# choosing DSLR - Nikon/Canon @ <32K



## choudang (Mar 16, 2011)

hi guys ... need some 'GYAN' from the experts

i am planning to buy a DSLR for personal use, and need to decide which one to opt. secondly, the lens factor is way above from my understand. so i need some detail gyan from you guys.

there are three models in my mind, Nikon 3100, 3000 and Canon 1000D, my friends are suggesting me to opt 3100 or 3000, basic diff is 31 is 14.1 mpx and 30 is 10.1 mpx, apart from mpx factor with is not a very important factor to choose, HD recording can be done with 31. need to googling for 1000D AFAIK, 1000D is very very entry level.

what is lens factor, while going thru with nikon, there are two types DX and FX, what are these??? whats the type of zoom i.e  coolpix has 26x optical zoom, who should i know about zoom level in lenses. is there any X factor in DSLR

my basic requirement is for personal use as i travel a lot, sometimes its so annoying to take a pic without satisfactory zoom level.

need some GYAN guys.......


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 17, 2011)

umm U have soo many questions...to start with one by one

1.D3100 pic qulaity is better then 1000D and D3000
2. D3100 HD recording is not much useful ..my nokia 5800 can take better video then that.
3. DX are cropped sensor lens and FX are full frame sensor type of lenses..in simple language..if u purchase a 1 lac Pro DSLR then u would compulsary have to get a FX lens 
4. dONT EXPECT 26X IN DSLR ....the kit lens 18-55 is like a 3x zoom lens....a 18-105 is like a 7-8x zoom lens...if somehow u ever take a 100-500 lens it would I think reach the zoom of 20x...but will cost a bomb

5. for high quality pic dslr r really the best...even if u take pics on auto

6. For hassel free pic taking get a Canon SX30 type of cam which can have good zoom, good pics and u dont have to think of lens change, fungus, moisture, new lenses every now n then

I hope other knowledgeble will give more info


----------



## choudang (Mar 17, 2011)

thanks sujoy ... anyway D31 is not for v recording, after googling lots of articles, i am making my way to D31.

FYI, i am not expecting 26x zoom, just trying to understand the zoom level. if i am comparing nikon cp 100P with D31 with 18-105, coolpix vl sht better zoom pic compared to d31, is it?


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 17, 2011)

1 thing is that DSLR can get more details on picture so u can crop it easily and create a zoomed effect

and a point and shoot can not be compared to DSLR anyways...a point & shoot with 3x zoom will make picture with less details and can have bit of distortions...a 3x with DSLR will have same quality what u get without zoom.

I got D3100 for 29k in Jan...with bill and warunty...what price u r getting


----------



## Zangetsu (Mar 17, 2011)

sujoyp said:


> 4. dONT EXPECT 26X IN DSLR ....the kit lens 18-55 is like a 3x zoom lens....a 18-105 is like a 7-8x zoom lens...if somehow u ever take a 100-500 lens it would I think reach the zoom of 20x...but will cost a bomb



not more than 26X...then what is user wants a wildlife photography 
where zooming is essential.

u got @29k with VR Kit or without VR Kit?


----------



## choudang (Mar 17, 2011)

@Zangetsu, i was wondering the same piece.   

I am getting the whole piece @31/K [with kit] and @26.5K without kit.

now getting into the lens dilemma, FX Nikkor lenses are meant for Pro SLRs, for D3100 DX nikkor lenses will be sufficient  from the info that i have gathered, we must change the lens [18-55 mm] to get the better result with D3100.

while going thru, found Nikon CoolPix P500 is capable of 36x optical zooming using inbuilt 4.0-144 mm 1:3.5-5.7 nikkor lens. that means 18-55mm is equivalent to 2-3x zooming. so if i go with 55-300 mm @19K or 55-200mm @9K, is it worth to go? what would be the difference between 18-55 mm and 55-200/55-300 mm ????

going to purchase it by next week


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 17, 2011)

My D3100 is with VR kit for 29k......32k is its MRP

@Zangetsu...u r right 26x zoom is needed for wildlife...but didnt u noticed the word "Cost a bomb"

Bro spending on lens is your own choice according to budget...if u have 19k get that 55-300...and if u have just 9k then go with 55-200mm

I donno u know it or not but only *Nikon AFS lens *would autofocus on D3100 so better read the lens specs carefully...

I am getting Tamron 70-300mm or AFS 55-200 VR probably next month

Actually dont count zoom on lens in terms of 1x-3x 5x....We count it 'mm' like a 50mm lens would take pic exactly like our own eyes...the things will look that big...when u take pic at 18mm it feels things r far away but it would take a wider pic..I would show u a pic later which will clear ur funda


----------



## choudang (Mar 17, 2011)

yup sujoy, i know that only *n AFS* would AF on D31 because d31 doesnot AF motor on it, so you have to depend on the AF lens.

hmm, seems sumthing is trying to get sum cells in my brain 

i think it would be better to buy the thing with kit 18-55mm and add 55-200 mm on top of it.

waiting for your pic buddy, it would be very helpful to me if you took a pic without zoom and another one with full zoom [18-55mm] so that i can assume the zoom level.


