experience with either of these two?
His pricing for the latter along with the body came out around £850
with the Canon lens being a bit more.

What about Nikon alternatives if I were to go with the D80? Looking at
the catalogues so far it looks like the 18-70 DX or the 18-135 DX and
from looking at online prices that would be about £100-130 less.

Pentax has several great lenses for landscape work I own the SMC DA
Pentax 14mm f:2.8 this is a wonderful lens that retails in Canada for
about $650 (cdn). The field of view is similar to a 20mm on 35mm. They
also make (as does Nikon) a 12~24mm f:4 zoom, that equals the Nikon,
but is around $750(cdn) (Nikon's 12~24 sells for almost double
$1300(cdn)

In Nikon the 18~70 has a better build than the 18~135.

Locally the Pentax K10D body and the Nikon D80 both retail for around
$1100(cdn), but the Pentax features some innovations over the Nikon;

K10D body is weather sealed, like the Nikon D200, D80 no seals.
K10D body is image stabilized x,y,z axis, The Sony A100 x and y axis
K10D has dust reduction in the form of an antistatic coating on the
sensor cover, and it shakes the dust off
K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the common
12 bit that Nikon, Canon and Sony use.

So you may want to pop around and look at the Pentax before settling on
the others.

OK, I am biased as a long time Pentax user... My next body will be a
K10D to upgrade from my 6.1 mp *ist D

Darrell Larose
http://DarrellLarose.ca
Pentax images in Galleries

wrote:
[]
K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the
common 12 bit that Nikon, Canon and Sony use.

Has anyone actually checked this?

Looking at one of the top ADC manufacturers, the best they offer is 2MSPs
at 18 bits or 2.5MSP/s at 24 bits.

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionT...n_table_id=398

With the Pentax K10D offering 10MP, using just one of the ADCs mentioned
about it would take 4 seconds to digitise each frame, however, Pentax are
claiming 3 frames per second.

There's an order of magnitude gap here - why?

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
wrote: []
K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the
common 12 bit that Nikon, Canon and Sony use.

Has anyone actually checked this?

Looking at one of the top ADC manufacturers, the best they offer is
2MSPs at 18 bits or 2.5MSP/s at 24 bits.

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionT...n_table_id=398

With the Pentax K10D offering 10MP, using just one of the ADCs
mentioned about it would take 4 seconds to digitise each frame,
however, Pentax are claiming 3 frames per second.

There's an order of magnitude gap here - why?

Cheers, David

Cite: Pentax PRIME engine based on the NuCore NDX2240 processor

http://www.nucoretech.com/nu3/images...ogy.ppt.us.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/yxkl28

"William Marshall" wrote in message
...

I had almost convinced myself that the 30D was the most likely but
since then I've had some opportunity to handle the latter three
cameras and found that the 30D felt a bit heavy/tiring and doesn't
really fit my hands. The Nikon was rather better in that regard while
the 400D felt much closer to my old Contax 159. So I've now narrowed
the choice to the 400D or the D80 and have started to look more
closely at lenses.

I had a different quandry some time ago and opted for the Nikon D80.

The handling is vastly superior to the Canon 350/400 models and it
offers more usability features and a much better viewfinder. The D80
performance is better in most areas where it matters for photography,
like responsiveness and ease of use. Just snapping off a few frames in
the store with similar lenses is enough to convince most people of the
advantages.

Another person mentioned the Pentax K10D which is another option and
appears to be fairly good. But it wasn't on the market when I bought the
Nikon so I can't offer much advice there.

As a mainly landscape snapper (with the occasional foray into theatre
work) I need a decent wide angle of around 28mm in film terms so I
guess I'm looking at 17 or 18 mm for the bottom figure. The salesman I
was talking to recommended the Canon 17-85 IS or a Sigma 18-50 (2.8).

I've used the 17-85 IS on a Canon 350D/XT and was not impressed. It's
too soft when used wide open and it suffers from bad chromatic
abberations at the wide end. It's not a very good lense, but it covers a
big zoom range and has IS, which are its two greatest features.

When I was using the Canon XT, I bought the Canon 17-40 f/4 L to use for
wide angles. It's better than the 17-85 - not just a bit better either,
a LOT better.

Some people complain that the 17-40 L is too short for a "walk around"
lense, and I tend to agree. But if you're willing to live with
interchangeable lenses (that's why we use SLRs), then it's not a deal
breaker.

What about Nikon alternatives if I were to go with the D80? Looking at
the catalogues so far it looks like the 18-70 DX or the 18-135 DX and
from looking at online prices that would be about £100-130 less.

I use the Nikon 18-70 on my D80 and it's great. It blows away the Canon
17-85 in every aspect over its zoom range. It's sharp enough to use wide
open and it has all of the performance features of the Canon, like fast
autofocus with internal design, non-rotating front element, aspheric and
ED glass, etc. And it costs a lot less too.

I've sampled the newer Nikon 18-135 on the D80 but found it wasn't quite
as good as the 18-70. It's still a lot better than the Canon 17-85
though.

