Difference between low end & high end cameras

TinySpark

TinySpark

Messages
874
Name
Melissa
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been used to entry level dslr Sony A100 for the last few months, but I'm just wondering.. The higher end cameras, what do they have that different to entry level ones??Do they provide a lot more settings to play around with, and what are they?
And what does that little grey screen at the top of them do?

And when do you think its time to upgrade your camera? Do you feel like you know all there is to know about and need some new features to play with?
 
- features
the high end cameras have a lot more settings - eg 50+ focus points compared to 9 or 10, faster and more accurate autofocus, better noise handling, faster write times, and more options on virtually every part of the camera

- build quality
the pro cameras are built to take knocks that a working photographer may encounter whilst on a job. In addition the components are often higher rated - eg the shutter may be rated for 300,000 shots rather than 50,000. The cameras are often much better weatherproofed and can be used (with suitable lenses) in pretty wet conditions.
 
if you are used to a Minolta/Sony then the little LCD screen on the top of others doesn't really do anything that isn't already provided elsewhere.
Sony only put 1 on the A900 as a sop for people expecting to see 1 on a camera at that level so that in spec sheet comparisons there is a tick in the box.
 
i find it interesting that there is very little price difference between the canon 50d and the 500d. Obviously the full frame stuff is still a lot dearer, but the lines between entry level and midrange seem to getting blurred.
 
heidfirst said:
if you are used to a Minolta/Sony then the little LCD screen on the top of others doesn't really do anything that isn't already provided elsewhere.
Sony only put 1 on the A900 as a sop for people expecting to see 1 on a camera at that level so that in spec sheet comparisons there is a tick in the box.
Click to expand...

what is the screen actually for though? Does it just display the same info as on your LCD screen?
 
TinySpark said:
what is the screen actually for though? Does it just display the same info as on your LCD screen?
Click to expand...

Rather than scrolling through loads of menus to set ISO, exposures comp, white balance , metering etc you just press a button and use a scroll wheel to change the settings which are displayed on the little screen
 
My brother-in-law has just upgraded from a D70s to a D300. Whilst he is more than happy with the upgrade, he has commented that the D300 isn't quite as forgiving in certain situations. If for example the settings weren't quite right with the D70s, it would either not take the photo or compensate. The D300 assumes you know what you're doing and will take it as read.

If that makes no sense its the alcohol :beer::lol:
 
P20 said:
My brother-in-law has just upgraded from a D70s to a D300. Whilst he is more than happy with the upgrade, he has commented that the D300 isn't quite as forgiving in certain situations. If for example the settings weren't quite right with the D70s, it would either not take the photo or compensate. The D300 assumes you know what you're doing and will take it as read.

If that makes no sense its the alcohol :beer::lol:
Click to expand...


Does that mean I need to go and have a drink?

Unless he was shooting in P mode on the D70s and M on the D300 it shouldn't make one iota of a difference to the outcome.
 
A lot of the time, the main reason people upgrade to a newer/better model, is gadget lust. Their photos do not improve one jot.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm prone to it myself and I like using nice gear. Fortunately, manufacturers are very good at marketing all sorts of features that, in theory, are a step foward and help to justify unnecessary purchases. Especially to wives and partners ;) But the truth is often that it's just a better toy.
 
HoppyUK said:
A lot of the time, the main reason people upgrade to a newer/better model, is gadget lust. Their photos do not improve one jot.
Click to expand...

Absolutely 100% correct.

A reasonable rule of thumb might be that if you're not sure what you'd get from an upgrade then you don't need to upgrade yet :)

I upgraded primarily as an excuse to simplify my set up and change manufacturers. This got me a camera that I love to use and use more often. I'll learn a lot more as a result (but I could have just bought the equivalent model and saved cash -see post from HoppyUK ;) ). When I first started out I bought all kinds of lenses and things, it soon became clear that I didn't need them all as I really only take landscape, architectural and people. Of course I ignored the advice of everyone when buying things as I really really wanted them!
 
if someone one borrow you a PRO camera for a week you are going to remorgage you house only to buy a Pro Body. you will hate every aspect of the entry level after that ;) there are so many things to count...
 
upgraded from a 350D to a 40D last year.

faster shutter FPS
more options, larger, tougher, I would now be lost without that wheel on the back.
the info LCD near the shutter shows essential data really quickly without using the LCD viewer, so faster, and less power used. less buttons pressed.

the only thing it lacks from the upgrade is a IR receiver for a remote...but nevermind
 
DizMatt said:
upgraded from a 350D to a 40D last year.

faster shutter FPS
more options, larger, tougher, I would now be lost without that wheel on the back.
the info LCD near the shutter shows essential data really quickly without using the LCD viewer, so faster, and less power used. less buttons pressed.

the only thing it lacks from the upgrade is a IR receiver for a remote...but nevermind
Click to expand...