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 17, 2011)

Pic at 18mm

*lh5.googleusercontent.com/_9a5lKZR2-08/TYIq8IqizuI/AAAAAAAAF40/9z1zUhGBqAI/s800/DSC_1470.jpg

Pic at 55mm

*lh6.googleusercontent.com/_9a5lKZR2-08/TYIrC1QI_dI/AAAAAAAAF44/66A7gp2Dwh4/s144/DSC_1471.jpg

I  find 55mm very slightly nearer then what eye can see..soo I can see zoom effect is minimum


----------



## choudang (Mar 17, 2011)

thanks sujoy, but still i am not able see the perfection as both are diff in size.. anyway ... the x-factor for DSLR lenses are quite interesting, if i talk abt 18-55mm then 55/18 = 3x and it continues, i am still confused, 55-300mm is abt 6x. its a nob-dumb qns abt diff between 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses. say i want take pic of a bird which is on 4th floor, is 55-200mm would be sufficient to zoom upto that level? 

*img855.imageshack.us/img855/607/dscn1898.jpg

this pic was taken with Nikon CP P100 @ 8x from 10 mtr distance, what would be the diff.


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 18, 2011)

Sorry for different size..but I can assure u that the zoom is very less in 18-55...also if u want to have bird and squirrel pic its better to get an 55-300 or 70-300 lens...55-200 is less but u can crop the pic a bit to get your result


----------



## choudang (Mar 18, 2011)

okay . so any other suggestions .. one of my colleagues has suggested D5000 which extends my budget by 5K


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 18, 2011)

I donno y but at your place DSLR costs just too much...here I can get D5000 for 32-33k.

Anyways D5000 wont give much above D3100 ....If u want to really have upgraded features then get either Canon 550D or Nikon D90.. below that it seems all of the DSLR are somewhat similar.


----------



## choudang (Mar 18, 2011)

D5000 @32K with 18-55mm VR?? yaar, can you give me some contacts so that i can close my plan. extending 3k is not a big deal. again D31x has 14 mpx where D5x is 12 pmx [550d is 18 mpx]

i have gone thru some reviews on D3100 vs D5000 vs 550D, it says that image quality with 550D will be better [in raw & jpeg] than D5x and D31x, but you have to compromise with some features. and with canon, lenses will be a bit costly compared to Nikkor.

with price factor, i am willing to go with D31x but .. *yeh dil mange more*


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 18, 2011)

the only problem with nikon is that some lens af and some not...in canon all lens af with all body..soo no confusion....i dont find anything missing in 3100


----------



## choudang (Mar 19, 2011)

sujoy, can you give me the contacts so that i can go for d3100 @29k


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 19, 2011)

bro I am from Nagpur...I would have happily given u contact but they dont send couriers..I already asked for someone and the shopkeeper said that they deal in cash only and would not send anywhere.


----------



## choudang (Mar 19, 2011)

thats not an issue.... i can get it from there also. all i need to send a request to one of colleague to pick it up.


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 19, 2011)

choudang said:


> thats not an issue.... i can get it from there also. all i need to send a request to one of colleague to pick it up.



Ok then its great...

If he knows Nagpur then tell him to go to
Sitabirdie -> Apna Bazar or hotel orange city parking -> He will see a big mobile/electronic shop in the orange city building...name is Mobile Magic or all imported (do not remember)..
u will surely get D3100 @ 29k with all bill and warrunty


If price have changed a bit please dont blame me...I got it for 29k in January this year


----------



## choudang (Mar 19, 2011)

gr8 .. thanks sujoy.. appreciated


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 22, 2011)

Bro if u havent purchased yet then u should consider canon 550D for 34k...Its awsome pricing...canon decreased the price by 7k

Lucky for u..


----------



## codename_romeo (Mar 22, 2011)

Yeah Canon 550D or Nikon D3100/5000 are the best you can  buy in that range. 
Trust me very soon you would be needing a 50-250mm/50-300mm lens as well as a 50mm lens. DSLR photography is a passion....


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 22, 2011)

yaah romeo u r soo right...in jan I bought D3100 then in feb bought 50mm 1.8 then in march planning to get nikon 55-200 or tamron 70-300...I have plans to get tripod, big bag..huppph soo much money would be spent


----------



## Zangetsu (Mar 22, 2011)

which is the lens should be paired with Nikon D3100 to shoot Zoom Photography.....


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 22, 2011)

Zangetsu said:


> which is the lens should be paired with Nikon D3100 to shoot Zoom Photography.....



Bro depends on your budget and requirement...

Tamron 70-300 and sigma 70-300 will work and cost around 7-8k but they dont have Vibration Reduction VR
Nikon 55-200 Vr can be bought for 9-10k but then its reach is less...but its good quality

There is also Nikon 55-300 which costs around 18k
and tamron 70-300 with VR I think costs around 21k
And price go on.....


----------



## Zangetsu (Mar 22, 2011)

sujoyp said:


> Bro depends on your budget and requirement...
> 
> Tamron 70-300 and sigma 70-300 will work and cost around 7-8k but they dont have Vibration Reduction VR
> Nikon 55-200 Vr can be bought for 9-10k but then its reach is less...but its good quality
> ...



ok...how is much is optical zoom of each of these ?


