18MP on an APS-C size sensor is asking for trouble IMO, each sensor pixel will be so tiny it'll be noise city at anything above base ISO. Or, noise reduction aka detail reduction city. I'll wait to see some independent test shots first though
(can't think of any current APS-C cameras with that many pixels but I could well be wrong)
18MP on an APS-C size sensor is asking for trouble IMO, each sensor pixel will be so tiny it'll be noise city at anything above base ISO. Or, noise reduction aka detail reduction city. I'll wait to see some independent test shots first though )
But this is Canon we are talking about , bet it comes out 5 star rating . The top Japanese camera makers ( Canon , Nikon & Panasonic ) rarely get it wrong . But yes wait and see .
Ian
No price yet but i think it will replace the 500 ? just look at he spec !
Why is it that all SLR's are stuck at 3 x 2 aspect ratio ? when did you last see a square monitor or TV . The canon shoots avcHD video in normal 16 x 9 why cant it shoot stills in the correct format .
Ian
I got that email too. Would love to get my hands on one, but I am still more than happy with my 500D (had it since early Dec). It is a cracker!
Am using a free Lightroom trial and totally love it - just wish I could afford to get m6y hands on a copy without the mental pricetag!!
I was trying to diplomatically say that Sam was talking crap!...
The latest Which? magazine (March 2010)
'Test Lab' - Digital SLRs
Top of the pile - Canon EOS500D
2nd - Olympus E-620
3rd - Sony alpha 330
The best Nikon (D3000) comes in at 10th - with the D5000 in 12th
The Canon has better picture quality ratings then either Nikon, and better movie quality than the D5000 (no movies on the D3000)
Admittedly the D5000 has a slightly better image stabiliser than the EOS500D (no image stabiliser on the D3000)
The Canon has a higher resolution than either Nikon, and a higher max ISO setting.
Most of the score rating is based on still picture quality, and ease of use.
Prices of the EOS500D and D5000 are similar, with the D3000 being cheaper (but has less features)
This has been fascinating to read. Please may I add a related but cheaper question.
I'm looking at an Eos 400d. I really, really can't afford the 500d.
I've held one and taken a few pictures, and it felt really comfortable.
I'm currently looking at some ebay options and I have questions about the bundles offered:
Some offer a remote control. Is that an expensive piece of kit - i.e. is it important enough to be the decider between two otherwise similar deals?
Some offer an additional lens. What would be the benefit to a dslr beginner in having a 90-300mm lens, for example?
I've taken some good shots, composition wise, over the years and I now want to upgrade. However, despite a fair amount of research, I'm still very much a newbie, as my questions show. Grateful for any help.
is having a 90-300 lens more important than having the better, IS 18-55 lens?
Given the choice of one or the other, you want the 18-55.
This is the 'standard' zoom, and goes from wide-angle, through the standard view (which matches more-or-less the human eye's view) and on abit to give a bit of magnification.
A longer zoom is handy to supplement the standard one, for getting closer to distant targets, tight framing for sports shots, etc...
If you can get both, then great, but if you only get one lens, make it the shorter one.
The latest Which? magazine (March 2010)
'Test Lab' - Digital SLRs
Top of the pile - Canon EOS500D
2nd - Olympus E-620
3rd - Sony alpha 330
The best Nikon (D3000) comes in at 10th - with the D5000 in 12th
Just had a look at that myself . Probably best to have a look at a dedicated Photography review site as well, might find some opinions conflicting with this one.
is having a 90-300 lens more important than having the better, IS 18-55 lens?
The 18-55(pref IS) will be your everyday lens. Would probably sell the 90-300 and later if you find a need for a second lens get a 55-200(or a 18-200 and sell the 18-55 and get a 50mm prime and BLAH!!! BLAH!!! :yawn::yawn::yawn::yawn:) the choice is yours.
Just had a look at that myself . Probably best to have a look at a dedicated Photography review site as well, might find some opinions conflicting with this one.
The 18-55(pref IS) will be your everyday lens. Would probably sell the 90-300 and later if you find a need for a second lens get a 55-200(or a 18-200 and sell the 18-55 and get a 50mm prime and BLAH!!! BLAH!!! :yawn::yawn::yawn::yawn:) the choice is yours.
Thankyou all for your help. I phrased my question badly:
If a pkg offered me a camera plus a non-IS 18-55 lens plus the 90-300
and another offered me a camera plus an IS 18-55 lens and no other lenses
is there benefit to a beginner in shelling out more for the extra lens or shelling out only a bit more to get the IS 18-55?
I can see myself either re-selling on ebay in 6 months or becoming prime-obsessive in 3!
Thankyou all for your help. I phrased my question badly:
If a pkg offered me a camera plus a non-IS 18-55 lens plus the 90-300
and another offered me a camera plus an IS 18-55 lens and no other lenses
is there benefit to a beginner in shelling out more for the extra lens or shelling out only a bit more to get the IS 18-55?
I can see myself either re-selling on ebay in 6 months or becoming prime-obsessive in 3!
I'm new to DSLR photography so this may be nonsense but there seems to be quite a large gap between the optical capabilities of the two lenses mentioned (between 55-90mm).
I have a canon 500D with the 18-55mm lens and am looking at getting a 55-250mm lens like THIS ONE as soon as funds allow
To both of the above - don't obsess too much about zoom lenses which offer huge ranges. The important thing, being new to dslrs, is to learn how to use them to compose and all the different types of modes and settings.
