Higher-end compact or SLR for me?

External Since: Nov 29, 2007 Posts: 36

On Dec 2, 12:27 am, acl <achilleaslazari....DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Yeah well, don't stay in academia then: compare the salaries in
> industry to those in a university, compare the job security... ouch.
> But it's fun wondering in a completely unknown place.

Hah! Yeah, I'm going to be breaking my family tradition and not
staying in academia I think!

> Regarding the cameras, for general photograph, if you get a camera
> without sensor stabilisation and get something like a 18-55 and a
> 55-200, you should really get the stabilised lenses. These "cheap"
> lenses are quite slow (in terms of f/stop) so you'll have problems
> handholding at the longer end without it. Of course a usable (for A4
> prints) ISO 800-1600 does help, but 200mm in not too bright light will
> be problematic.
>
> Anyway, something like a d40 with a 18-55 and a 55-200VR is quite
> versatile, if you can afford the lenses. You can always add lenses
> later, but of course "later" isn't useable now!

Cool, those lenses are the ones I was looking at for the D40. The
Olympus E-510 with a similar 2-lens kit is slightly cheaper, maybe
because of the in-body stabilization. But I am unsure about the
smaller sensor for low-light conditions. None of the reviews I've
seen seem to specifically address low-light conditions very well.

Dan

External Since: Dec 02, 2007 Posts: 1

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 01:06:56 -0500, "Neil Harrington" <neil.DeleteThis@private.address>
wrote:

>
>"Daniel Lenski" <dlenski.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:pk54j.78381$Um6.59638@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:44:26 -0500, Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> There are a few exceptions, though; a 50mm f/1.8, for example, is the
>>>> cheapest lens nikon sells, is fast, very light and very sharp when
>>>> stopped down. A 85mm f/1.8 is also a potentially useful lens (for
>>>> portraits, for instance). Neither of these autofocuses on the d40.
>>>
>>> Right. However, I have both the 50/1.8 and the 85/1.8 and they do
>>> manually focus easily on the D40 with the little focus indicator in the
>>> viewfinder. Too bad it's down there in the corner, but short of
>>> replacing the screen it's the best available solution I suppose.
>>>
>>
>> I gather the 50/1.8 is largely designed for portraits and other uses where
>> fast autofocus wouldn't be as critical. Do you find it's still fun to
>> use?
>
>I do, but frankly I've used it only a few times on the D40 -- mostly out of
>curiosity to see how well it could be used focusing manually. It works well
>for that if you're not in too much of a hurry, but I use it mostly on my D80
>on which of course it does autofocus. I haven't yet used it for
>portraiture, mostly for available light shooting where that f/1.8 aperture
>is a delight.
>
>What it was originally *designed* for of course was use as a normal lens on
>a 35. On a Nikon DSLR with the usual 1.5x lens factor it's equivalent to
>75mm on a 35, which is sort of an odd focal length -- somewhat too long for
>a normal but a bit short for a portrait lens, though that's mostly a matter
>of personal taste anyway.
>
>>
>>> Also a difference in sync speed -- 1/500 for the D40, 1/200 for the
>>> D40x.
>>
>> What exactly is sync speed? I read somewhere that it's something pros
>> care about but newbies don't understand, but that's all I got Smile

>
>Sync speed (more fully, flash sync speed) is the fastest shutter speed on a
>camera with a focal-plane shutter, such as a typical SLR or DSLR, at which
>you can use flash. (There are some exceptions for certain kinds of flash,
>but I won't go into those here.)
>
>Focal-plane shutters are located just in front of the sensor (or film), and
>work by moving two curtains in front of it. These nowadays are made of thin
>metal strips but are still called curtains. The first curtain moves out of
>the way, exposing the sensor to light from the lens, then the second curtain
>moves to cover it again, ending the exposure. For an exposure of 1/100
>second for example, the second curtain would be released 1/100 second after
>the first. When flash is used, usually it is fired at the moment the first
>curtain is fully open, so the exposure is made over the whole sensor.
>
>But at higher shutter speeds, the second curtain has started to move before
>the first curtain has completed its travel. This means that the entire
>sensor cannot be exposed at the same instant, because exposure is being made
>by the space or slit between the shutter curtains which travels over the
>sensor. This would be a major problem for conventional electronic flash.
>
>So sync speed, *generally speaking*, is the highest shutter speed at which
>the second curtain has not yet started to move before the first curtain has
>finished its travel. This is usually not higher than about 1/200 second,
>though this varies somewhat between cameras.
>
>In a few cases, however, the camera is able to get a higher sync speed by
>switching the sensor on and off in a substantially shorter time than the
>shutter is actually open, and coordinating this with the firing of the
>flash. This is how the D40 gets its exceptionally high sync speed of 1/500
>second.
>
>Why doesn't the D40x do the same? Presumably because its sensor, which
>obviously is different from the D40's, just cannot be switched on and off
>that fast.
>
>Neil
>

This is what's so nice about the new CHDK release for many Canon Powershot P&S
cameras. Flash sync speeds up to 1/10,000th second shutter speed. Recent
measurements are revealing that, with flash on lowest output, the exposure is
on the order of 1/50,000th of a second flash duration with a 1/10,000th second
CCD shutter duration. The high-speed electronic CCD shutter effectively removing
any chance of available light from smearing the finer details captured in the
high-speed flash.

See the gory details in these recently release images of some water drops just a
few hours ago.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync

P&S cameras just keep winning and winning this year.