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 22, 2011)

I dont know perfectly but its like divide the bigger number by smaller one and u will get an estimate ex for 70-300 its 300/70= 4.5x
But remember this focal lenght starts after your 18-55...that means u would start with more then max zoom which u see from 18-55..soo people say get

18-55 and 55-200 soo that u can cover all focal lenght and a zoom of say 10-11x


----------



## ajayashish (Mar 23, 2011)

Canon has come out with 1100D... specs looks good as well..


----------



## Zangetsu (Mar 23, 2011)

^^price in india??


----------



## choudang (Mar 23, 2011)

^^ yet to be launched in india

we have picked up nikon D3100 @ 28K with 18-55mm kit along with nikkor 55-200mm and sigma 70-300mm from Chandni Chowk. [we travel freaks having multiple choices....   7.5k/head DSLR .. 55-200mm is mine 



sujoyp said:


> Bro if u havent purchased yet then u should consider canon 550D for 34k...Its awsome pricing...canon decreased the price by 7k
> 
> Lucky for u..


nope, 550D available in delhi @ 34k with 18-55 lens kit.



Zangetsu said:


> which is the lens should be paired with Nikon D3100 to shoot Zoom Photography.....



as you are having 18-55mm along with the body, just go for sigma 70-300 or nikkor 55-200mm for day to day photography.

55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR will cost you 18k, where Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR will cost you 7.6k and sigma 70-300 will cost you 8.7k [both without bill]


----------



## jamesbond008 (Mar 23, 2011)

sujoyp said:


> 4. dONT EXPECT 26X IN DSLR ....the kit lens 18-55 is like a 3x zoom lens....a 18-105 is like a 7-8x zoom lens...if somehow u ever take a 100-500 lens it would I think reach the zoom of 20x...but will cost a bomb
> I hope other knowledgeble will give more info


That was  a little bit overeaching
Zoom = max focal length  / min focal length
so in this case it will be 5x
though usually the X factor is not used in case of DSLR


----------



## sujoyp (Mar 23, 2011)

yaah bro u r right in one sense but wrong in other...

Our eye sees at a focal length of nearly 50mm soo a 100 mm is already zoomed by 50mm more.

if u wanna calculate that a 500mm will look to our eyes I would say a thing will look 10 times bigger then what we see originally

hey choudang....congrats..but I didnt understand...y 55-200 and 70-300...most of the focal length would be overlapped

but u got at great price

enjoy


----------



## choudang (Mar 23, 2011)

no specific reason, 1 body and 3 lenses that we currently owns and we are going to have another one, hopefully in next month.


----------



## www.titlus.com (Mar 28, 2011)

Hi, I would advice the following SLR's based on your budget and requirements:

1. Nikon D3100: Basically a cheap entry level SLR which just about gets the job done. You get sharp pics & 20minute videos with no extra bells and whistles. Note: You can use latest Nikon lenses for getting additional zoom. But for most landscape, wide-angle, portrait, party and close-up shots, the kit lens 18-55mm is more than sufficient and is super-sharp. Price approx Rs. 32K
2. Nikon D5000: An excellent SLR if you cannot afford the fabulous Nikon D90. I use this one. An excellent value for money camera. Price approx Rs. 33K 
3. Canon SX30IS: This is NOT an SLR. Well this has the longest zoom in the world. That's just about it. An average camera which you give to a novice to take everyday snaps. Focusing in low light is poor and you need to take 10 shots before you can get one sharp & focused picture. You can always delete the balance out-of focus images. I use it to take pics of my kids. Its always on hand!!
Tip: Always compare apples to apples. SLR's are a different breed when compared to compact super-zooms like the Canon SX30IS.


----------



## r4gs (Mar 30, 2011)

personally i prefer canon. Mainly because when you buy an slr, as opposed to a point and shoot, you're actually investing in lenses and not the body itself. Dslr bodies become obsolete within a couple of years.

Why i prefer canon is because their ef lenses are compatible with every single camera slr camera made by canon, including film, since the lenses were introduced. Ef-s lenses are for the cheaper dslrs, but the ef lenses are still compatible with them. You just multiply the focal length of an ef lens with 1.6 and you have the equivalent efs focal length. Eg, 200mm ef lens would be a 320mm lens in efs.

For shooting pics of birds, 200mm is nowhere near enough. Something closer to a 400-500mm would be what you'll require. Those lenses are usually extremely expensive.

An 18-55mm lens is 3x zoom, but it is not necessarily a 3x magnification. As mentioned earlier, 50mm to 90mm is usually considered normal for our eyes and are actually called normal lenses.

Superzooms may have ridiculous amounts of zoom, but bear in mind that optical quality will usually suck through most of the zoom range. This, in fact applies to almost all lenses, but is more prominent in superzooms.


----------



## Sounava (Apr 9, 2011)

Some points to note:
In many previous replies I saw everyone stating that 50mm is the "normal" focal length. While the statement is true, but do remember we use crop sensor DSLRs (ie DX in Nikon terms). So whatever focal length of a lens you are talking about, you will have to multiply with 1.5 in case of Nikon and 1.6 in case of Canon to get the equivalent focal length in terms of FX cameras. 50mm is "normal" in FX or 35mm sensor terms. 
So, in DX cameras, a 50mm lens will give field of view of a 75mm lens in Nikon and in Canon it will behave as a 80mm lens.
Equivalent focal length if 35mm = 52mm in Nikon. So 35mm gives "normal" field of view in DX bodies. That is why Nikon has this excellent lens 35mm f/1.8 available ar around 11k.
It is unfortunate that Canon do not have any equivalent counterpart.

