Equipment First DSLR what to choose

Warehouse Express is very expensive compared to SRS microsystems, who are very reliable and polite and dispatch promptly.

For example :

The same kit as WE want 450 for is 400.

http://www.srsmicrosystems.co.uk/41...amera-with-Olympus-14-42---40-150-Lenses.html

 

You can use them for many things, but architecture is one of the main uses. The main advantage is being able to shift the plane of focus. Both Nikon and Canon make stellar 24mm t/s lenses, which offer great optics even when not shifted. So they tend to make good landscape lenses as well.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/focusing-ts.shtml

 

As well as a 17TS-E, 45TS-E and a 90TS-E from Canon and the 45PC-E and 85PC-E from Nikon. Tilt shifts are pretty specialized lenses--none of them AF, they almost always require a tripod for critical work and they can get pretty expensive. They can be used as a standard lens but the ability to manipulate the focal plane makes them very attractive pieces of kit to landscape/architecture photogs as well as macro and product photogs.

 

So, would it be possible to use a full frame lens and bellows for the same effect, or is better to use a dedicated lens?

Ninja Edit: Arax, Hartblei and Zenit seem do dedicated K mount lenses. They're not cheap but not as pricey as I thought they'd be.




.

 

A 4/3 sensor just uses the sweet spot of an what an APS unit would use. An APS sensor would record the imperfections at the edges like vignetting and softness. Since the center of the lens is closest to "on plane," it is the sharpest and most accurate part of the lens. Once your lens of significant quality, this ceases to become an issue, but that involves cost increases.
Cheap kit lenses from Canon / Nikon don't resolve this issue.


Also, quality diminishes towards the edges, which wouldn't even be visible on a 4/3 sensor. Then there is the issue of pixel density. Some people argue in favour of more pixel density on say an APS unit, but on a Canon that has 15.5 million actual pixels (15.1 million effective), on a sensor that is 329 mm square, for a total density of 47.1K pixels per square mm.

An Olympus four thirds that has 11.8 million actual pixels (with 10.1 million effective) on a sensor that is 225 mm square,has a total density of 52.4K pixels per square mm.


The downside of the improved IQ is low light sensitivity and handling of high ISO. Some of the very high ISO values where there is still high IQ and image clairty would not be possible on 4/3, and the other downside is the range of lenses is smaller than Canon / Nikon.

Also, some four thirds lenses (mainly primes) suffer from chromatic aberration, which is not present in other systems in similar lenses. However I don't know of any better 50mm Prime than the F/2 Zuiko, but am open to suggestion.

 

I'm not sure, tbh. At one point there was the Horseman LD, which let you mate a 35mm body to a field camera; letting you use a LF lens with the full motion of a lens board. But I haven't seen the same thing using 35mm lenses. It seemed you needed the LF lenses due to them having a larger image circle. Most T/S lenses have a larger then normal image circle to account for the motion of the elements.

 

The 450D unless it is discounted heavily is not good value compared to the 500. Unless there is a radical price difference State side.

 

Vignetting and softness on an APS-C sensor? With lenses performing the way they do today, that is hardly an issue at all--the same applies to FF sensors. There are far more drawbacks to m4/3's than there are plus sides--in fact the only plus side is the compact size, which in turn has it's own tradeoff's, some you list above and many you missed.

 

M, four thirds ? You mean Micro ? Nobody is talking about Micro. That is for posh point and shoot. I am talking about Four Thirds D-SLR.

With respect, if you think that vignetting and softness is not an issue on APS-C sensors, I cannot disagree more. I have a D300 here with a modest, but not el cheapo 16-85mm VR and the vignetting and softness is obvious. In fact it is apparent on more ambitious lenses I have access to.

 

Used prices of the 450D, along with the performance output, makes the 450D one of the better buys for those just entering the DSLR market.

 

http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VcE3

I guess those guys don't know that vignetting isn't an issue on APS-C these days either.

 

Apologies for the typo. With respect, you seem to forget about the amount of softness a 4/3's sensor is subject to due to diffraction, as well as the overall loss of subject isolation. I can put a crappy lens on any camera and you'll see vignetting and softness, esp in the corners. The idea is NOT to invest in 'cheapo' lenses that perform poorly in terms of IQ. An APS-C body with a few lenses like, for instance, the Tokina 11-16, Tamron 17-50 and a decent tele lens will outperform a 4/3 camera and any one of their equivalents within the range. Aside from that, vignetting is really a non-issue considering both in camera and post correction software.

I don't mind admitting a 4/3 cameras have their advantages over cameras with larger sensors, but IQ simply isn't one. If you decide to do a comparison make sure you equalize the outputs of each camera.

