Nikon 3100 or Canon1100d

[TaureanBull]

No offence again...the beauty is in the eye of beholder.

The difference between DSLR and other P & S Camera is same as between a "5-CD changer Sony/Philips etc" Music system and an audiophile setup. There are people who ask this difference "whats the big deal in this setup".

Just trying to put it in an audiophiles' way.

There would be no requirement of a DSLR by the logic.

 

[mabhi10]

nikon dose not have AF motors in entry level camera so how do they manage to get sharp images,Is AF lens which are expensive is the only option?

 

[TaureanBull]

nikon dose not have AF motors in entry level camera so how do they manage to get sharp images,Is AF lens which are expensive is the only option?

In cameras without AF (Nikon or whatever camera) you have to manually focus. Even in AF lens there is a button auto/manual. There are situations when one would like to focus manually. The focus needs to be accurate to get a sharp image. Normally an accurate focus is displayed on the screen/in viewfinder whenever the focus is achieved.

 

[Asit]

Hi sam9s,

Sorry for the late reply. I have several deadlines today. However, let me first apologetically add that I am not the photographer based on whose pictures you should decide in favour or against getting a DSLR. I may at times do a reasonable job, but like in any trade, one needs hours of practice, dedication and talent to do a good job and I fall far short in all those areas when it comes to photography. I am just an enthusiast, and an occasional one at that.

What you have written needs some clarification:

1) If you got a good P&S camera (I got no idea about yours), in normal print size (even up to 10"x8"), you would not see much difference in well-lit pictures. P&S cameras are good these days for common use.

2) But there will definitely be difference in low light conditions (even with cameras like Canon S 90/95 and similar cameras). The APS-C size DSLRs (the ones we have discussed here so far) will be far better in these conditions. The full frame DSLRs will do even better. Pixel density has an inverse correlation with low light performance. The P&S cameras have small sensors and in that they put in these days a lot more than 8 or 10 megapixels. Compare the sensor sizes of P&S with any DSLR and find out.

3) There is one other area where DSLRs will generally do a lot better, and that is called dynamic range. In shots where there are simultaneously very bright and very dark areas, a camera with much less dynamic range (like the P&S) will lose details on one or the other. Take for example, the second picture in my previous post. The major part of the frame is actually very dark. To get the details of the dark part, I had to lose any details on some parts of the sky which looks completely white in those parts. So you see even a DSLR struggled with this shot with its dynamic range. I still processed the RAW picture in this way, because it looks better this way to me rather than having less detail on the dark part and retrieving some detail from the sky. Among the DSLRs, in my experience, Nikons have the best dynamic range. My 550D does not also do a bad job. But a P&S will not stand even a remote chance here. BTW, there is a correlation between dynamic range and noise. Noise generally increases if you want to have more dynamic range, so it's a design challenge for sensors and image processing.

4) There are other issues generally with P&S, and I am going to mention just a few here. On a small print or web-pictures like these you may not see a lot of difference. However, actually when you see the pictures at 100%, you will generally see a lot of rough edges with the P&S cameras. A sharp edge will have ghosting, it will also have purple fringing etc. especially if it has long zooms. In addition, colour saturation will be found wanting if you manage to compare the same shot with a DSLR at 100%.

All that said and done, all the pictures I shared with you, as I said, were dramatically reduced in size (from about 25 Mega Bytes size for each picture to about a few hundred kilo Bytes size). It's not fair to make a judgement on these. But in any case, I do not think a P&S will be able to take any of the shots there with reasonable degree of acceptibility, with the exception of perhaps the last one. Please look at the ISO setting of the first 4 pictures in my post. They were 3200, 3200, 3200 and 1600. Then check the apertures (most of them were pretty high, any higher you will lose a lot of depth of field, which generally is not good for nature photos), and then also look at the shutterspeed. 1/50s is considered quite a long exposure. So basically all those shots were dying for some more light. I am sorry to say, P&S cameras have no chance there. This is outside their regime. Even with the last one where the P&S will be able to shoot with some degree of acceptibility, you will lose big time on the details, contrast, dynamic range and colour saturation and as a result the shot will lose its vibrance/presence. One needs to understand also the lens attached and where it gives max sharpness. The f/8.0 aperture worked in my favour in that shot, it gave me a better field of view which I wanted in the shot, and at the same time the lens was very sharp at that aperture and focal lengths used.

But you are right. If one thinks these are not the stuff one may care about (believe me this is true for the overwhelming majority of the camera-owning population of the world, so no problem there, just like the field of audio/video), it is perfectly okay to have a P&S. After all our happiness only matters.

Regards.