About focussing in D3100, D5000 etc: Except the cheap 50mm f/1.8 it is very difficult to come to a situation where you are stuck up because you are not finding a lens which will not AF in the Nikon D3100. Almost all lenses which we normally use now come with focus motors and is of the AF-S type. 

Another thing: the 55-300 VR lens is not recommended to buy and is not worth the price. The Nikon 70-300VR @ 24k is a MUCH better buy.
Reasons:
1. Image quality of 55-300 is same as that of 55-200 which is a 10k lens. In that sense the 55-300 is way overpriced. It would have been ideal if it was available @ 14k or 15k for example.
2. The 55-300 is a DX lens. So expect the corners of a picture to have less sharpness than the centre. The 70-300VR is an FX lens. So it will give excellent corner to corner sharpness in DX bodies. 
3. The front element of the 55-300 rotates while auto focussing. So using CPL's are a hassle. The 70-300VR has internal focussing. So using CPL's are a charm. 
4. The image quality and build quality of the 70-300VR is superb and the lens is excellent VFM.


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 9, 2011)

Thanks for the info


----------



## ajayashish (Apr 11, 2011)

Canon 1100 Launched already 1st april... Price is same as Nikon 3100


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2011)

Sounava said:


> Some points to note:
> In many previous replies I saw everyone stating that 50mm is the "normal" focal length. While the statement is true, but do remember we use crop sensor DSLRs (ie DX in Nikon terms). So whatever focal length of a lens you are talking about, you will have to multiply with 1.5 in case of Nikon and 1.6 in case of Canon to get the equivalent focal length in terms of FX cameras. 50mm is "normal" in FX or 35mm sensor terms.
> So, in DX cameras, a 50mm lens will give field of view of a 75mm lens in Nikon and in Canon it will behave as a 80mm lens.
> Equivalent focal length if 35mm = 52mm in Nikon. So 35mm gives "normal" field of view in DX bodies. That is why Nikon has this excellent lens 35mm f/1.8 available ar around 11k.
> ...



Are you talking about this one ?
*www.nikon.co.in/productitem.php?pid=903-8c5b1906f6


----------



## Sounava (Apr 11, 2011)

ajayashish said:


> Canon 1100 Launched already 1st april... Price is same as Nikon 3100


Yup. But surprsingly, D5000 is now at the same price too! Nikon D5000 Price India: SLR Camera: Flipkart Cameras
So no sense going for 1100D or D3100 now 
Plus there is no spot metering in 1100D. Although there are no focus motors in these Nikon bodies, but I guess that won't cause that much of a problem. 



Faun said:


> Are you talking about this one ?
> Nikon India Private Limited


Yup this one. They say it is a "little" less sharp @ 300mm, but that too is much sharper than the 55-300. Plus no chromatic aberration amazing contrasts.


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 11, 2011)

isnt 70-300mm@ 24k costing 3 times of tamron & sigma 70-300mm

I dont think for casual photography someone want a 24k lens..thats cost of D3100 body

if u have money go for 100-500mm HSM sigma lens ...great VFM for birding


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2011)

^^thats 60k ! For wildlife VR is a must, I get blurred images otherwise.


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 11, 2011)

Its Sigma 150-500 APO HSM cost Rs.47k

Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM

It got VR (APO)


----------



## Faun (Apr 11, 2011)

^^This one 
150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM - Telephoto Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

Much cheaper at jjmehta.


----------



## Sounava (Apr 11, 2011)

sujoyp said:


> isnt 70-300mm@ 24k costing 3 times of tamron & sigma 70-300mm
> 
> I dont think for casual photography someone want a 24k lens..thats cost of D3100 body
> 
> if u have money go for 100-500mm HSM sigma lens ...great VFM for birding


You are confusing image stabilization.
1. The Tamron and Sigma lenses which cost around 7.3k do not have any kind of image stabilization.
2. The Sigma 70-300 DG Macro is not sharp > 200mm. Plus awful amount of chromatic aberration. 
3. The Tamron 70-300 is slightly sharper than the Sigma but the autofocus system is tacky. 
The Sigma *APO* DG Macro reduces CA to some extent but that lens costs 10.5k which is not worth it because you have 55-200 VR available at that price point.

Ofcourse this lens is not for "casual" photography but enthusiasts who do not have all the money in the world to spend on a lens (24k is cheap in lens pricing terms). Here price of body does not matter  



Faun said:


> ^^thats 60k ! For wildlife VR is a must, I get blurred images otherwise.





sujoyp said:


> Its Sigma 150-500 APO HSM cost Rs.47k


Both of you are right. Its 47k without warranty and 60k with warranty. And there is a lot of difference between 24k and 47k or 60k


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 11, 2011)

I understand that here people got lots of money to spend on lenses...But I just want to say that when u r new to dslr system and u r not doing wildlife photography but taking casual shoots around then 24k is too much to invest

let me take my own example...I would love to have a 70-300mm zoom , a macro for insects, an autofocussing prime lens, at the start ...

