• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Tablets and e-Readers
Image Quality DSLR
<<
<
1 of 2
>>
>
EDN1
05-06-2011
Hi all.

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on what camera under £599 would provide the best image quality.

Now I know that the answer is not straightforward due to what lense is used but generally speaking I'd like to know what your input would be.

I suppose the best way to put it would be to ask which camera would provide the best image quality "out of the box".

I've been searching and researching for an absolute age and I've finally decided that Image Quality is my number one priority in a new camera.

However from all the reviews I've read so far not one camera stands out from the crowd.

I've read up on and watched reviews and viewed sample images for the likes of the Nikon D5100, Canon EOS 1100D, Pentax K-r, Nikon D3100, Canon 550D and 600D. I've also read up on some of the Sony DSLR range as well as the two NEX models. I've read up on many more too.

I also looked at the Micro Four Thirds Panasonic range, can I ask the same question again for these type of cameras. Which one produces the best out of camera shots?

I know it's all subjective but I'm find the right product for myself and have so far failed.

Thanks
TheBigM
05-06-2011
Image quality is highly subjective. To be honest, SLRs are more about creativity and manual control - being able to deliberately affect a picture in the way you want.

In terms of bog standard "happy snap" type photos being good quality, pretty much any modern SLR will take great photos. Lenses will make a massive difference - something like a 50mm prime is going to trump a camera with a large zoom. Different cameras have different strengths when it comes to different things - some are better at high ISO performance. It also matters what mode you shoot in - shoot for JPEGs and the image processor in the camera matters, shoot in RAW and the way you process matters.

Basically, don't worry about this notion called "image quality", worry about more specific things - purple fringing, definition loss from noise reduction techniques etc. You'll focus on the things that matter to you and the type of photos you intend to take that way.
Darthchaffinch
06-06-2011
The lens is a big factoe in IQ also; a fast (low F-no.) prime lens will be on your list if you want the best IQ from whichever one you choose.
The first thing you need to do is go into Jessops/independent camera shop and try them out- some will feel better to you than others. Also check out dpreview.com and flickr (for each camera group) if you haven#t a;ready.
davethorp
06-06-2011
The EOS 500d (which I own) whilst being a couple of models out of date now, is still a really good camera and can be picked up from Jessops for £580 with two lenses (18-55mm and 75-250mm again both of which I have along with the 50mm prime lens which is a fantastic lens for the price)

Certainly makes a good starter bundle due to getting both lenses which cover a decent focal range
clonmult
06-06-2011
Originally Posted by davethorp:
“The EOS 500d (which I own) whilst being a couple of models out of date now, is still a really good camera and can be picked up from Jessops for £580 with two lenses (18-55mm and 75-250mm again both of which I have along with the 50mm prime lens which is a fantastic lens for the price)

Certainly makes a good starter bundle due to getting both lenses which cover a decent focal range”

I'm even more out of date, using a Sony A200 running a "mere" 10mp.

But its still a damn good camera - did a friends wedding last year, and the 50mm F1.8 made for some truly gorgeous shots.

That lens, along with the Sigma 28-300 has got me covered for 95% of what I want. The other 5% is going to be covered by a wide angle zoom, something along the 10-20mm range.
TheBigM
06-06-2011
We all agree that you need to go and handle different bodies. Different cameras do things slightly different re: stuff like button placement, lens range etc.

I personally preferred the Canon way of doing things (and they did basically invent the budget SLR range but Nikons are also very, very popular. Pentax, sony etc are all good too.

If you're going to buy a canon I'd say get the 1100D which is a perfectly good starter SLR, in the mid-range: the 550D is the one to get IMO - it got the sweet spot on the price technology curve (i.e. it's a major upgrade from the 500D but the 600D is a much smaller upgrade).
brangdon
06-06-2011
Originally Posted by EDN1:
“I'd like to know what your thoughts are on what camera under £599 would provide the best image quality.”

The Pentax have a good reputation for low noise in poor lighting conditions. In good lighting conditions, all mainstream DSLRs cameras are good, so I'd go for a cheaper camera and a better lens. With your budget, 12 megapixels should be fine.

In addition to low-light, you might consider what focal lengths you want. Generally the kit lens which comes with a camera is OK but not stellar. You can't really judge the camera "out of the box" because the lens will limit it. So I'd include a lens in the budget.

A Pentax K-r (£350) with DAL 35mm f2.4 prime (£180) would be hard to beat for quality at below £600.
pumazooma
06-06-2011
I recently bought a Canon 550D and I'm really happy with it.

As said above you can have all the gear and no idea and still take rubbish pictures of bad quality. I'm very much a beginner but once I read about the basics and tried a few things out I'm been very pleased with the results so far.

Here's my best picture so far, taken just with the 18-55mm kit lens and sitting by my window for a while waiting for the birds to come to the feeder a couple of feet away.
http://www.diecastcentral.co.uk/phot...s/album2/3.jpg
Darthchaffinch
06-06-2011
Originally Posted by brangdon:
“The Pentax have a good reputation for low noise in poor lighting conditions. In good lighting conditions, all mainstream DSLRs cameras are good, so I'd go for a cheaper camera and a better lens. With your budget, 12 megapixels should be fine.