 

[mabhi10]

just a small spice from nikon 3100 user
"
Originally Posted by skartik2 View Post
That is at ISO 1600, unbelievable. I have a D3100 and anything over 400 seems very noisy."

is this true even if u used best lens but the camera has poor low light performance it will build noisy images ?

 

[Asit]

mabhi,

Where have you seen that post? In this forum? Or somewhere else?

Anyway, answer to your question is: no. I do not think low light noise can be induced by a bad quality lens, according to what I know. Knowledgable folks may comment on this.

It is not expected that D3100 or any DSLR will have serious noise problem at ISO 400. My D3000 was not very good in this area, but even there I had serious problem with noise starting from ISO 800. The D3100 is supposed to be better and I'd expect it to be quite decent till ISO 1600 at least.

That poster may have the settings wrong in some way, I'd tend to think. He may have small aperture (f/11.0 or above) and at the same time very high shutterspeed (above 1/500 or 1/800 or whatever) in a fully manual mode with ISO 400 for a very dim subject. Even then I'd think the picture will be just dark, but not very noisy. Frankly, I do not have much clue. (BTW, going much above f/11 or so may result in dispersion effects).

Hopefully he is using a clean and reasonable quality UV filter in front of the lens, otherwise is there a chance of him interpreting the dust specks on the picture as noise?

Regards.

 

[sam9s]

@Asit

That was a far better and very technical ans provided....which is what i was looking for. I really appriciate your effort to take time and jot down the explaination. Not only was it simple it actually made sense.

If you read my post I did say "except those posted by asit under low light" and I do feel that the kind of low light shots you have shared are impossible to take by a PnS. BTW I also posted what I have, Nikon L120, prior to that I had Sony H50, I also have used Nikon P100. These are all bridge cameras (not exactly P&S), and the only reason to go for them was my hidden love for photography. Else any P&S would have sufficed.

I am absolute new to photography but I have utmost interest to learn it, and persue it. But never had the courage to go for a DSLR as I couldnt understand half of what it has to offer (if you know what I mean). I still dont get most of it.

Few things I would really appriciate if you can suggest. What is the best site to read for a beginner to learn the intricacies of Photography. Like I dont even know what exactly is the diffrence between say lense specification (25-525mm - Nikon L120) or (24-720mm - Fujifilm HS-20)

Lastly which entry level DSLR would you recomend .... remember proirity,

1. ultra low light snaps, specially indoor,
2. Moving Subject ... (like my baby is running and I can get a perfect still shot)
3. Amazing DOF, I love DOF snaps ...

The cheapest Nikon has is D3100 with with AF-S 18-55mm VR Kit Lens (what ever that means.. ) for around 29K ..... I might try to sell of my L120 (if that is possible) to go DSLR way.

Appreciate your assistance here.

 

[Kannan_madhu]

@microflex
"What is the prevailing market price for the Canon 1000D plus 18-55 mm lens kit ? "

Its around 19 - 20k with non IS (image stabilized lens ) image stabilization is a cool feature which reduces blurness of the pic by compensating camera shake while shutter butten pressing etc . so its wise to go for separate body and IS kit lens .


Sigma and Tamron lens in 70 300 range are not sharp lenses purchase a canon 55 250is which is a very good lens for the money you pay (10- 12 k)and it has image stabilization which is a must for tele zooms


If you are getting 20d with those tamron lens 10k is ok if the battery is good . But getting a 1000d with kitlens for 13-14k will be much better.

 

[Kannan_madhu]

1. ultra low light snaps, specially indoor,
2. Moving Subject ... (like my baby is running and I can get a perfect still shot)
3. Amazing DOF, I love DOF snaps ...

1. No entry level DSLRs can handle ultra low light you will have to go for D3S which cost 2.5 lk or buy a cheep flash and learn to bounce it for natural looking pics

2.Any DSLR can handle your baby in sufficient light

3. You will have to buy fast lenses or big aperture lens for amazing DOF only cheep lens which gives good shallow dof is 50mm 1.8 .

 

[Kannan_madhu]

1000d with 50mm 1.8

taken during calicut photo club trip by Madhu_kannan, on Flickr

1000d at iso 800 ( noise reduced in software )

Nada Nada... by Madhu_kannan, on Flickr

 

[thatguy]

SLRs offer TTL optical viewfinder, which is unheard of in P&S cameras. In fact, that was the idea behind SLR (single lens reflex), till the acronym became (almost) synonymous with higher end cameras (they do use the SLR mechanism though).

If you are looking for just the interchangeable lens capability, there are EVIL cameras (EVIL = Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens). Search for hybrid cameras on Google. They are smaller in size, have large sensors (4/3rd or APS-C) and will offer performance very similar to an entry level DSLR.