That would make Nikkor 70-300vr+ tamron 90mm macro+ Nikkor 35mm prime = 24+15+12 = 51k + a body

if I compromise a bit = Tamron 70-300 APO DG+Nikkor 50mm prime+ET for macro = 10+6+0.6=16-17k only

I am not a pro and take pics only on sundays when I get chance...soo my thoughts


----------



## kjuvale (Apr 13, 2011)

Nikon has launched D5100. Its around  699€ (in Germany) just body and 809€ with 18-55 VR kit. While D3100 is for 480€ with 18-55 kit.

I am a very new to DSLR photography. 
So, i need suggestion, if I should go for cheaper D3100 or invest more in D5100, which looks more advanced.

Please let me know if its really worth for long time to buy D5100.


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 13, 2011)

I wont suggest both...since price of canon 550D has come down to 35k...getting a D5100 is not a great option...

550D have a 7D sensor and D5100 have D7000 soo they can be comparable


----------



## Sounava (Apr 14, 2011)

I agree with sujoyp. Buying 550D at 35k is the most sensible decision at this point.



sujoyp said:


> I understand that here people got lots of money to spend on lenses...But I just want to say that when u r new to dslr system and u r not doing wildlife photography but taking casual shoots around then 24k is too much to invest
> 
> let me take my own example...I would love to have a 70-300mm zoom , a macro for insects, an autofocussing prime lens, at the start ...
> 
> ...


You forgot the basic fact dude: I said the Nikon 70-300VR is a better alternative to those who wished to buy the 55-300 VR.
Of course money is a factor. That's why I said those who wished to buy the 55-300 for 19k, should spend some more and buy this 70-300VR instead. And of course this lens is not for casual shooters unless you have a "money" plant at home 
Tamron themselves have the 70-300 VC lens, available at almost the same price of the Nikon 70-300VR. That lens is good too (sharper than the Nikon @ 300mm) but lacks in the department of autofocus speed and accuracy and also the build quality.

If one do not have much money, he will buy the 55-200VR for 11k. That is the best buy in the low range. The Tamron and Sigma 70-300's image quality are far inferior to the Nikon 55-200VR, and also the Nikon comes with VR where as the Tamron and Sigma variants do not. 

P.S. : You said Tamron 70-300 APO DG but no such lens exists. It will be the Sigma 70-300 APO DG Macro (10.5k), Sigma 70-300 DG Macro (7.1k), Tamron 70-300 Di LD Macro.


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 14, 2011)

oops mixed up...yaah its tamron Di Ld and sigma APO DG...lots of terminology u know

I would love to get a Nikkor AFS 55-200 but 200 is very less and its not that good for birding...
I can compromise a bit on pic quality and will do post processing afterwards...but cant compromise on reach


----------



## Sounava (Apr 14, 2011)

sujoyp said:


> oops mixed up...yaah its tamron Di Ld and sigma APO DG...lots of terminology u know


 Yeah thats true 



sujoyp said:


> I would love to get a Nikkor AFS 55-200 but 200 is very less and its not that good for birding...
> I can compromise a bit on pic quality and will do post processing afterwards...but cant compromise on reach


If I were you I would have gone for the 55-200. The only plus point of going for the 70-300 sigma and tamrons were because of the 1:2 macro capability but since you already have a macro setup this would not matter.
I think having stabilization and better image quality plus fast focus is lot better than having a higher reach, but no image stabilization, lots of chromatic aberration, problematic and slow focus motor (noisy too). Plus they are less sharp @ 300 than at 200mm anyway. 

Check this link - You will be able to visualize the difference between 200mm and 300mm. Not that much in my opinion. In most cases a simple crop will do if you want to "zoom in further". [since the image quality will be good anyway, cropping can be carried out without any hassle. Much better alternative than trying to sharpen in post processing.]

Just my 2 cents


----------



## r4gs (Apr 18, 2011)

Sujoyp is right. 200mm just isn't enough for birds. Birds, specifically magpies in my case, 20 feet away barely show up half a cm high on a 4x6 print. Unless you have a full frame slr, there really won't be any point in cropping. If possible, i would recommend you try and borrow a lens from somewhere and try it out first. I've tried a 200mm and a 400mm lens and the difference is considerable.

I can't really comment on a 300mm vs 200mm as i've never actually used a 300.

All i can say is, for birds, the larger the focal length the better. However, you can still take superb photos with what you have as well. I have some excellent bird shots with a 50mm prime lens as well as with my 28-200mm zoom. (i will add though that the ones with the 50mm were those of an ostrich and some geese!)


----------



## Faun (Apr 18, 2011)

^^Post the shots in photography threads 

Got a good thread about Sigma APO 150-500 pics and discussion

Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM - Bigmos - Canon Digital Photography Forums


----------



## Sounava (Apr 18, 2011)

r4gs said:


> Unless you have a full frame slr, there really won't be any point in cropping.


Please explain this to me 



r4gs said:


> All i can say is, for birds, the larger the focal length the better


Agreed. I just said between the two lenses (Sigma 70-300 and Nikon 55-200 VR) the latter will be a better buy for all intents and purposes.




Faun said:


> Got a good thread about Sigma APO 150-500 pics and discussion
> 
> Sigma APO 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM - Bigmos - Canon Digital Photography Forums


This lens costs a bomb >_< Though used lenses are widely available in India @ around 35k, but still that is costly.