Would like to upgrade my 300D to something like the 40D simply because I need faster FPS and a buffer that doesn't run out after 4 shots
 
2.Or take heed of the following.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoppyUK
the main reason people upgrade to a newer/better model, is gadget lust. Their photos do not improve one jot.
Click to expand...

It's nice of people to see where I'm coming from on the gadget lust thing, but I don't believe that is any reason not to upgrade. We just need to be honest about our motives.

I have an impractical car with ridiculous mpg, and an expensive automatic watch that keeps rather poor time. By the same token, I've just bought a 70-200 f/4 L IS when the excellent little EF-S 55-250 IS would quite possibly be better a lot of the time, in different ways, and at one quarter of the cost.

But I enjoy using and owning quality gear, applying knowledge and good technique when I can. Sometimes I even get better results because of it, but that's almost secondary. The photos get looked at and enjoyed, usually briefly :lol: but the use and enjoyment of the equipment is more enduring.
 
Creed said:
Would like to upgrade my 300D to something like the 40D simply because I need faster FPS and a buffer that doesn't run out after 4 shots
Click to expand...

6.3 fps is great, I use the mk2 sandisk iii cards...anything more and I doubt the camera would keep up....
runs out of buffer on RAW more quickly but on JPEG it gets bored long after I've stopped firing
 
DizMatt said:
6.3 fps is great, I use the mk2 sandisk iii cards...anything more and I doubt the camera would keep up....
runs out of buffer on RAW more quickly but on JPEG it gets bored long after I've stopped firing
Click to expand...

Just need to persuade the better half to let me upgrade then find a decent one second hand... might just put any money I make from my little photo business I have been discussing to one side till I can afford one as I feel (no including the gadget lust) that it would be a really beneficial upgrade. At least I might get a few pennies back from the 300D when I sell it though as would have to sell the battery grip with it
 
it's alive said:
Absolutely 100% correct.

A reasonable rule of thumb might be that if you're not sure what you'd get from an upgrade then you don't need to upgrade yet :)

I upgraded primarily as an excuse to simplify my set up and change manufacturers. This got me a camera that I love to use and use more often. I'll learn a lot more as a result (but I could have just bought the equivalent model and saved cash -see post from HoppyUK ;) ). When I first started out I bought all kinds of lenses and things, it soon became clear that I didn't need them all as I really only take landscape, architectural and people. Of course I ignored the advice of everyone when buying things as I really really wanted them!
Click to expand...

I personally think that my images have improved a reasonable amount since upgrading toa 50d.
 
Dogfish_magnet said:
Rather than scrolling through loads of menus to set ISO, exposures comp, white balance , metering etc you just press a button and use a scroll wheel to change the settings which are displayed on the little screen
Click to expand...

It's the same with the Sony cameras, the info is displayed on the LCD screen on the back of the camera instead of the top.
 
stan the man said:
same here...upgraded from the alpha 350 to the alpha 700 back in january,and it certainly instills confidence,and is much more pleasureable to use..that i can't wait to get out and use it....and it's all fabs' fault ;)
Click to expand...

Well package it up and send it over to me, that'll solve the problem! :thumbs:
 
andrewc said:
- features
the high end cameras have a lot more settings - eg 50+ focus points compared to 9 or 10, faster and more accurate autofocus, better noise handling, faster write times, and more options on virtually every part of the camera

- build quality
the pro cameras are built to take knocks that a working photographer may encounter whilst on a job. In addition the components are often higher rated - eg the shutter may be rated for 300,000 shots rather than 50,000. The cameras are often much better weatherproofed and can be used (with suitable lenses) in pretty wet conditions.
Click to expand...

Not true really - focus points are a bit of a red herring - the lens focuses the image on the sensor. how much is in focus is dependant on the accuracy of focus and the DOF. the fianl image will be no different regardless of how many focus points there are

the Pro cameras are as you say more robust, and generally a lot simpler, condensing the important controls to handy swithches and dials, as opposed to complicated menus - making instant changes to important settings easier
 
P20 said:
If for example the settings weren't quite right with the D70s, it would either not take the photo or compensate. The D300 assumes you know what you're doing and will take it as read.
Click to expand...

As Flash says, there is no difference in the shooting modes between the two camera's....:p
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Does that mean I need to go and have a drink?

Unless he was shooting in P mode on the D70s and M on the D300 it shouldn't make one iota of a difference to the outcome.
Click to expand...

:thinking: Aren't there menu options on the Focus menu in the D300, which allow the exposure to be made even if the AF hasn't locked? There are on the D700.

That's one example of where more complex control options could lead to poorer images. Just a thought :shrug:.
 
HoppyUK said:
A lot of the time, the main reason people upgrade to a newer/better model, is gadget lust. Their photos do not improve one jot.QUOTE]

Not always the case! With the vast improvemnt in AF speed between my 1Dmk2 and 20D I've got a lot more keepers from motorsport shooting.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top