Apologies for a long opening and feel free to skip to halfway down this thread! I think Ive three questions that havent been answered yet. Please dont feel you have to answer all of them!
Ive done loads of reading but during my research I feel Im wading into deeper treacle as each time I feel Ive understood something I find another complication. There are three basics I wanted to clear up.
(Years ago I started with an Olympus OM10 (film SLR). More recently I bought a Fujifilm HS20EXR bridge camera and it is fair to say that Im very pleased with it.)
However, Im now looking at the viability of purchasing an SLR as well (used ). Before I start Ive found some really useful information on these forums and many thanks to all those whove taken the time and trouble to respond to others questions. I thought that to save repetition (as many questions on the forum are very similar) Id list what I know.
As I understand things:
a) Like everything in life, buy the best you can afford. With cameras it is more important to spend a budget on a decent lens or two, as opposed to the camera.
b) Canon and Nikon are the market leaders (and for good reason).
c) Different lenses have numbers relating to maximum aperture at the short and long focal length (think I have this correct) but I do understand this bit! E.g. 18-55mm zoom lens, wide to standard focal length f/3.5-5.6 = 3.5 is max aperture at 18mm and 5.6 is max at 55mm. The lower the aperture number the more light the lens allows through and, generally, the better the quality is of the lens.
d) IS = Image Stability and VR = Vibration Reduction and both = Anti Shake (IS-Canon, VR-Nikon) other letters give other features.
e) When buying a camera youre buying a system so Canon lenses fit Canon cameras, Nikon lenses fit Nikon, Tamron fit both but with an adapter* and so on.
* in simple terms
HALFWAY!!
I have three questions:
Question 1)
Im stuck with how my cameras lens compares with say, a Canon equivalent. My lens is:
F=4.2-126mm (35mm equivalent 24mm-720mm), f/2.8-5.6.
A canon EF 100-400mm doesnt even approach the 720mm of my camera (which cost me about £440). Also its aperture settings are 4.5-5.6. However, the lens costs three times as much as my camera and a 2x converter is the same price as my camera! And the quality is out of this world.
So can some good soul explain why my camera cannot get anywhere near the same quality pictures? Perhaps its something to do with the sensor (next question!)? Perhaps its to do with the DoF (or lack of in my camera)? Or is it something else?
Im also stuck with this cropping effect (e.g. 1.6 on a Canon, 1.5 on a Nikon). Would an EF 55-250mm with a 2x converter = an 800mm focal length? (1.6 x 250 x 2)?
Question 2)
The sensor on my camera is ½ and I assume this means the diagonal (8mm x 6mm as Ive read on the dpreview website). A Nikon 300 (in the interests of balance!) is 23.6 x 15.8mm. Does a larger sensor purely equate to quality or are there one or two other factors to consider?
Question 3)
Bearing in mind the lens is more important than the camera when you buy a camera, apart from how it feels, weight, menus and such like what would you say are the top three items (in order) that you feel give the camera the edge on quality? E.g. speed, sensor size, number of pixels. When youre comparing cars so many look the same but its the engine, gearbox and suspension which make the difference. What makes up the engine, gearbox and suspension in a camera?
Id be really grateful for some answers and promise not to follow up with a whole list of more questions!
You got to the end?
Edward
Ive done loads of reading but during my research I feel Im wading into deeper treacle as each time I feel Ive understood something I find another complication. There are three basics I wanted to clear up.
(Years ago I started with an Olympus OM10 (film SLR). More recently I bought a Fujifilm HS20EXR bridge camera and it is fair to say that Im very pleased with it.)
However, Im now looking at the viability of purchasing an SLR as well (used ). Before I start Ive found some really useful information on these forums and many thanks to all those whove taken the time and trouble to respond to others questions. I thought that to save repetition (as many questions on the forum are very similar) Id list what I know.
As I understand things:
a) Like everything in life, buy the best you can afford. With cameras it is more important to spend a budget on a decent lens or two, as opposed to the camera.
b) Canon and Nikon are the market leaders (and for good reason).
c) Different lenses have numbers relating to maximum aperture at the short and long focal length (think I have this correct) but I do understand this bit! E.g. 18-55mm zoom lens, wide to standard focal length f/3.5-5.6 = 3.5 is max aperture at 18mm and 5.6 is max at 55mm. The lower the aperture number the more light the lens allows through and, generally, the better the quality is of the lens.
d) IS = Image Stability and VR = Vibration Reduction and both = Anti Shake (IS-Canon, VR-Nikon) other letters give other features.
e) When buying a camera youre buying a system so Canon lenses fit Canon cameras, Nikon lenses fit Nikon, Tamron fit both but with an adapter* and so on.
* in simple terms
HALFWAY!!
I have three questions:
Question 1)
Im stuck with how my cameras lens compares with say, a Canon equivalent. My lens is:
F=4.2-126mm (35mm equivalent 24mm-720mm), f/2.8-5.6.
A canon EF 100-400mm doesnt even approach the 720mm of my camera (which cost me about £440). Also its aperture settings are 4.5-5.6. However, the lens costs three times as much as my camera and a 2x converter is the same price as my camera! And the quality is out of this world.
So can some good soul explain why my camera cannot get anywhere near the same quality pictures? Perhaps its something to do with the sensor (next question!)? Perhaps its to do with the DoF (or lack of in my camera)? Or is it something else?
Im also stuck with this cropping effect (e.g. 1.6 on a Canon, 1.5 on a Nikon). Would an EF 55-250mm with a 2x converter = an 800mm focal length? (1.6 x 250 x 2)?
Question 2)
The sensor on my camera is ½ and I assume this means the diagonal (8mm x 6mm as Ive read on the dpreview website). A Nikon 300 (in the interests of balance!) is 23.6 x 15.8mm. Does a larger sensor purely equate to quality or are there one or two other factors to consider?
Question 3)
Bearing in mind the lens is more important than the camera when you buy a camera, apart from how it feels, weight, menus and such like what would you say are the top three items (in order) that you feel give the camera the edge on quality? E.g. speed, sensor size, number of pixels. When youre comparing cars so many look the same but its the engine, gearbox and suspension which make the difference. What makes up the engine, gearbox and suspension in a camera?
Id be really grateful for some answers and promise not to follow up with a whole list of more questions!
You got to the end?
Edward
the higher pixel density can lead to other problems, also the lenses in p&s cameras are much smaller so any imperfections/tolerances will have a greater effect.