The only negative aspect of the Nikon 18-70 is the zooming which is a
bit non-linear at the wide end. It jumps from 18 to 24mm quickly, so it
takes a gentle touch to fine tune the zoom in that area. But you get
used to it, and I find myself at 18mm far more often than just above it
anyway. Once above the wide angle range, the zoom is fairly normal.

It also has some barrel distortion at the wide end, but most lenses in
the 18mm range have some, and if you're shooting architecture you
generally won't want any of the zoom lenses mentioned here.

Any other lenses from either camp that I should be considering?

In this price range I think the Nikon 18-70 is impossible to beat. It's
a price/performance gem in the Nikon lineup.

If I was still using Canon, I'd be using the 17-40 L without a doubt
since Canon doesn't have a good model in the same zoom range. And since
I'm now shooting with Nikon, the 18-70 is my preferred walk around
lense.

For a fair bit more money, the Nikon 18-200 VR is a surprisingly good
lense and makes for a good walk around as well. But I still prefer the
18-70 for casual use. If I want more reach, I get out the telephoto
lenses that are made for the long end.

(I'm a bit wary of the Sigma as the last time I saw one in use - ok it

I've used a few Sigma lenses over the years and have never been
impressed. Some of their lenses are fairly good optically, but they
often lack in performance compared to Canon and Nikon - that's how
they're able to keep prices low, they have to cut corners somewhere.

But if you don't need all the features of the Canon and Nikon lenses,
then using third-party is an option.

Not Disclosed wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
wrote: []
K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the
common 12 bit that Nikon, Canon and Sony use.

Has anyone actually checked this?

Looking at one of the top ADC manufacturers, the best they offer is
2MSPs at 18 bits or 2.5MSP/s at 24 bits.

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionT...n_table_id=398

With the Pentax K10D offering 10MP, using just one of the ADCs
mentioned about it would take 4 seconds to digitise each frame,
however, Pentax are claiming 3 frames per second.

There's an order of magnitude gap here - why?

Cheers, David

Cite: Pentax PRIME engine based on the NuCore NDX2240 processor

http://www.nucoretech.com/nu3/images...ogy.ppt.us.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/yxkl28

Thanks for pointing that out - a most interesting document. But I feel it
leaves lot of questions unanswered. References to 18-bit and 16-bit
processing, in spite of 22-bit ADC? I bet there's a trick in there which
means that it's not a true, linear 22-bit ADC working at the bit rates
required (30MSP/s). The best that the other manufacturers can achieve at
that rate seems to be 16 bits, not 22.

David

Bill wrote:

The only negative aspect of the Nikon 18-70 is the zooming which is a
bit non-linear at the wide end. It jumps from 18 to 24mm quickly, so it
takes a gentle touch to fine tune the zoom in that area. But you get
used to it, and I find myself at 18mm far more often than just above it
anyway. Once above the wide angle range, the zoom is fairly normal.


I agree, it's a very good lens for the money. I would say its main
optical weakness is the type of distortion at the wide end, it's
impossible to correct with Photoshop (but I think PTLens does it).
Otherwise, it's very good for the money, as I said.

It also has some barrel distortion at the wide end, but most lenses in
the 18mm range have some, and if you're shooting architecture you
generally won't want any of the zoom lenses mentioned here.

Any other lenses from either camp that I should be considering?

In this price range I think the Nikon 18-70 is impossible to beat. It's
a price/performance gem in the Nikon lineup.

If I was still using Canon, I'd be using the 17-40 L without a doubt
since Canon doesn't have a good model in the same zoom range. And since
I'm now shooting with Nikon, the 18-70 is my preferred walk around lense.

For a fair bit more money, the Nikon 18-200 VR is a surprisingly good
lense and makes for a good walk around as well. But I still prefer the
18-70 for casual use. If I want more reach, I get out the telephoto
lenses that are made for the long end.

(I'm a bit wary of the Sigma as the last time I saw one in use - ok it

I've used a few Sigma lenses over the years and have never been
impressed. Some of their lenses are fairly good optically, but they
often lack in performance compared to Canon and Nikon - that's how
they're able to keep prices low, they have to cut corners somewhere.


There seem to be good Sigma wide angles. I have the Sigma 10-20 and it
is optically very good (sharp thhroughout), very little distortion, very
little chromatic aberrations etc. The main problem is flare, but it is
not so bad. And vignetting.

As for performace, it is very well built, solid and well-made. It
focuses using a "hyper-sonic motor", ie like Canon's USM and so on,
quick and quiet, and with full-time manual override.

But I have not heard many good things about their longer lenses, I must
admit. And the lens cap is impossible to remove with the lens hood on.
Idiots.

But if you don't need all the features of the Canon and Nikon lenses,
then using third-party is an option.

In article ,
David J Taylor wrote:
Not Disclosed wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
wrote: []
K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the
common 12 bit that Nikon, Canon and Sony use.

Has anyone actually checked this?

Looking at one of the top ADC manufacturers, the best they offer is
2MSPs at 18 bits or 2.5MSP/s at 24 bits.

