Forum menu
Well. There's the old chestnut of low light performance, but I don't find it much of an issue.
The real thing is availability of stuff. You have to go online for lenses which is okay, but there's very little around second hand so you have to be on your toes on eBay to get a bargain. It can be done though, but I've been a bit lucky being able to go via the USA.
It's other stuff though like remote shutter release, or spare batteries that you can't just walk into a camera shop and buy. Mildly annoying.
There is a bit of a question mark over the future of the format. Many shops will tell you 4/3 is obselete, but I'm not entirely sure that's true (they are of course stocking Canon and Nikon etc). Olympus have gone on the record many times saying that 4/3 users will not be abandoned. Whether or not that means new cameras and lenses is anyone's guess. I don't care much though - I'll buy the range of lenses I want then spend my time taking pictures, that'll be good enough for me. If the body breaks I'll get a Pen 🙂
I got mine because it was £300 half price - that deal you suggest seems like bonkers value. It comes with in body IS too, which makes it uttelry ridiculously cheap esp with two lenses. You'd be mad not to 🙂 I *think* the 520 is the one with the best sensor configuration out of all of them, but I am not sure. The E series forums are full of people who can geek about this stuff.
OK, so I was not intending to buy any more lenses at the moment, and could order up a battery to start with and can cope with 'an old tool' if the image quality is there for a half-arsed amatuer to print up to A4 or so...
The quality is just fine at A4. Most of the whingeing about noise and stuff is purely academic if you are printing at home.
If you (like me) want a proper SLR whilst keeping costs way down then it's unbeatable I reckon. Much better features than other entry level stuff.
I assume the extra lens deal is the 40-150mm lens?
[img] 
[/img]
LOL @ PC
I'm a convert to m4/3 - I havunnt a ****ing clue about cameras but I fancied something qood quality, portable, bargaineous, and most of all, cool.
GF2 w/14mm for £250 @ Dixons airport did it for me...I can flog the 14mm for more than a 14-42 costs on scumbay if I don't use it.
Plenty m4/3 slrs around for similar £ too - see www.hotukdeals.com
hmmm, whats the drawbacks of the Olympus - been considering an E520 twin lens kit for £235 new...
Can't go wrong with that really. That'll still sell for over £100 in a couple of years.
The only problem with the system is if you buy lots of lenses. In a few years it's unlikely to be any new bodies to use them on and the resale value will plummet.
The plus side of the other systems is lens you buy now will almost certainly fit a new body a few years down the line.
High ISO performance is the new version of the megapixel war, marketing 🙂
nmdbase - Member
High ISO performance is the new version of the megapixel war, marketing
I'd agree to an extent.....'more megapixels' was an easy thing to sell to people and most people will think more = better.
I think though that improved performance at high ISO has much more benefits and in real life situations is a much more useful feature to 'improve', than megapixels......
More is better. Be it ISO or MP. It's not linear better though.
More MP is not better if the sensor is too small to cope with it - the new Sony SLT A77 is getting mixed reviews due to shoving 24mp on an APSC sensor
Personally I'd much rather better high ISO than more MP. Which is why I probably should have gone for Nikon. 🙂
More MP is not better if the sensor is too small to cope with it - the new Sony SLT A77 is getting mixed reviews due to shoving 24mp on an APSC sensor
The reason there's lots of debate over the a77 is largely because people don't understand how to evaluate results.
But it's fair to say the benefits of high MP are only apparent under extreme circumstances. Much like high ISO.
Usable high ISO is definitely handy, I wouldn't call indoors extreme either.
TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR - Member
More MP is not better if the sensor is too small to cope with it - the new Sony SLT A77 is getting mixed reviews due to shoving 24mp on an APSC sensor
This.....
No point having more MP, if it means the sensor can't cope. Previous Panasomic Lumix cameras I have looked at suffered from this. Even at ISO 200 noise was readily apparent.
Obviously, if done properly more MP can be useful depending on your intended use of the pics you are taking.