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 18, 2011)

I think I have already mentioned about it somewhere its a good buy for economical birding


----------



## Sounava (Apr 18, 2011)

Ok you go for that lens but if I were you I would have gone for the 55-200  VR, better AF, Sharpness really comes a long way 

This pic was taken by my friend using the 55-200VR:

*a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/154969_457721316023_734591023_5625765_4691701_n.jpg


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 18, 2011)

No i havent got sigma 70-300...I was talking about 150-500 sigma


----------



## Faun (Apr 18, 2011)

how do you guys take moon's pic ? I am not getting the details.


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 18, 2011)

I had learned before but now I forgot the settings for moon...


----------



## r4gs (Apr 19, 2011)

@sounava: the sensors in dslrs like the d3100 or canon 550d use sensors that are actually smaller than that of 35mm film. A camera with a sensor the size of a 35mm film is called a full frame slr.
My statement was only in reference to the photo i mentioned where the magpie was barely a cm high. The cheaper slrs usually lose out on detail owing to the small sensor size, even if it has a high megapixel count, if you have to crop that much.
Cropping, in general, is not a problem no matter what camera you use, be it a point and shoot or an slr.

@faun: sorry, can't post the pics! I use a canon 50e, which means i use film and i've never bothered to get it scanned.
Also, to take pics of the moon, try using a spot meter and underexpose your shots in half stops till you get the detail. Simple rule of thumb, if the image is washed out and too bright, underexpose! 
One problem with shooting the moon is that the haze in the atmosphere can make everything blurry.


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 19, 2011)

@r4gs...thanks for reminding me about moon shots

u say full frame takes better pic..thats correct but the cropped sensor increase the magnification ...isnt so...like 18mm on cropped sensor become 18*1.5 = 27mm or 300mm becomes 450mm..

Doesnt range increase in cropped sensor...kindly clarify


----------



## Faun (Apr 19, 2011)

r4gs said:


> @faun: sorry, can't post the pics! I use a canon 50e, which means i use film and i've never bothered to get it scanned.
> Also, to take pics of the moon, try using a spot meter and underexpose your shots in half stops till you get the detail. Simple rule of thumb, if the image is washed out and too bright, underexpose!
> One problem with shooting the moon is that the haze in the atmosphere can make everything blurry.



Yeah underexposure should do the trick.


----------



## r4gs (Apr 19, 2011)

@sujoyp: in terms of canon lenses, canon ef lenses are actually designed for full frame sensors and 35mm film, ef-s lenses are for cropped sensor cameras. Using an ef lens on a crop sensor camera will result in an effective magnification by a factor of 1.6 relative to a full frame sensor. This is because the entire usable image from a full frame lens is not projected on a crop sensor, this is why there seems to be a magnification. I think this is also because the sensor of a cropped sensor camera is actually closer to the lens or something. Not sure on this point.

Basically, if a projected subject is 1cm high, it will be 1cm high on a full frame or cropped sensor. On a cropped sensor it seems larger as the sensor is smaller.

Also, a full frame sensor doesn't take better pictures, it only takes images with more detail and lower noise. Good pictures can be made with any camera and any lens.


----------



## Sounava (Apr 19, 2011)

r4gs said:


> @sounava: the sensors in dslrs like the d3100 or canon 550d use sensors that are actually smaller than that of 35mm film. A camera with a sensor the size of a 35mm film is called a full frame slr.
> My statement was only in reference to the photo i mentioned where the magpie was barely a cm high. The cheaper slrs usually lose out on detail owing to the small sensor size, even if it has a high megapixel count, if you have to crop that much.
> Cropping, in general, is not a problem no matter what camera you use, be it a point and shoot or an slr.


I know about APS-C and FF sensors. I only asked about the explanation to the statement of yours I quoted above - "Unless you have a full frame slr, there really won't be any point in cropping." Also, I kind of do not agree to what you say here. APS-C does not necessarily mean "cheap". And "entry level" DSLR does not necessarily mean it will lose out on detail because the sensor size in not 35mm. Do remember that D300s which costs 1lakh rupees is an APS-C camera and D5000 and D90 uses the same sensor. Before the D7000 came out that sensor was the best APS-C sensor, a spot now occupied by D7000. D5100 also uses the same sensor as D7000, the the D300s successor will also have the same sensor. 
In the Canon field, EOS 7D is one of the best APS-C DSLR ever. 
Anyway, moving to something technical -

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4446&stc=1&d=1303217570

See the illustration I created above. Suppose for sake of simplicity of explanation you are using an FX lens. You see the image circle which the lens will create and how the FF sensor is positioned edge to edge to the circle. Now imagine using the same FX lens on a crop sensor camera and all other image parameters remain same (position of the camera, focal lenght et al). Then since the sensor is smaller than a FF sensor, a "crop" of the actual image will fall on this sensor. That is why these sensors are called crop sensors and that is why phrases like "equivalent field of view", "focal length multiplier of 1.5" etc comes up. 
So what is the net result? In a sense, you are getting a "crop" of whatever image you would have got from a FF.
But look at the bright side - The bird is now occupying a much larger area of the smaller sensor, whereas in the FF sensor, the bird is occupying a much smaller area.
So, the bird will appear larger on the cropped sensor than on the full frame. That is why a 200mm lens is said to give an equivalent field of view of 200x1.5=300mm in a crop sensor. 
Now your objective is to crop the picture so that only the bird occupies the whole image. So in a FF you will have to crop more than in a APS-C. But the end result is the same - the bird occupies the whole image.

