Looking Beyond The Megapixels - Part II

[Suhit Gupta]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=beyond_megapixels_part_2' target='_blank'>http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?directory=beyond_megapixels_part_2</a><br /><br /></div>We reported on the <a href="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5319">Looking Beyond The Megapixels</a> article last week that looked at current digital photography hardware. Well, here is "the second in a series of three editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware, as well as my views of what is to come. In this segment I will be focusing on build, size, weight and ergonomics of camera bodies, as well as the size, weight, function and versatility of the glass strapped to the front of it."<br /><br />The article basically claims that the body surrounding the APS sized sensors in DSLRs is way too big and unwieldy for the quality one gets from the camera, and the author often wonders whether a prosumer camera would be better to use instead even though the quality of the image is significantly lower, mainly because of the convenience and versatility. I don't know whether I really agree with the author because I find my EOS 10D quite comfortable and easy to use. He does however correctly point out the in a non-interchangeable lens camera (most prosumer cameras) one bases judgment on the standard final image, but in a DSLR, because you can change lenses, you can get very precise control over what quality images you want.

[Bob12]

I agree - the only concession I make to the 6.5 pounds (just a bit under 3 kilos) of my EOS-1D Mark II and 35 - 350 lens is the hand strap rather than a neck strap. I too find it very comfortable and well balanced. Yes, it could be smaller and lighter but I don't think it would be near as usable if it was. Its size and layout are such that I can rest the camera base on my left shoulder which puts the eyepiece right in line with my left eye and the tripod mount on the lens provides a "grab" point for my left hand. All of this provides a stable and comfortable shooting platform.

[SassKwatch]

The article basically claims that the body surrounding the APS sized sensors in DSLRs is way too big and unwieldy for the quality one gets from the camera,
I guess if one considers that the Olympus E-1 compares favorably in image quality with most of the 6mp DSLR's, is smaller and lighter, and has a bigger sensor, then he has a point. But the bottom line is.....so what? As long as the devices aren't so big as to necessitate a tripod, does it matter.

IMO, the far bigger issue with DSLR 'value' these days is the 'crop factor' involved. I would really like a 20-21mm equivalent capability if/when I move to a DSLR. That's all but impossible to achieve w/ either Canon or Nikon today. Even if I were to settle for 24mm equivalent, then it requires the purchase of an ~ 16mm piece of glass.....and one best have some *deep* pockets for such purchases.

The Oly E-1 would be an excellent choice, IMO....if only they'd included a 6mp sensor instead of the 5. Even with the 5, the image quality compares favorably....had it been a 6, they'd be putting a serious crimp in Nikon/Canon DSLR sales.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Ah, you can take ultrawides with Nikon. It's called the 12-24 DX.

Actually, you can with any camera that Sigma makes a lens mount for. They have a 12-24 lens as well. Of course, as it's a Sigma, you take your chances. =P Tokina has shown a prototype 12-24 too at PMA.

A few more comments:

No camera is too small to not need a tripod. In fact too small and light cameras may need more support than a camera/lens combination like Bob's, because the light weight works against them. A heavy enough combination acts as inertia against vibrations, from the shaking of your hands and body to the pressing of the shutter release button.

Oly's 5mp sensor produces 2560x1920 pixels, whereas the 6mp sensors do about 3000x2000 pixels. In reality the resolution used is going to be pretty similar after cropping if you're not doing 3:2 aspect ratio prints.

[SassKwatch]

Ah, you can take ultrawides with Nikon. It's called the 12-24 DX.
True enough. But the jury's still out on the DX lenses. I've heard/read some good comments, and I've heard/read some indicating the above in particular is not one of Nikon's better efforts....though that just could be a case of picking some pretty fine nits.

I had given the D70 with the above some serious consideration (thinking the doubters were just picking nits) until I saw the specs on the body and was turned off by the ISO capabilities. The best it offers is 200. When all other major mfrs are offering 100 or better, that struck me as VERY odd.

Actually, you can with any camera that Sigma makes a lens mount for. They have a 12-24 lens as well. Of course, as it's a Sigma, you take your chances. =P
True.....and....exactly. Just dunno what to make of Sigma. The variation of opinion is just *SO* wide, it scares me. If it were consistently bad, it would be easy to write them off. Or if it were more consistently..."Not bad for the budget minded, but pros will want to stick with Canon/Nikon", then another fairly easy decision. But it seems to be neither...., the opinion just runs the gamut from 'Ugh!' to 'As good as any'.

So technically, you're right. One *can* do ultrawides with a DSLR. But the whole proposition is a lot more iffy than for other segments.

No camera is too small to not need a tripod. In fact too small and light cameras may need more support than a camera/lens combination like Bob's, because the light weight works against them. A heavy enough combination acts as inertia against vibrations, from the shaking of your hands and body to the pressing of the shutter release button.
Wellllllll.......yeahhhhhhh......sorta (he sez hesitantly). I understand what you're saying. Clearly it depends on the shooting conditions and some conditions require the use of a tripod regardless of the camera. But just as clearly, there is a point at which camera size/weight dictates that a tripod be used in *all* situations. My comment was only meant in reference to the article's contention that current APS sensor DSLRs were too big. If they were so big/weighty that they fell into the 'always need a tripod' class, then I would have agreed.

Oly's 5mp sensor produces 2560x1920 pixels, whereas the 6mp sensors do about 3000x2000 pixels. In reality the resolution used is going to be pretty similar after cropping if you're not doing 3:2 aspect ratio prints.
Good point. And I may yet give the E-1 another look. I just have it in my mind currently that if/when I move up from the 'prosumer' 5mp level, that it will have to be a considerably bigger quality jump than it would currently be going to any of the 5-6mp DSLRs. At this point, I'm inclined to think I may stay where I'm at for at least the remainder of this year.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I don't trust lens reviews that I read on the Internet. My advice for lens test is still to do your own testing whenever possible. The only comment I can pass on the 12-24 is that I was hoping for a better build quality for the price of the lens. =P

My main beef with Sigma isn't with their optical quality (modern lens designs rarely suck a lot), it's with their reliablity. Still, if you baby your lens..

A slight note on lens quality, it is my belief that most of us don't really push the lens to its limits a lot. So I normally would say go for what you like at what you can afford, and enjoy!

[SassKwatch]

I don't trust lens reviews that I read on the Internet.
I take everything my *best friend* tells me with a grain of salt. If I read it in a newspaper, it's taken with a 'pinch' sufficiently large to keep a large pot of pasta from sticking to the pan. If I hear it on television someone has to give me stock in Morton before I'll believe it. If I read it on the 'Net, I take it with so many grains of salt, you could raise the salinity of the Great Salt Lake by one full percentage point. Yes, feel free to call me cynical.

Of course, the exception to the latter is things read on the 'Net at any of the Thoughts Media sites.....that's just plain gospel. :)

A slight note on lens quality, it is my belief that most of us don't really push the lens to its limits a lot. So I normally would say go for what you like at what you can afford, and enjoy!
Odd you should say that. After reading my own last reply (and thinking I was beginning to sound like some of those technical obsessive compulsives over at DPR), I got to thinking about lens quality. And it occurred to me that you could probably pick a lens from any of the recognized mfrs today and have something of better quality than either Weston or Adams had the opportunity to work with......and it doesn't seem to me either Eddie or Ansel had a problem making do. :) So yeah, I think you're spot on with that comment.