My dad for example has a Samsung compact (now knackered due to inoperative flash) with 14Mp. Pointless for family snaps and such like that he has no intention of cropping or otherwise fiddling about with. Just wasted memory. He's now using my old Konica Minolta Z3 with it's mighty 4Mp and has he noticed the 10Mp deficit. Erm, nope.
Saying that, I'm more than willing to go with 5thElefant's take on things, rather than my own regurgitated internet reading and limited knowledge - he seems to know his stuff. Maybe the A77 is fine, although too many MP's on a small sensor is definitely a recognised problem. Most notable in something like a bridge cam with 16mp, 30x zoom and a pinhead sensor.
That will be because he hasn't printed anything out then.
The largest decent quality print at 4mp is roughly 11" x 14"
At 10mp you are looking at more like 20" x 30"
Usable high ISO is definitely handy, I wouldn't call indoors extreme either.
Depends on your frame of reference. I've got an a900 which is (apparently) the 8th best high iso camera, with only the low-res Nikon FFs significantly better.
For me that's adequate. I'll have more if it's on offer though.
I do have several lenses that will outresolve the 24mp sensor though, so more MP would be nice.
although too many MP's on a small sensor is definitely a recognised problem. Most notable in something like a bridge cam with 16mp, 30x zoom and a pinhead sensor.
Sure.
[url= http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml ]This article[/url] is interesting reading. "you can put 60 million of pixels into a 35mm sensor, but only a diffraction-limited lens at f/5.6 would take advantage of it." By chance, that's 26MP on aps-c so similar to the a77.
So... a 60mp (or 26mp aps-c) sensor would give more resolution than a lower MP sensor below f5.6. Even bigger sensors have merit at wider apertures.
Depends on your frame of reference. I've got an a900 which is (apparently) the 8th best high iso camera, with only the low-res Nikon FFs significantly better.
I was on about my 5D MK2, there is a comparison ISO section here.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page38.asp
A900 looks like the worst in its price range TBH, so I'm not sure where you pulled that from.
flow - Member
That will be because he hasn't printed anything out then.The largest decent quality print at 4mp is roughly 11" x 14"
At 10mp you are looking at more like 20" x 30"
Exactly - that's my point. He has no requirements to print out larger than A4 at the most.
That is why I said it depends on your intended use.
Although saying that.....I printed out a couple of prints at 16" x 20" from Photobox with images taken from the Z3 to see how they would come out and they weren't half bad.
I suspect that Photobox apply some kind of smoothing or something to the image before printing, because there was no visible pixelation and the images were pefectly fine for poster prints on a wall.
And my brother-in-law has a poster print of poppies in a field taken on his Canon 20d that also looks fine. It must be at least A3 and that's only a 6MP camera.
Obviously comparing the same image shot with a 'more megapixel' camera would reveal more detail, but for many applications you don't need masses of MP.
In a few years it's unlikely to be any new bodies to use them on
They'll work on m4/3. That's my backup plan.
And my brother-in-law has a poster print of poppies in a field taken on his Canon 20d that also looks fine. It must be at least A3 and that's only a 6MP camera.
A3 is pretty much 11" x 16"
Obviously comparing the same image shot with a 'more megapixel' camera would reveal more detail, but for many applications you don't need masses of MP.
Very true. More is nice to have - you can do more extreme things, but the thing about prints is you view them from a 'sensible' distance, not with you nose pressed up against the print. A 6mp image printed on a 3' wide canvas will look great.
They'll work on m4/3. That's my backup plan.
Yeah, makes sense as you already have the lenses. Not a great plan if you don't, given the poor AF of pdaf lenses on cdaf bodies.
I've got a 50X70cms print from an EOS10d, again a rather pathetic 6MP, which is rather splendid.
Megapixels shouldn't be the most important factor when buying a camera.
flow - Member
And my brother-in-law has a poster print of poppies in a field taken on his Canon 20d that also looks fine. It must be at least A3 and that's only a 6MP camera.
A3 is pretty much 11" x 16"
Oh yeah.....it's bigger than that, then....
I've just held some A3 paper up on the wall.....
Must be more like A2 - it's above a fireplace & doesn't look 'small' as A3 would....
