I am thinking of getting a dslr and I was looking at the EOS 400D.
Has anyone used both these cameras and could tell me how much difference in
quality, lower-noise etc. we are talking about here. I would be getting the
standard shipped 18-55 (i think) lens and would probably buy a Sigma 70-200
or thereabouts.
Can anyone help me? Any other suggestions are welcome.
Matalog wrote:
> I have a Fuji s9500, which I am pleased with.
>
> I am thinking of getting a dslr and I was looking at the EOS 400D.
>
> Has anyone used both these cameras and could tell me how much
> difference in quality, lower-noise etc. we are talking about here. I
> would be getting the standard shipped 18-55 (i think) lens and would
> probably buy a Sigma 70-200 or thereabouts.
>
> Can anyone help me? Any other suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks, matt.
With the standard "kit" lens on many DSLRs, you may be very disappointed
in the viewfinder brightness, as these lenses are sometimes no better than
f/56 at the extreme of the zoom. See if you can afford a more expensive
f/2.8 lens or better.
"Matalog" <matalog@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:UfOfi.2822$RD3.1976@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>I have a Fuji s9500, which I am pleased with.
>
> I am thinking of getting a dslr and I was looking at the EOS 400D.
>
> Has anyone used both these cameras and could tell me how much difference
> in quality, lower-noise etc. we are talking about here. I would be
> getting the standard shipped 18-55 (i think) lens and would probably buy a
> Sigma 70-200 or thereabouts.
>
> Can anyone help me? Any other suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks, matt.
I was also looking at a Tamron 55-200mm lens in jessops, would this and the
400D create much better photos than a Fuji s9500?
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:nEOfi.11380$p8.5429@text.news.blueyonder.co.u k...
> Matalog wrote:
>> I have a Fuji s9500, which I am pleased with.
>>
>> I am thinking of getting a dslr and I was looking at the EOS 400D.
>>
>> Has anyone used both these cameras and could tell me how much
>> difference in quality, lower-noise etc. we are talking about here. I
>> would be getting the standard shipped 18-55 (i think) lens and would
>> probably buy a Sigma 70-200 or thereabouts.
>>
>> Can anyone help me? Any other suggestions are welcome.
>>
>> Thanks, matt.
>
> With the standard "kit" lens on many DSLRs, you may be very disappointed
> in the viewfinder brightness, as these lenses are sometimes no better than
> f/56 at the extreme of the zoom. See if you can afford a more expensive
> f/2.8 lens or better.
>
> David
Thanks but they are quite expensive. If I didn't want to pay for a f/2.8
lens would it not be much better?
Matalog wrote:
[]
> Thanks but they are quite expensive. If I didn't want to pay for a
> f/2.8 lens would it not be much better?
"It depends". A DSLR might be as good at ISO 3200 as a small-sensor
camera at ISO 400. But if the small sensor camera has an f/2.8 lens, and
the DSLR an f/5.6 lens, then the eight times light-level performance
advantage of the DSLR is reduced to only two times. Taking still
pictures? Pop the non-SLR at ISO 100 on a tripod, and the pictures could
be, technically, almost as good as the DSLR. Want to take sports pictures
indoors? A DSLR with a large aperture, telephoto lens will provide many
more picture taking opportunities (but not better pictures per se). Want
image stabilisation? It will cost you less on a non-SLR. Want to take
some short movies to illustrate an event or capture a sound? No DSLRs do
movies....
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote in message news:25Qfi.11430$p8.7406@text.news.blueyonder.co.u k...
> Matalog wrote:
> []
>> I was also looking at a Tamron 55-200mm lens in jessops, would this
>> and the 400D create much better photos than a Fuji s9500?
>
> It's the photographer who creates the "much better" photos!
I really meant better quality, by much I meant a lot.
What I want to know is, will the 400d and the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens
and a Tamron 55-200 f/4-5.6 lens produce photographs that are better than
that producable with a fuji s9500.
Will the lens be the shortfall?
Will these lenses allow me to get better quality photos?
>
> What type of photos do you want to take, and under what lighting
> conditions?
>
Really general, i'm asking you to compare the lenses that I speak of with
the lens that I had.
>>> Has anyone used both these cameras and could tell me how much
>>> difference in quality, lower-noise etc. we are talking about here. I
>>> would be getting the standard shipped 18-55 (i think) lens and would
>>> probably buy a Sigma 70-200 or thereabouts.
>>>
>>> Can anyone help me? Any other suggestions are welcome.
>>>
>>> Thanks, matt.
>>
>> With the standard "kit" lens on many DSLRs, you may be very disappointed
>> in the viewfinder brightness, as these lenses are sometimes no better than
>> f/56 at the extreme of the zoom. See if you can afford a more expensive
>> f/2.8 lens or better.
>>
>> David
>
> Thanks but they are quite expensive. If I didn't want to pay for a f/2.8
> lens would it not be much better?
Don't worry about it, you won't need an f/2.8 lens. David is one
of the strongest P&S advocates here and often finds ways to try to
put them in, umm, a better light.