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionT...n_table_id=398

With the Pentax K10D offering 10MP, using just one of the ADCs
mentioned about it would take 4 seconds to digitise each frame,
however, Pentax are claiming 3 frames per second.

There's an order of magnitude gap here - why?

Cheers, David

Cite: Pentax PRIME engine based on the NuCore NDX2240 processor

http://www.nucoretech.com/nu3/images...ogy.ppt.us.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/yxkl28

Thanks for pointing that out - a most interesting document. But I feel it
leaves lot of questions unanswered. References to 18-bit and 16-bit
processing, in spite of 22-bit ADC? I bet there's a trick in there which
means that it's not a true, linear 22-bit ADC working at the bit rates
required (30MSP/s). The best that the other manufacturers can achieve at
that rate seems to be 16 bits, not 22.

David

There's been quite a bit of discussion of this on a couple of Pentax lists.
I'm probably one of the more sceptical voices - I see very little value in
a 22-bit processing path if the signal-to-noise ratio from the sensor only
gives you 17 bits of signal (which is all you can get if a full well holds
around 100,000 electrons). Note, too, that the nucore device comes in a
few different configurations, with different number of final output bits.

That said, though, I can see a few advantages. There's no real need to
build different versions of the digital processing path - if you've already
got a 22-bit engine laid out in silicon you might as well use it, even if a
17- or 18-bit version would suffice. And if, as I suspect, the eventual
645D uses basically the same imagine processing, there's an economy of
design (although I expect the 645D to use the 16-bit RAW output option).
I wouldn't be too surprised, either, to see a K1D with 14-bit RAW output.

So in my opinion for the K10D the "22" is mostly marketing, but I expect
later digital cameras to make more use of those extra bits.




But I do see a couple

John Francis wrote:
In article ,
David J Taylor
wrote:
Not Disclosed wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
wrote: []
K10D runs a 22 bit ADC (Analog Digital Converter) instead of the
common 12 bit that Nikon, Canon and Sony use.

Has anyone actually checked this?

Looking at one of the top ADC manufacturers, the best they offer is
2MSPs at 18 bits or 2.5MSP/s at 24 bits.

http://www.analog.com/IST/SelectionT...n_table_id=398

With the Pentax K10D offering 10MP, using just one of the ADCs
mentioned about it would take 4 seconds to digitise each frame,
however, Pentax are claiming 3 frames per second.

There's an order of magnitude gap here - why?

Cheers, David

Cite: Pentax PRIME engine based on the NuCore NDX2240 processor

http://www.nucoretech.com/nu3/images...ogy.ppt.us.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/yxkl28

Thanks for pointing that out - a most interesting document. But I
feel it leaves lot of questions unanswered. References to 18-bit
and 16-bit processing, in spite of 22-bit ADC? I bet there's a
trick in there which means that it's not a true, linear 22-bit ADC
working at the bit rates required (30MSP/s). The best that the
other manufacturers can achieve at that rate seems to be 16 bits,
not 22.

David

There's been quite a bit of discussion of this on a couple of Pentax
lists.
I'm probably one of the more sceptical voices - I see very little
value in
a 22-bit processing path if the signal-to-noise ratio from the sensor
only gives you 17 bits of signal (which is all you can get if a full
well holds around 100,000 electrons). Note, too, that the nucore
device comes in a
few different configurations, with different number of final output
bits.

That said, though, I can see a few advantages. There's no real need
to
build different versions of the digital processing path - if you've
already
got a 22-bit engine laid out in silicon you might as well use it,
even if a 17- or 18-bit version would suffice. And if, as I suspect,
the eventual 645D uses basically the same imagine processing, there's
an economy of
design (although I expect the 645D to use the 16-bit RAW output
option).
I wouldn't be too surprised, either, to see a K1D with 14-bit RAW
output.

So in my opinion for the K10D the "22" is mostly marketing, but I
expect
later digital cameras to make more use of those extra bits.

Thanks for your input, John. I question if the 22-bits is even real (as
in accurate and meaningful - no missing codes, linear etc.). I could
believe 16-17 bits, and I would be delighted to see a camera offering
better quantisation than the inherent photo-limited noise. But I agree
with you that the "22-bits" is probably just marketing-speak, and not
engineering-speak!

Cheers,
David

John Francis wrote:

That said, though, I can see a few advantages. There's no real need to
build different versions of the digital processing path - if you've already
got a 22-bit engine laid out in silicon you might as well use it, even if a
17- or 18-bit version would suffice. And if, as I suspect, the eventual
645D uses basically the same imagine processing, there's an economy of
design (although I expect the 645D to use the 16-bit RAW output option).
I wouldn't be too surprised, either, to see a K1D with 14-bit RAW output.

So in my opinion for the K10D the "22" is mostly marketing, but I expect
later digital cameras to make more use of those extra bits.

Can anyone explain how this relates to DACs in cd-players? The cd itself
is only 16-bit, yet hi-end DACs offer 20 or 24-bit and claim better
audio quality.

Ton