 

[sam9s]

1. ultra low light snaps, specially indoor,
2. Moving Subject ... (like my baby is running and I can get a perfect still shot)
3. Amazing DOF, I love DOF snaps ...

1. No entry level DSLRs can handle ultra low light you will have to go for D3S which cost 2.5 lk or buy a cheep flash and learn to bounce it for natural looking pics

2.Any DSLR can handle your baby in sufficient light

3. You will have to buy fast lenses or big aperture lens for amazing DOF only cheep lens which gives good shallow dof is 50mm 1.8 .

1. well you mean to say there is nothing in between say 30K and 2.5L that can handle low light snaps ....errrrr thats kinda hard to believe ....

2. Even if I am moving the camera at sufficient speed to comprehend the run ..

3. mmmm ok no lens that is provided as a kit will suffice here ... ???

Thanks for the response ....

@Asit what do you have to say .... ???

 

[Asit]

Thatguy,
APS-C format cameras are also SLR cameras, as far as I know.

But you have brought in the viewfinder in discussion.

For all the P&S shooters wanting to start using a DSLR, you have to get used to using the viewfinder to compose the shot. Live view (that is, composing the shot through the screen) is available these days with most DSLRs, but other than Sony, I do not think any other brand has been able to implement the live-view in an usable and fast way. In any case, even if the live-view is implemented properly, I find it awkward to use it, because DSLRs are considerably heavier with the attached lens and it is not easy to hold it consistently at almost arms length to be able to compose the shot through the screen. It is much better and natural to use the viewfinder of the DSLRs. I have taken pictures all my life like this, but for somebody who plans to start using a DSLR has to adjust to this new situation. Hence, it is very important to get a DSLR with better and larger viewfinder. For example, the 550D has a better and brighter viewfinder than the 1000D, D90 has it even better. Then again, one has to hold the camera and see for oneself what suits oneself.

Kannan,
Beautiful shots those, with quite a bit of post processing, I suppose. Perhaps you can enlighten some of us with a bit on this aspect. At least the flow of work you follow and the good softwares one can use. This is something among many others I really want to learn.

You have mentioned above that Sigma and Tamron do not have any sharp lens in the 70-300 range. It is mostly true. However, please look at Tamron SP AF 70-300mm F/4-5,6 Di VC USD. This is a newer lens and costs about 25k, so may not suit everyone, but I have heard extremely good reports on this one. The reviews are also excellent. The only gripe is a bit of chromatic aberration. It beats the comparable Canon and Nikon lenses and is considerably cheaper than the Canon one (I do not know the Nikon price). Check out the reviews.

sam9s,
Sorry again. Just got home a while ago. Still a bit of work left to do.

Do not get too disheartened. Sure, there are a lot, between 30k and 2.5L.

a) 30k: Entry level DSLRs. Usually decent image quality. But average viewfinder, menu driven controls etc. (example: Nikon D3100, D 3000, Canon 1100D, 1000D etc)

b) 40k - 50k approx: Mid-entry level DSLRs. Excellent image quality (often similar in image quality to a 70k to 1L camera because they use the same sensors). Better viewfinder. Better controls (much less menu driven) etc. (example: Nikon D5000, D5100, Canon 550D, 600D etc)

c) 70k -1L approx: Mid level DSLRs. Usually similar image quality as the above group. But everything else better. Much better body for use in trying circumstances. Lot better viewfinders, better controls, two control dials, extra display, capability of having more than one memory card etc etc. This group also starts to get a bit heavier (example: Nikon D90, D7000, Canon 50D, 60D. The Canon 7D, Nikon D300s would fall at the upper echelon of this group and with lens would cost significantly more than 1L).

All the above has APS-C size sensors.

d) Above this there are the full frame (as opposed to APS-C) DSLRs starting with cameras like the Nikon D700 etc which have all weather kind of bodies and really great low light performances. They are really heavy too, especially with the extra grip, extra batteries and superb lenses worthy of the camera.

e) Then there are the top of the lines as mentioned by Kannan.

For the most of us, the types a), b) and c) matter the most. For people starting with DSLRs, my personal preference is the type b) with a camera that is around a while so that its price has dropped considerably, and is thus VFM. But one can start with the type a) as well.

Regards.

 

[thatguy]

Thatguy,
APS-C format cameras are also SLR cameras, as far as I know.

Hmm. I thought APS-C was a sensor size. SLR referred to the viewfinder mechanism. I am probably picking nits here, but I believe they are unrelated.

For example, Leica X1 uses a APS-C cmos, but I wouldn't call it an SLR. Same for the Fuji x100. Sony Alpha NEX-5, which also uses APS-C sized sensor, goes a bit further and allows the lens to be changed. I don't think it is an SLR though.