In fact, your Fuji S9500 may have a brighter viewfinder than any
DSLR because of the ability of cameras to "gain up" the LCD or EVF's
brightness in dim light. When comparing the viewfinder brightness
of my Nikon D50 in a fairly dim room with both a Fuji S5100 and a
Canon A620, both cameras have LCDs and viewfinders that are
noticeably brighter than a zoom lens with an f/5.6 aperture, as
David stated. But when an f/2.8 lens is placed on the D50, the
viewfinder image only brightens slightly, and still is no match for
the brightness of the S5100 or the A620.
What wasn't stated though, is that even though the light was
fairly dim, there was no difficulty seeing the image in the D50's
viewfinder, and focused more quickly (usually) and more accurately
than either of the P&S cameras. The reason for the caveat is that
the 75-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6 lens is an old one, bought long before the
advent of digital cameras, and in dim light if the initial focus is
way off, it can sometimes hunt a bit before achieving focus when
used at the extreme long end, equivalent to 450mm on the D50. In
other words, there should be no reason at all to be concerned about
using the 400D with its 18-55mm kit lens. If you're concerned, most
stores, including even Staples, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. have
400Ds on display, and unlike P&S cameras, you can check the
viewfinder even if the batteries have been removed.
Curiously, two things weren't mentioned. One is how much better
the DSLR's viewfinder is compared to a P&S when the P&S is pointed
in the wrong direction outdoors, glare completely obliterating the
viewfinder's display. The other is that even though the P&S has a
brighter viewfinder in dim light, my D50 and the 400D should be able
to produce higher quality, more noise free images in dim light, even
when f/4.5-f/5.6 lenses are used.
Matalog wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
> wrote in message news:25Qfi.11430$p8.7406@text.news.blueyonder.co.u k...
>> Matalog wrote:
>> []
>>> I was also looking at a Tamron 55-200mm lens in jessops, would this
>>> and the 400D create much better photos than a Fuji s9500?
>> It's the photographer who creates the "much better" photos!
>
> I really meant better quality, by much I meant a lot.
>
> What I want to know is, will the 400d and the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens
> and a Tamron 55-200 f/4-5.6 lens produce photographs that are better than
> that producable with a fuji s9500.
>
> Will the lens be the shortfall?
>
> Will these lenses allow me to get better quality photos?
>
>
>
>
>> What type of photos do you want to take, and under what lighting
>> conditions?
>>
>
> Really general, i'm asking you to compare the lenses that I speak of with
> the lens that I had.
>
> Thanks for all help.
>
>> David
>>
>
>
I think it depends on what you are shooting. The dslr is just more
versatile (I don't own one). There is no shutter lag. As far as that kit
lens, on other threads people have felt that stopped down it performs
quite well, it's just that better and more expensive lenses are
available especially when you extend your range to third party
offerings. If you don't need movie mode (I never use ever use it) and
don't mind the extra bulk I think the dslr will generally be all around
better.
I was in a restaurant the other day, and very cute little boy cuddled up
to his sister creating a delightful shot. The grandfather sitting
opposite captured this on what was obviously a more than entry level
dslr and I didn't see the flash fire (assuming it had flash). Anyway, I
could never have got such a spontaneous shot with my A95 and captured
the moment.
Dave Cohen
ASAAR wrote:
[]
> Don't worry about it, you won't need an f/2.8 lens. David is one
> of the strongest P&S advocates here and often finds ways to try to
> put them in, umm, a better light.
Hardly, I mentioned both the advantages and drawbacks. I do not accept
the view that some disseminate that /only/ the DSLR will suffice.
[]
> What wasn't stated though, is that even though the light was
> fairly dim, there was no difficulty seeing the image in the D50's
> viewfinder, and focused more quickly (usually) and more accurately
> than either of the P&S cameras.
I had the opportunity to check another DSLR this weekend, and I still
think they dark indoors. I would have taken some time to get used to the
f/5.6 lens. The current DSLRs seem so dark compared to my Nikon F3 and
its f/1.4 .. f/2.8 lenses. They also lack the focussing aids I found so
helpful. You need to rely on autofocus and, because of the smaller
depth-of-field, focus is so much more critical with the DSLR.
> Curiously, two things weren't mentioned. One is how much better
> the DSLR's viewfinder is compared to a P&S when the P&S is pointed
> in the wrong direction outdoors, glare completely obliterating the
> viewfinder's display. The other is that even though the P&S has a
> brighter viewfinder in dim light, my D50 and the 400D should be able
> to produce higher quality, more noise free images in dim light, even
> when f/4.5-f/5.6 lenses are used.
Actually, I haven't found this to be a problem with EVFs in bright
daylight. I tend not to use the LCD finders except under unusual
conditions, and my viewing is almost entirely "SLR-style".
Perhaps you missed that I did state that even with an f/5.6 lens, the DSLR
retained an advantage in pure sensitivity terms over a small-sensor camera
with an f/2.8 lens? This should result in a lower-noise image. More
realistically, though, it means you can use a higher ISO and hence a
shorter exposure time. This will be helpful if photographing moving
objects. At what size are you displaying your images?
Many DSLR owners also have a small-sensor camera for those occasions when
they don't want to carry around the weighty camera, lens and flash kit, or
when the DSLR might get damaged, or when movies are required.
Camera Upgrade? 
Linear Mode
