Roundup: DSLR and Lens-Changing Cameras

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]We appreciate your input, Joebob. Do us a favor and tell us what you mean about the improper comparison of the E-Volt to the Nikon D60 and Cnon 40D--give us a sense of why this is highly inappropriate. That would be extremely useful.

Thanks,Rachel RosmarinEditor, Tom's Guide[/citation]

At the risk of sounding like a curmudgeon; if this is meant as an introductory article to DSLR photography then in my opinion the writer should spent at LEAST half the text on fundamentals and not mention any cameras by name until the second half. Without getting into too much detail, the two key factors for deciding on a camera body (ignoring the lenses and special case photography completely) is High ISO performance and overall Dynamic Range performance. Put in english, this means the best possible picture taken in the dark and the best possible compromise between dark and light in a single picture. These metrics are what set cameras like the E-volt apart from the Canon 40D (which is peerless in the sub-$1000 market) and set the 40D apart from more expensive bodies by Canon, Nikon, and the rest. Beyond that, lenses and a few minor features are all that stand between casual photographers and serious professionals. Of course, the principle of diminishing returns means that professionals are going to need to spend $10,000 or more to take pictures that are noticeably better than someone spending $1,000 on an amateur set-up.

I will venture one more observation and then let you guys get back to work. If you want to tackle the entry level DSLR market you need to tell people what they are getting for their money. Honestly there are plenty of people who ask me about cameras that receive the suggestion "please just buy a point and shoot". One needs to be ready to take advantage of the benefits of a DSLR or they are going to be burning money and not taking any better pictures. Tell your readers what the real impact is of spending $1000 on a DSLR vs $200 on a point-n-shoot, and don't even bother using the word "professional" in an article again until you are reviewing DSLR bodies priced above $1500-- that's where the pros live.

I like Tom's and the writers, I really do. If I thought you were really spewing crap I would have just deleted the bookmark and moved on with my time. I hope that you can take away something helpful from my comments, and find your direction in the brave world of photography.

 

[theuerkorn]

I think GeOMan had some really good input. I have to admit I didn't take it too seriously given that this isn't dpreview.com or imaging-resource.com, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be factual and correct. At minimum, one should make sure it's proof read (especially since it appears to have been published before).

 

[joebob2000]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]Hi Geoman,Please forgive me, but I don't see where in the article it ever insinuated that DSLRs are for professionals only. Since so many readers have brought up this point and made this claim, I'm realizing that I must have simply missed that when I read this article. Please point out what page it is on, and then we can get to the sales data.Thanks. Don't worry you're not picking on me--this is what I'm here for--to discuss these articles with you.Rachel[/citation]

Professional Use Only?

For a long time, SLRs were effectively the only digital cameras that used interchangeable lenses. Used mainly by professionals, they were expensive and difficult to master. Little by little, they've grown in popularity, with Canon's EOS 300D one of the first truly affordable digital SLRs released back in 2003.

The problem I have with this paragraph (aside from rhetorically opening with "Professional use only?") is it apparently equates SLR with DSLR. There is no such equivalence, film SLR cameras still sell to this day and the two have their own market niche. Arguably, the 300D was the first affordable DSLR, but it should be noted that this is based on comparing the quality of the output to a film SLR when making the price comparison. While it's lost on most people today, the similarities and differences between film and digital photography are important in understanding where the technology came from and where it's going.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

Once again, I want to thank you all for taking the time to tell me what you'd like to see out of Tom's Guide camera coverage. I'll make sure that the right people read your remarks, and let them decide if they want to change the way camera roundups are done here, ie. distinct roundups by DSLR market category, more in-depth tests, etc. Currently, these Digital Versus product roundups use broad categories, and aim to include as many products as the testers can get their hands on. These are not buying guides and don't aim to help exclusively with purchase decisions, nor are they in-depth tested reviews--for right now, we ask that you accept these articles for what they are--brief intros to each product--and be patient with us as we determine what most of our readers want.

If you do still see typos, please point them out to me--it is much appreciated. It is no use to say an article is full of mistakes, and then not point to them.

Thanks again.