 

[Kannan_madhu]

Sam
options are there but even the 70K cant so ULTRA low light hand held , sure you can do low light hand held if the subject is stationary and if you have a good image stabilized lens.

your image sharpness depends lot on shutter speed you need at least 1/focal length type shutter speed (if you have a 50mm lens at shutter speed should be 1/50 of sec ) and fore moving subjects much more speed than that . when we use high shutter speed the amount of light coming to the sensor reduces . in low light conditions we wont able to use high shutter speed since the sensor will be getting less light so image goes dark. to compensate this we increases the sensitivity of the sensor which is denoted in iso numbers like iso 200 iso 400 iso 3200 etc .
but one problem with this is as the iso goes up the image will have more grains , in low end dslrs the usable iso are generally up to 3200. this is what matters in the low light performance .

2. most of the current gen cameras can track focus well and they focus spot on so even if you are moving if you have high shutter speed you can nail the shot

3. lens usually provided as kit are gen purpose lens like 18 55 , 18 135 , 18 105 etc they have aperture value between 3.5 to 4 or 5.6 etc which is not sufficient to give a DOF in that focal length ( except when the back ground is far away from your subject )

 

[Kannan_madhu]

Shallow dof with canon 100mm 2.8 macro lens (1000d)

NikonLal by Madhu_kannan, on Flickr

 

[Asit]

Thatguy,

I see now what you mean. And you are right, I think. However, the so-called cropped body SLRs use the APS-C sensors. Hence the terms get mixed up these days.

BTW, a few months ago in a conference in the US, a German physicist about my age was sitting beside me during dinner and he was carrying a tiny looking SLR (very old style in appearance). When I wanted to see it in person, I saw that it was a Leica. I was told it costs 7K in Euro. The picture quality was really great . That camera became the talking point of that table, much ahead of the physics we were discussing before. The German guy was very proud of his camera.

Regards.

 

[thatguy]

BTW, a few months ago in a conference in the US, a German physicist about my age was sitting beside me during dinner and he was carrying a tiny looking SLR (very old style in appearance). When I wanted to see it in person, I saw that it was a Leica. I was told it costs 7K in Euro. The picture quality was really great . That camera became the talking point of that table, much ahead of the physics we were discussing before. The German guy was very proud of his camera.

I can understand why the German was proud Being a practicing engineer, just looking at one gives me the highs. The metal body gives a feeling of solidity and class in a way that no polycarbonate can. I believe their optics is flawless too.

I hope to pick up a X1 (or X2 if it comes out) some day. The M series, which your colleague probably had, is out of my league.

Here are some comparison shots of their lowest model X1 with the Fuji x100. The Germans know their engineering.

Leica X1 vs Fuji X100: the final round. Second part of the test-review. In studio performance

 

[TaureanBull]

Hmm. I thought APS-C was a sensor size. SLR referred to the viewfinder mechanism. I am probably picking nits here, but I believe they are unrelated.

100% correct. The Single Lens Reflex (SLR) is a viewfinder mechanism in which the same light entering the lens is fed to the viewfinder. Basically, what it boils down to is that the viewfinder sees exactly what the lens sees. In P & S cameras the viewfinder just gives an idea of what the lens is looking at. Thats one single huge difference between the two cameras.

APC-S is a crop sensor used in the DX cameras (Nikon) and FX cameras (Nikon) have a full frame sensor i.e. 35 mm.

 

[TaureanBull]

@Asit
Lastly which entry level DSLR would you recomend .... remember proirity,
1. ultra low light snaps, specially indoor,
2. Moving Subject ... (like my baby is running and I can get a perfect still shot)
3. Amazing DOF, I love DOF snaps ...

1. ultra low light snaps, specially indoor,
2. Moving Subject ... (like my baby is running and I can get a perfect still shot)
3. Amazing DOF, I love DOF snaps ...

1. No entry level DSLRs can handle ultra low light you will have to go for D3S which cost 2.5 lk or buy a cheep flash and learn to bounce it for natural looking pics

2.Any DSLR can handle your baby in sufficient light

3. You will have to buy fast lenses or big aperture lens for amazing DOF only cheep lens which gives good shallow dof is 50mm 1.8 .

I would say you can change the settings in a decent DSLR to achieve the above results e.g. using camera on a tripod and using remote to activate the camera can bring good results in low light in addition to manually increasing the exposure time.
This hobby is very similar to being audiophile i.e. upgradation.

In case you are not satisfied with results then you can add the lens as per your interests. e.g. Fast lenses for pics involving mov.