In addition to low-light, you might consider what focal lengths you want. Generally the kit lens which comes with a camera is OK but not stellar. You can't really judge the camera "out of the box" because the lens will limit it. So I'd include a lens in the budget.

A Pentax K-r (£350) with DAL 35mm f2.4 prime (£180) would be hard to beat for quality at below £600.”

So do Nikons!
Biffo the Bear
06-06-2011
Get yourself a second hand 400D with a nifty-fifty
Brother Drum
07-06-2011
Originally Posted by EDN1:
“Hi all.

I'd like to know what your thoughts are on what camera under £599 would provide the best image quality.

Now I know that the answer is not straightforward due to what lense is used but generally speaking I'd like to know what your input would be.

I suppose the best way to put it would be to ask which camera would provide the best image quality "out of the box".

I've been searching and researching for an absolute age and I've finally decided that Image Quality is my number one priority in a new camera.

However from all the reviews I've read so far not one camera stands out from the crowd.

I've read up on and watched reviews and viewed sample images for the likes of the Nikon D5100, Canon EOS 1100D, Pentax K-r, Nikon D3100, Canon 550D and 600D. I've also read up on some of the Sony DSLR range as well as the two NEX models. I've read up on many more too.

I also looked at the Micro Four Thirds Panasonic range, can I ask the same question again for these type of cameras. Which one produces the best out of camera shots?

I know it's all subjective but I'm find the right product for myself and have so far failed.

Thanks ”

There are lots of choices that can best suit your needs in photography. DSLR is a good choice especially for those who want to capture the best moments and for sure, you will appreciate the results that you will achieve even if you don't have the skills of a professional photographer.
clonmult
07-06-2011
Originally Posted by brangdon:
“The Pentax have a good reputation for low noise in poor lighting conditions. In good lighting conditions, all mainstream DSLRs cameras are good, so I'd go for a cheaper camera and a better lens. With your budget, 12 megapixels should be fine.

In addition to low-light, you might consider what focal lengths you want. Generally the kit lens which comes with a camera is OK but not stellar. You can't really judge the camera "out of the box" because the lens will limit it. So I'd include a lens in the budget.

A Pentax K-r (£350) with DAL 35mm f2.4 prime (£180) would be hard to beat for quality at below £600.”

Unless you've got very specific requirements, and are willing to spend thousands, you'll still need a decent flash for low light imaging.

Which would mean budgeting several hundred quid, as the internal flash is generally not that good, either doesn't rise high enough or just doesn't have a useful range/spread.
brangdon
07-06-2011
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“Unless you've got very specific requirements, and are willing to spend thousands, you'll still need a decent flash for low light imaging.”

It depends how low. If you get sufficient exposure at ISO 6400, say, then in a lot of situations you can use available light and still have a narrow enough aperture to allow some depth of field. But you also need a camera that can manage that without compromising image quality. Same argument at ISO 1600 or whatever.

This is the first example I found (not my photo):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickdean/5371855568/

I think high ISO is one of the few areas where there is a significant difference between cameras on image quality.
PrinceGaz
07-06-2011
What tends to matter most in a DSLR body is noise (particularly at the higher ISO settings which you'll need if you want to shoot fast moving subjects, or at night or indoors under available lighting). Visit dpreview.com and imaging-resource.com and read the full reviews of those cameras you are considering. Choose whichever has a good sensor (often a trade-off between noise and resolution only you can decide on) and the shooting modes you need.

At the end of the day though, any DSLR body is only as good as the lens it is using, and any professional photographer will tell you that lenses are the most important purchase, so don't spend too much on the body if that will limit your lens budget.
brillopad
08-06-2011
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“Unless you've got very specific requirements, and are willing to spend thousands, you'll still need a decent flash for low light imaging.

Which would mean budgeting several hundred quid, as the internal flash is generally not that good, either doesn't rise high enough or just doesn't have a useful range/spread.”

A flash is equally useful in extremely bright light too - bright light can produce extreme contrast which camera sensors can't cope with - a flash on a sunny day can flatten the contrast and bring out hidden detail.
My flash was expensive but gets used more than (say) some of my expensive lens collection.

It doesn't seem natural to be using a flash when there is plenty of available light but that's photography for you.
EDN1
08-06-2011
Thank you all for the replies.

I've had a little bit of a play around with the Pentax KR which was the one I was originally going to buy and I didn't really like what I saw to be honest, however having had a look around the next again yesterday I found Jacobs Digital are selling it for £399 which is an amazing price so I'm going to try to get there and give it another shot.

As was mentioned the KR supposedly handles noise very well and indeed from what I've seen of it, it is rather impressive (again especially considering that price point!).

The Canon 550D is one which I've found myself moving toward more and more but it's in the slightly higher end for my budget although it isn't out of my reach totally. I really like what I've seen so far from the 550D.