Q. Ok fine, but where does the number of pixels come into the equation?
Ans: Suppose you are comparing a FF camera with 12MP vs a APS-C camera of 12MP. So density of pixels in the latter sensor is more than in the FF sensor. When you crop to get only the image of the bird in the frame, the crop from the APS-C will ultimately have more pixels than the equivalent one from the FF. Of course comparisons will differ when the sensors have different megapixel count.
What is this hoopla regarding megapixels all about? 
In general, more megapixels should amount to more details in a picture. But that is not always the case. In case of point and shoots, the sensors are "tiny" and by tiny I mean 6mmX4mm. Yup _that_ small. Now if you pack 14 million pixels into such a small space, the individual pixels will have to be really small. They become so small that they individually can hardly capture enough photons to send "clear" signals of its own to the image processor. There is also some kind of "overlapping" of signals. So the images taken in point and shoots are not "sharp" in the true sense of the word when viewed at 100%. This escalates when the ISO is increased. ISO is nothing like amplifier - It amplifies the signals already received. So too much ISO leads to noise just as too much amplifying a sound signal leads to distortion.
If the sensor is large, the individual pixels are themselves large, they each occupy significant amount of photons and supply enough information to the processor to process the image. Result - clean and nice images with excellent colour rendition and almost no noise. Now this is already true in case of APS-C's. The images are really sharp. Nowadays technology have advanced so much that the new cameras produce noise free images even @ ISO 3200.
Ofcourse, if you use a cheap lens, you will really find that the images are not sharp at all. But this is true when the lenses are used with Full frames as well. Those cheap lenses simply do not have the resolving power to effectively take the advantage of these sensors. In this era, sharpness of an image in a DSLR, be it APS-C or be it FF, depends only on the lens. Period. The technology has advanced that much. 

So where is the advantage of FF cameras? Why do they cost a bomb?
1. Stellar high ISO performance for the reasons mentioned earlier. Images taken in ISO 6400 will look like they were taken in ISO 400 with respect to noise. 
2. Some really shallow depth of field work. (Can explain about this if asked by someone).
3. High dynamic range of the sensor.
4. Excellent focus systems
5. Weather shielded body
6. Stellar continuous shooting mode (like say 11fps).
7. Pro features (excellent flash commander mode for example).
8. The viewfinder! Once you see with this viewfinder, you will cry when using a entry level camera's viewfinder 
9. Sharp images (though it does not mean that APS-C images are not sharp)
10. Many more such features.

Nowadays DSLR users have become so sensitive, that topmost priority of manufacturers is image quality. When they increase the pixel count in a DSLR, they do so only when they are sure that the technology they possess will give better results than the previous generation sensor. In DLSRs, at the present age, more pixels = less sharp or noisier image do not hold true.

But beware of point and shoot - This market is consumer gimmick oriented. They pack more pixels because "aam admi" thinks that more pixels = better camera. But the results come out actually worse when viewed at 100%. Thats why higher end point and shoots like Canon S95 or G12 have not gone for the megapixel spree (16MP) and uses modest megapixels. But in point and shoots also, there can be voices in support of more megapixels - After all, more pixels = more information. More information = better resized pictures, better overall noise reduction. I said noise "reduction" - the camera processor (or any Post processing software like lightroom) will be more efficient in reducing the overall noise of an image the more is the number of pixels. Of course, more number of pixels will mean worse performance with respect to per pixel noise. But when noise reduction is applied the applied result will be better. If all you do is upload the image on Facebook or take small prints like 6x4 inches, you will actually find the newer cameras performing better even thought when viewed at 100% they look definitely worse.


So what is the gist? 
1. I do not agree with the statement regarding cropping
2. I pointed out the basic differences between APS-C and FF and the advantages of going towards FF with some references from point and shoots thrown in.


----------



## Sounava (Apr 19, 2011)

Oh I see that around 5 replies were posted while I was writing the above reply! 



sujoyp said:


> u say full frame takes better pic..thats correct but the cropped sensor increase the magnification ...isnt so...like 18mm on cropped sensor become 18*1.5 = 27mm or 300mm becomes 450mm..
> 
> Doesnt range increase in cropped sensor...kindly clarify


My reply above will clarify your doubts to some extent I guess. Do ask if you have more doubts.




r4gs said:


> Using an ef lens on a crop sensor camera will result in an effective magnification by a factor of 1.6 relative to a full frame sensor. This is because the entire usable image from a full frame lens is not projected on a crop sensor, this is why there seems to be a magnification.


It is not actually 1.6 times magnification. The field of view gets reduced in the situation you said here and the focal length of 1.6 times the actual one is found to give an equivalent field of view.



r4gs said:


> I think this is also because the sensor of a cropped sensor camera is actually closer to the lens or something. Not sure on this point.


No actually it is the other way round. When you use lenses specifically made for cropped sensors (EF-S), the rear element of the lens goes more towards the sensor than the rear element of an EF lens would. 



r4gs said:


> Basically, if a projected subject is 1cm high, it will be 1cm high on a full frame or cropped sensor. On a cropped sensor it seems larger as the sensor is smaller.