 

You appear to have missed the point, and I was careful to keep my posts in perspective. I am talking about the cheaper lenses. Like I said the issues associated on cheaper canikon lenses are not present on more expensive examples to a large extent.

As a Nikon and Oly user, I will use whatever I think will do the job better. I don't have an axe to grind for brand, but when I made a comment about if it ain't canikon its **** mentality a few months back, your buddy JJ said this was 'horseshit'. But it seems that mentality is alive and well.

 

You're kidding right? You do know this only holds true if you use a lens designed for APS-C sensors. The same argument holds for using 35mm lenses on APS-C sensors. But, the 4/3s is not only a sensor, but a mount system as well, using smaller lenses designed specifically for the tiny sensor, just as the DX/EF-S lenses were designed for APS-C cameras.

The sensor on a 4/3s camera sees the whole image circle of a 4/3s lens, just as a APS-C sensors see all of a DX/EF-S lens'.

4/3rds and m4/3rds are fine cameras, but there really isn't a IQ advantage to be had on this system.

Edit: Vers got there first, I was having dinner. I would point out that -based on the sensor and sensor/lens interface- the IQ lies very much with the recent evolutions found in the the 5DmkII, 1DmkIV, D3s, and D3x. DR, tonality, color reproduction....in just about every objective and subjective manner.

I don't think we have any axes to grind, but I also don't go around claiming an inherent IQ advantage of one system over the other. I have gone one the record as liking what I have seen out of the recent m4/3rds system. So your defensive stance is still horseshit. Your claim of a IQ advantage, either with a kit lens or not, is based on a flawed understanding of the lenses and sensors of both 4/3rds and APS-C sensors. I don't have an issue with other systems. I do have an issue of quality claims in thread where someone is trying to make a choice. Feeding them blatantly wrong information only makes it harder for them, rather then giving them the right information so they can make educated choices.

Egging someone into buying a system that may leave them with buyers regret later on isn't a good thing. He wants to shoot architecture. Anyone who wants to do this seriously will, mostly likely in the next 5 years, look into T/S lenses. That removes everyone but Canon and Nikon from the running. That isn't my call. That's how the lens lineups work. Why should he buy a camera system now, with lenses and maybe a flash that he has to sell en mass to move to what he should have been considering in the first place? It seems you have the axe to grind and are willing to push someone into a bad decision to prove it.

Edit2: Your link, btw, clearly states that the 17-55/2.8 does not vingette. Which is a DX lens, on an APS-C sensor. The OP is complaining about the 24-70/2.8, which is an FX lens on a D700. Not to mention, he's shooting with a filter on at 24mm. It seems his issue is his idiocy. So your link doesn't support your point....at all.

 

surfices to say I am now baffled hehe so as it is likly I will want to invest in such tilt lense as I progress a canon or nikon is the best bet?

thanks

Mark

 

A cropped sensor (what you are calling Tiny for some reason) effectively discards the lowest quality portions of the image, which is quite useful when using low quality lenses (as these typically have the worst edge quality).

What part of that are you and Vers having trouble with ?

What are you going to tell me next ? That in America everything is better because you single handedly won the war ?

Jog on son.

 

I am sorry, I doubt anyone else is.

Go to Camera Solutions in Frodsham street Chester and check out all brands, they have way more than Jessops, and give them a try.

 

What is silly is the fact that you make blanket statements like the one above and the one that sparked this side convo. 4/3's simply does not hold any IQ advantage over larger sensors. The term "cheap" is completely subjective. IMO third party lenses like the Tamron 17-50 are cheaper lenses. That said, there are such things as affordable lenses that perform excellently. Aside from that, you need to keep the entire camera system in mind when making comparisons. Overall APS-C bodies perform better than 4/3's bodies on nearly every level apart from body size, which may or may not be a factor at all. Camera systems like Canon and Nikon, generally speaking, are better than camera systems like Oly and Pentax--it is what it is. I have no axe to grind with the 4/3's sensor, I can see its merits, I just happen to be a realist and I call it as I see it.

 

Well, that is another can of worms IMO its best to weigh all the options (Camera feel/ergo, camera specs, lens options, flash options, cost etc etc) before making a decision.

 

I think the bottom line is you feel threatened by the fact anyone could possibly suggest that Canon is not always the best choice. You only have to look at the little red L's you have put in your signature, on what is essentially a Computing forum to see how you are willing to fiercely defend your choices.

I mean, would you go to DP review or somewhere and argue that 4/3 has crap image quality compared to Canon ? I doubt it. You are doing it on here, as you think your opinion won't be challenged.

You have tried (at least I think you have tried) to disguise the fact you look down on anyone using Olympus gear or Four Thirds, it is apparent from you posts, maybe its more subconcious than anything but its there, for all to see.