I also saw the 500D Twin Lense kit on offer, haven't done much research into that one so that's something for me to do ASAP as I certainly like the fact it comes with the longer lense.

Again thanks for the advice
TheBigM
08-06-2011
Originally Posted by EDN1:
“Thank you all for the replies.

I've had a little bit of a play around with the Pentax KR which was the one I was originally going to buy and I didn't really like what I saw to be honest, however having had a look around the next again yesterday I found Jacobs Digital are selling it for £399 which is an amazing price so I'm going to try to get there and give it another shot.

As was mentioned the KR supposedly handles noise very well and indeed from what I've seen of it, it is rather impressive (again especially considering that price point!).

The Canon 550D is one which I've found myself moving toward more and more but it's in the slightly higher end for my budget although it isn't out of my reach totally. I really like what I've seen so far from the 550D.

I also saw the 500D Twin Lense kit on offer, haven't done much research into that one so that's something for me to do ASAP as I certainly like the fact it comes with the longer lense.

Again thanks for the advice”

If you go for the 550D, their Kit 2, with an 18-135mm lens would be a lot more convenient than an 18-55 and a 55-250mm. 55mm is right in the middle of the range you'd want to use and constantly switching lenses the whole is not something anyone wants to be doing.
clonmult
08-06-2011
Originally Posted by brillopad:
“A flash is equally useful in extremely bright light too - bright light can produce extreme contrast which camera sensors can't cope with - a flash on a sunny day can flatten the contrast and bring out hidden detail.
My flash was expensive but gets used more than (say) some of my expensive lens collection.

It doesn't seem natural to be using a flash when there is plenty of available light but that's photography for you.”

+1

Use fill-in flash regularly with my mobile (N8), great results. But the best had to be on holiday in Florida - it brought in some stellar results.

Photography is fun, and with digital imaging, you can mess around as far as your imagination will allow without any major cost issues.
pumazooma
08-06-2011
By the way, this is a great site for tracking camera and equipment prices.
http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html
Jimtbell
08-06-2011
When I retired from my photographic career I bought a little Minolta for holiday snaps etc. It has only a 5meg chip but is adequate. These days cameras have over 10meg chips and more. The secret of good photography is in the user. Like any profession it's the person behind the camera. The price of over £500 would give you a very good basic camera. Buy one of the top names Canon or Nikon or Leica.
Jimtbell
08-06-2011
High ISO ratings 6400 and high shutter speeds lead to reciprocity failure. This would cause loss of detail in the subject and lots of noise. The result would be very poor quality.
brangdon
08-06-2011
Originally Posted by Jimtbell:
“High ISO ratings 6400 and high shutter speeds lead to reciprocity failure. This would cause loss of detail in the subject and lots of noise. The result would be very poor quality.”

ISO is an area where a lot of progress has been made, and is being made. A few years ago there was a mega-pixel war, and that topped out at around 12 MP. Now there is an ISO war going on between manufacturers. As a result, a modern camera can use ISO settings that would have been impractical 3 years ago.

(Mobile phone cameras seem to be following a similar path. My phone has 8 MP, and increasing that wouldn't improve picture quality because the lens is limited. I think they are just now starting to switch to improving ISO.)
The Sack
19-06-2011
I have shot ambient light wedding photos at ISO 3200 and the results have looked perfectly good at A3 sizes, viva la neat image is what i say
EDN1
21-06-2011
I finally managed to get to some shops today to try out some of the cameras. I didn't really like the D3100, but what really would me off of that from the get go was that it has no Autofocus motor.

I also had a better play around with the Pentax KR and although I liked it I felt myself discard it at the same time. One of the main reasons was due to the lack of HDMI output. I had thought about the 500D, and the twin lense version but to be honest after all the research I've done I kind of have my heart set on the Canon 550D but it keeps changing price so I'm leaving it for the time being to see what happens with it.

I've ruled out the 1100D, the D3100 and at the moment the 500D. I'd considered getting one of the Micro Four Thirds from the Panasonic range but I know I wouldn't be happy with them. Just personal thing's that have made me rule them out.

I'd started to think I might even wait that bit longer for the 600D to come down in price as the rotating screen would defintely be a good addition.

One of the thing's that had orginally drawn me to the KR was ISO performance, for which is was regarderd as really quite good. However the 550D also does pretty well, another plus for me to buy the Canon in fact.

I really would like to delve into dSLR photography ASAP but with the varying prices I think I'm going to have to take a step back and see how the pricing changes, but also go back into the shops and try them out again for an even longer period.
grumpyoldbat
21-06-2011
Originally Posted by Jimtbell:
“High ISO ratings 6400 and high shutter speeds lead to reciprocity failure. This would cause loss of detail in the subject and lots of noise. The result would be very poor quality.”

It can do, but sometimes that graininess is exactly the effect you're looking for. For example live concert photography can look really stunning with more noise on the lighting.
<<
<
1 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map