 

[zodiacfml]

while most readers here miss the point of tomsguide.. i agree with them that the article needs a lot of improvement since it doesn't help the novice looking for such cameras, this only introduced so much confusion.
how come there's no price posted or table of features? in my case, i want to know immediately whether or not i can afford them before i read everything, or which one's had LIVE VIEW, and/or takes HD videos.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]zodiacfml[/nom]while most readers here miss the point of tomsguide.. i agree with them that the article needs a lot of improvement since it doesn't help the novice looking for such cameras, this only introduced so much confusion.how come there's no price posted or table of features? in my case, i want to know immediately whether or not i can afford them before i read everything, or which one's had LIVE VIEW, and/or takes HD videos.[/citation]

For most of the the cameras, Pricing info is posted directly on the right hand side of each page in a box. Thank you for the feedback--we will consider putting the MSRP pricing inside the text of each page. We are also working on importing a spec list for each product, please bear with us.

 

[haplo602]

hmm ... I see you already got some angry comments so I'll focus on the improvement side:

1. mention year of introduction and street price with and without kit lens (if available). this helps differentiate old from new and expensive from cheap

2. with SLRs in general, it's the system that matters, not the camera. so canon and nikon have quite an advantage in future growth in case you like photography. sony, olympus and to some extend pentax cannot offer so many options. this should be mentioned in the opening page (not that there is anything wrong with their cameras/lenses/flash systems, just the used market is much smaller and they have limited options). the olympus systems is the most limited one imo.

3. comparing nikon D90 to eos 40D made me smile. there's a generation gap and a level gap. D90 is mid-range while 40D is the top level canon APS-C camera (comparing to nikon D200 to keep the generation gap tight). as was already mentioned in another comment, the D90 would struggle hard to compete with eos 50D.

4. choose a few key factors that matter. live view ? megapixel count ? focusing system ? burst speed ? weather sealing ? sensor stabilisation ? these are some of the important aspects. f.e all the pentax/sony/olympus (or almost all) have built in sensor stabilisation, while canon/nikon only offer stabilised lenses. also some of the cameras might not feature live view. some have face detection and some not.

This seems to be developing the same way as the photgraphy articles over on anandtech. we criticised thier author quite a lot for trivial errors and he improved to a decent level. I hope tom's follows the same route.

 

[theuerkorn]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]... If you do still see typos, please point them out to me--it is much appreciated. It is no use to say an article is full of mistakes, and then not point to them.[/citation]

Not sure you can ask your audience to "proof-read or be quiet".

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]theuerkorn[/nom]Not sure you can ask your audience to "proof-read or be quiet".[/citation]
Excuse me? I didn't ask anyone to be quiet. I'm simply asking for you to holler if you see typos. Here I am, responding to everyone and listening to what you have to say, encouraging you to give your opinions, and you accuse me of asking people to be quiet?

 

[theuerkorn]

[citation][nom]Tomsguiderachel[/nom]Excuse me? I didn't ask anyone to be quiet. ... and you accuse me of asking people to be quiet?[/citation]
No reason to take it there. Anyway, all I was saying is that we should expect the proofing from the writer and not the readers, especially when there are so many factual as well as simple mix-up problems.

For what it's worth: "It's no secret that larger sensors on digital cameras yield better results. This is for two reasons: first, a larger sensor can not only capture more light, but it also allows you more room to adjust the depth of field, enabling you to focus on what you want. A great example of this would be a portrait shot where the background remains blurry, but displays a sharp view of the subject's face, for instance." That's hardly correct in layman's terms, let alone for a technical blog. A larger sensor doesn't capture any more light than a smaller one, as what counts here is pixel size. In fact a 20D has a larger pixel size than the 5D MkII, despite the smaller sensor (of course it's less resolution). Depth of Field (DOF) is determined by aperture, focal length and distance. Sensor size does nothing if those three remain the same. A smaller sensor forces to use a wider lens (< focal length) or different position to get the same Field of View (FOV), which in return affects DOF but it's not the sensor that's responsible.