Iphigenia - if I were in your shoes now (and I once was!) I'd get the 18-55 IS and also look at getting the 50mm 1.8 prime (nifty fifty) for low light work. A superzoom lens, when you're learning, is a bit of a luxury IMHO. If you do go for one, do the same as dave and save up for one with IS.
Admittedly the D5000 has a slightly better image stabiliser than the EOS500D (no image stabiliser on the D3000)
Sorry but I have to correct that. If that's what Which? have said, they need to do better research. Both Nikon and Canon's image stabilisation systems are built into the lenses (rather than the camera body as the likes of Pentax and Sony choose to do) and since the D3000 and D5000 are both provided with exactly the same 18-55mm kit lens with VR (vibration reduction, Nikon's image stabilisation system) to say that the D5000 has IS and the D3000 does not is nonsense. It depends on the lens - you could take a D5000 with 18-55mm VR kit lens, stick on an older 55-200mm non-VR lens and have no image stabilisation. Same goes for D3000 which does have a VR kit lens.
It looks to me that you've just taken the info from Which? though so please don't think I'm having a go at you personally. I'm just surprised that Which made such a balls-up.
Comments
(can't think of any current APS-C cameras with that many pixels but I could well be wrong)
But this is Canon we are talking about , bet it comes out 5 star rating . The top Japanese camera makers ( Canon , Nikon & Panasonic ) rarely get it wrong . But yes wait and see .
Ian
I got that email too. Would love to get my hands on one, but I am still more than happy with my 500D (had it since early Dec). It is a cracker!
Am using a free Lightroom trial and totally love it - just wish I could afford to get m6y hands on a copy without the mental pricetag!!
The latest Which? magazine (March 2010)
'Test Lab' - Digital SLRs
Top of the pile - Canon EOS500D
2nd - Olympus E-620
3rd - Sony alpha 330
The best Nikon (D3000) comes in at 10th - with the D5000 in 12th
The Canon has better picture quality ratings then either Nikon, and better movie quality than the D5000 (no movies on the D3000)
Admittedly the D5000 has a slightly better image stabiliser than the EOS500D (no image stabiliser on the D3000)
The Canon has a higher resolution than either Nikon, and a higher max ISO setting.
Most of the score rating is based on still picture quality, and ease of use.
Prices of the EOS500D and D5000 are similar, with the D3000 being cheaper (but has less features)
I'm looking at an Eos 400d. I really, really can't afford the 500d.
I've held one and taken a few pictures, and it felt really comfortable.
I'm currently looking at some ebay options and I have questions about the bundles offered:
Some offer a remote control. Is that an expensive piece of kit - i.e. is it important enough to be the decider between two otherwise similar deals?
Some offer an additional lens. What would be the benefit to a dslr beginner in having a 90-300mm lens, for example?
I've taken some good shots, composition wise, over the years and I now want to upgrade. However, despite a fair amount of research, I'm still very much a newbie, as my questions show. Grateful for any help.
For example: between
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EOS-400D-Digital-Camera-18-55mm-90-300mm-lens_W0QQitemZ250582431330QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN?hash=item3a57e07662
and
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CANON-400D-WITH-18-55-IS-LENS-AND-LOTS-OF-EXTRAS_W0QQitemZ260554421385QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN?hash=item3caa40f489
is having a 90-300 lens more important than having the better, IS 18-55 lens?
Thankyou .
Given the choice of one or the other, you want the 18-55.
This is the 'standard' zoom, and goes from wide-angle, through the standard view (which matches more-or-less the human eye's view) and on abit to give a bit of magnification.
A longer zoom is handy to supplement the standard one, for getting closer to distant targets, tight framing for sports shots, etc...
If you can get both, then great, but if you only get one lens, make it the shorter one.
Just had a look at that myself . Probably best to have a look at a dedicated Photography review site as well, might find some opinions conflicting with this one.
The 18-55(pref IS) will be your everyday lens. Would probably sell the 90-300 and later if you find a need for a second lens get a 55-200(or a 18-200 and sell the 18-55 and get a 50mm prime and BLAH!!! BLAH!!! :yawn::yawn::yawn::yawn:) the choice is yours.
Thankyou all for your help. I phrased my question badly:
If a pkg offered me a camera plus a non-IS 18-55 lens plus the 90-300
and another offered me a camera plus an IS 18-55 lens and no other lenses
is there benefit to a beginner in shelling out more for the extra lens or shelling out only a bit more to get the IS 18-55?
I can see myself either re-selling on ebay in 6 months or becoming prime-obsessive in 3!
I'm new to DSLR photography so this may be nonsense but there seems to be quite a large gap between the optical capabilities of the two lenses mentioned (between 55-90mm).
I have a canon 500D with the 18-55mm lens and am looking at getting a 55-250mm lens like THIS ONE as soon as funds allow
Iphigenia - if I were in your shoes now (and I once was!) I'd get the 18-55 IS and also look at getting the 50mm 1.8 prime (nifty fifty) for low light work. A superzoom lens, when you're learning, is a bit of a luxury IMHO. If you do go for one, do the same as dave and save up for one with IS.
Ian
You can get a second hand 5D Mark 1 for less than that...
It looks to me that you've just taken the info from Which? though so please don't think I'm having a go at you personally. I'm just surprised that Which made such a balls-up.