Just looked on Photobox and it must be either 16 x 20 or A2.....anyway, it looks fine to me printed at 6MP resolution.
Don't you think, when viewed at full size, high megapixel shots from aps-c look crap, compare say 7D to 5D2, 7D looks horrible in comparison. In real life it wouldn't notice maybe on print.
I was considering a 7D until I looked at the image quality...I'll keep my 5D thanks 🙂
I was on about my 5D MK2, there is a comparison ISO section here.http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page38.asp
A900 looks like the worst in its price range TBH, so I'm not sure where you pulled that from.
I wouldn't pay any attention to dpreview they don't use optimised raw converters so you're not comparing like with like, but rather the vagaries of unconfigured raw converters.
[url= http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings/(type)/usecase_sports ]DXO comparison...[/url] which compares raw sensor data so it is a level playing field.
They rate the Nikon D3S as good up to iso3253 (at no.1)
5Dmk2 at iso1816 (at no.4)
a900 at iso1431 (at no.7)
So I don't think it's not unreasonable to say only the nikon is significantly better. The 5dmk2 is very slightly better at high iso.
The flip side is slightly more MP than the canon and twice as many as the nikon.
I was considering a 7D until I looked at the image quality...I'll keep my 5D thanks
I have a 7D and a 5D MK I - much prefer the images from the 5D.
I have a 7D and a 5D MK I - much prefer the images from the 5D.
Which is completely irrelevant on a camera thread with a 300GBP budget. 😉
I also find that strange, because the feedback I have is that the colour reproduction from the 5d Mk1 was pretty poor, although much improved on the Mk 11, but I didn't think it was too bad from the 7d when I used it.
I wouldn't pay any attention to dpreview they don't use optimised raw converters so you're not comparing like with like, but rather the vagaries of unconfigured raw converters.
They are comparing like with like, and photos not graphs.
The D800 is only very slightly better than the 5D & 5D2, the A900 is way behind all three.
They are comparing like with like, and photos not graphs.
No they're not. They're comparing output from raw converters set to default. They use lightroom - the first support for the a900 didn't work properly (all well documented) and gave crap results. This was fixed several months after the release of the camera.
You can only compare results of raw converters when the most appropriate converters (like the newer version of lightroom in the case of the a900) and profiles optimised for each camera is used.
Otherwise you can only use raw data comparisons.
Which is completely irrelevant on a camera thread with a 300GBP budget.
Oh, are we trying to stay on topic? That would be novel. 🙂
Oh and DXO mark seems like a 'measurebators' paradise - I'd rather look at pictures than stats tables.
I also find that strange, because the feedback I have is that the colour reproduction from the 5d Mk1 was pretty poor, although much improved on the Mk 11, but I didn't think it was too bad from the 7d when I used it.
wrong lol
Oh and DXO mark seems like a 'measurebators' paradise - I'd rather look at pictures than stats tables.
Fair enough. It is next to impossible to do a like for like comparison of pictures between two cameras via the web though - you'd need to print them the same size and compare the prints.
wrong
Fact or just your opinion? Either way your reasoning and eloquence has convinced me. 🙄
Fact or just your opinion?
It's my opinion based on owning and using both cameras extensively. What was your opinion based on again?
Fact, photo's next to each other in raw here, plus the crap IQ
My facts would disagree with your facts. FACT.
So to put it simply, you're wrong. 😆
Fact, photo's next to each other in raw here, plus the crap IQ
Where?
Sorry I'm not having it, the A900 isn't comparable, in any ISO test.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml
At ISO 800 and higher the Canon is visibly superior, especially in the noise department.The bottom line then when it comes to image quality is that for shooting in normal conditions one really wouldn't choose one camera over the other based on IQ, but that if shooting in low light or with slower lenses is your bag, then the Canon definitely gets the nod.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2RAW.HTM
on my computer 🙄
The 7D image quality is nowhere near as good as the 5D, or 5D2.
I owned a 7D from new for over a month, and replaced it with a 5D2.
Ahh, he probably is used to consumer JPEG colours 😆
This isn't helping the OP
Stoppit you lot, you're scaring the newbies.
Sorry