 

[GeoMan]

Page 1. “The average user who wanted great photos without needing a degree in optical physics was left behind in thee dust.” the dust

Page 2. “the EOS line by maintaining several of the features found in higher-end models while offering a lower pricetag.” price tag, two words

Page 3. “although the H.264 compression enscapulated as a .MOV file isn't the easiest to format to handle on a Window PC.” encapsulated

“which was faster and with a powerful set of microlenses.” micro lenses, two words

Page 5. “Olympus is now finally moving to fill the hole that separted its top end reflex camera from its E-420 and E-520 amateur range.” separated

“But is the promise fulfulled?” fulfilled

“The interface itself can be personalised extensively (functions of buttons, scroll…).” personalized

“The visualisation of images is also elegantly designed,” visualization

“It is however also much easier to personalise the interface on the E-30” personalize

“The Nikon D90 gives the same resoltion with a larger sensor” resolution

“It also has advanced settings with buttons and scrolls to allow you to personalise it to a great extent.” Personalize

Page 9. “Another feature of this redisgned interface” redesigned

Page 10. “. Startup is piratically instantaneous” practically

“has a strong tendancy to under expose” tendency

Spell checking your articles is your job not ours.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]GeOMan[/nom]Page 1. “The average user who wanted great photos without needing a degree in optical physics was left behind in thee dust.” the dustPage 2. “the EOS line by maintaining several of the features found in higher-end models while offering a lower pricetag.” price tag, two wordsPage 3. “although the H.264 compression enscapulated as a .MOV file isn't the easiest to format to handle on a Window PC.” encapsulated“which was faster and with a powerful set of microlenses.” micro lenses, two wordsPage 5. “Olympus is now finally moving to fill the hole that separted its top end reflex camera from its E-420 and E-520 amateur range.” separated“But is the promise fulfulled?” fulfilled“The interface itself can be personalised extensively (functions of buttons, scroll…).” personalized“The visualisation of images is also elegantly designed,” visualization“It is however also much easier to personalise the interface on the E-30” personalize“The Nikon D90 gives the same resoltion with a larger sensor” resolution“It also has advanced settings with buttons and scrolls to allow you to personalise it to a great extent.” PersonalizePage 9. “Another feature of this redisgned interface” redesignedPage 10. “. Startup is piratically instantaneous” practically“has a strong tendancy to under expose” tendencySpell checking your articles is your job not ours.[/citation]
You are absolutely right. Never the less, I'm grateful that you posted this. I simply didn't want people to complain about typos and then not show them to me. That doesn't help anyone. We're working on getting our copy editing squad up to snuff, and in this age of social media, I see nothing wrong with me asking for your help, and you generously giving it. It is appreciated.

 

[Tomsguiderachel]

[citation][nom]theuerkorn[/nom]No reason to take it there. Anyway, all I was saying is that we should expect the proofing from the writer and not the readers, especially when there are so many factual as well as simple mix-up problems.For what it's worth: "It's no secret that larger sensors on digital cameras yield better results. This is for two reasons: first, a larger sensor can not only capture more light, but it also allows you more room to adjust the depth of field, enabling you to focus on what you want. A great example of this would be a portrait shot where the background remains blurry, but displays a sharp view of the subject's face, for instance." That's hardly correct in layman's terms, let alone for a technical blog. A larger sensor doesn't capture any more light than a smaller one, as what counts here is pixel size. In fact a 20D has a larger pixel size than the 5D MkII, despite the smaller sensor (of course it's less resolution). Depth of Field (DOF) is determined by aperture, focal length and distance. Sensor size does nothing if those three remain the same. A smaller sensor forces to use a wider lens (< focal length) or different position to get the same Field of View (FOV), which in return affects DOF but it's not the sensor that's responsible.[/citation]
Thanks for the factual comments. I'm trying to reach the writer of this article, and hopefully he can address all of these concerns.

 

[Powersworder]

[citation][nom]GeOMan[/nom]“The interface itself can be personalised extensively (functions of buttons, scroll…).” personalized

“It is however also much easier to personalise the interface on the E-30” personalize[/citation]

The initial spellings for those words are actually correct. Personalise is the English version of the word, the americanised version uses the Z (personalize). I believe Canada uses the same convention, so I would guess the author was British or Canadian.

 

[haplo602]

RE: End of the SLR?

There are also TLR and rangefinder cameras wich can change lenses. However I do not know about any with a digital sensor. all of them are from the film era.

Panasonic G/H1 is just an EVF with a lens mount. Actualy it even does not get the best of both worlds. What does a small body matter when you still need to lug around 2-3 lenses to use it to full capacity ? And a high power zoom (10x-18x) for this large a sensor will still be big. End result is you cannot conveniently pocket the camera (as you can do with a P&S) and the IQ is not that much better (4/3 is a "small" sensor). Also a lens mount means dust problems.

So it's just a hyped product without much utility.