Nopz. If a 1cm object appears 1cm on a full frame sensor it means a 1:1 macro lens is being used at its maximum magnification power. This is not true in general.



r4gs said:


> Also, a full frame sensor doesn't take better pictures, it only takes images with more detail and lower noise. Good pictures can be made with any camera and any lens.


Correct with the noise part. I explained it in the longish reply before reading this line of yours. But a full frame sensor takes better pictures in the sense of having more dynamic range and more accurate colour reproduction. I guess sharpness is not a factor in case of sensors. It all depends on the lens. Some years back sensors were responsible for lack of sharpness though.


----------



## r4gs (Apr 19, 2011)

well, i did say, in effect, that full frame sensors are only cleaner in my previous post.

Please bear in mind that when i say cheap, they really are cheap. I never said anything about quality. Eg, canon's 50mm f1.8 is cheap, barely 5k, but it is extremely sharp and one of the best lenses in that focal length. My film slr was free, a gift and probably not worth more than rs2k now, however with the right film, i can even get 5foot prints and 25mp scans.

As i said earlier, cropping was only in reference to that particular image.
Also, you've got to decide for yourself what works for you. Try out the cameras, see which one you like. If you can take good photos, you'll take them with any camera.
For my use, i usually enlarge to 8x10 prints, sometimes greater and for those purposes i find cropping to such a large extent rather inconvenient on cropped sensors.

Very good explanation by the way. Is there any chance you can explain the depth of field point?

regarding the 1cm thing, you've pointed out exactly the same thing in your diagram. I'm talking about the projected image on the sensor, not about the fact that the subject is 1cm in height.


----------



## Sounava (Apr 19, 2011)

r4gs said:


> well, i did say, in effect, that full frame sensors are only cleaner in my previous post.


Yes and I said 5 replies were made when I was writing my reply and I didn't see those until after I posted the reply 



r4gs said:


> Please bear in mind that when i say cheap, they really are cheap. I never said anything about quality. Eg, canon's 50mm f1.8 is cheap, barely 5k, but it is extremely sharp and one of the best lenses in that focal length.


Yup agreed. But please bear in mind that by cheap I meant cheap lenses like Sigma 70-300 DG Macro. 
Prime lenses are simplistic to make and are usually really sharp than zoom counterparts. Ofcourse don't take into account the pro lenses like 70-200 2.8 VRII from Nikon or 70-200 2.8 L IS from Canon. Their sharpness can be said to equal to primes 



r4gs said:


> My film slr was free, a gift and probably not worth more than rs2k now, however with the right film, i can even get 5foot prints and 25mp scans.


Now from where did film SLR's come into the discussion? All the discussion here is pertaining to DSLRs. They cannot be compared to film cameras. 



r4gs said:


> For my use, i usually enlarge to 8x10 prints, sometimes greater and for those purposes i find cropping to such a large extent rather inconvenient on cropped sensors.


What I meant to say is, if you find cropping inconvenient on cropped sensors, it will be inconvenient on full frames too. Infact you are cropping out a larger portion from a full frame than a cropped sensor. (see the illustration)



r4gs said:


> Very good explanation by the way. Is there any chance you can explain the depth of field point?


Thank you  
Yes I will explain the depth of field thing in details, but probably next Tuesday as I have exams round the corner and goto study.




r4gs said:


> regarding the 1cm thing, you've pointed out exactly the same thing in your diagram. I'm talking about the projected image on the sensor, not about the fact that the subject is 1cm in height.


Oh I actually skipped the word "projected" somehow. Sorry.


----------



## r4gs (Apr 19, 2011)

umm, when you said cheap, you were referring to slrs, specifically the crop sensor ones vs full frame. That is what my post was in reference to and i suppose my lens example confused you. That is, also, why i mentioned film slrs as they're cheap, but still good. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Actually, you are absolutely right about the cropping. I'm just so used to shooting film that the field of view point escaped me entirely. 

One point with reference to the depth of field, isn't it true that a lens will have the same depth of field at a given focal length and aperture, but that it has an apparently shallower depth of field on a full frame sensor owing to the field of view?


----------



## sujoyp (Apr 19, 2011)

Thanks both of u I understood crop factor better now


----------



## Sounava (Apr 19, 2011)

r4gs said:


> Actually, you are absolutely right about the cropping. I'm just so used to shooting film that the field of view point escaped me entirely.


Hehe 



r4gs said:


> One point with reference to the depth of field, isn't it true that a lens will have the same depth of field at a given focal length and aperture, but that it has an apparently shallower depth of field on a full frame sensor owing to the field of view?


Depth of field = f(focal length, aperture, distance of subject from the focal point of the lens, distance of the background from the subject in focus)

So basically, take two cameras - one full frame and one crop sensor, put them side by side, use same lenses at same settings and shoot the same subject. You will get the same depth of field. But field of view will be different because of the crop factor.

But you will hear people saying full frame bodies produce shallower depth of field than crop sensors. This is true in the following viewpoint -

Take two cameras - one full frame and one crop sensor. Use the same lens, same settings and shoot the same subject, keeping the same composition and field of view. Then, to get the same field of view and compostion, crop sensor users will have to move back from the position where the full frame camera user is standing. Click the pictures. You will see two same compositions and same image and lens settings, but shallower depth of field in the full frame's image. This is because depth of field is directly proportional to the distance of the subject from the focal point. So for the crop sensor camera, object distance being more, depth of field is more.


----------

