Anthony
So I am currently looking on walmart.com at their camera section and I am so confused. So I always thought basically cameras with higher MP and the bigger ones (yeah I know, slap me now) were better and that's about as far as my knowledge goes with cameras. But I noticed that there are big cameras that are categorized as digital slr cameras that are basically 12-14 MP and $400+ but there are also the smaller cheaper cameras for 150+ that are generally 16 MP. So this proves my theory that "the more MP the better" wrong I think.
So which type of camera would fit me best?
I've always been interested in photography so I would use it a lot to capture landscape images, cars, and also close ups on perhaps maybe some flowers or bugs or something but I would primarily be using it for my youtube channel. I'm a "sneakerhead" so I would use it to basically do unboxing videos, review the shoes, and on-foot videos.
One rule I usually live by is "you get what you pay for" so I'm willing to throw down a couple hundred for a nice camera as long as it works for everything I'd like to do with it. I know someone may suggest a start with a cheap beginner camera but I usually just like to get something nice the first time, that way I don't have to buy a cheap one and then the nice one down the road. Perhaps experiment with amateur photography while also being able to film HD videos for youtube.
so basically, can someone clear up the difference between cameras, which would suit me best for HD photos and videos, is more MP actually better, etc.
thanks in advance.
Answer
Well as you surmised, more megapixels and big lenses are not necessarily better - it is a marketing ploy generated by camera manufacturers that says "Pick me" when you look at various cameras.
The number of Megapixels a camera has defines it's resolution. Resolution basically is how large of a photo you can print out and still have high quality. These days, 12Megapixels is enough for most situations. However, some people have gone to cropping their photos in lieu of having a good telephoto lens, and with a high Megapixel camera I suppose allows this to some extent, but the purists would find that sacrilege.
The real judge of the sensor is not the Megapixels it has, it's how large it is physically. The benchmark these days is the old 35mm film format, which is 36mm x 24mm - or around 864 sq mm. Simply put, the larger the sensor, the larger the individual pixels, and the better they are at capturing light. That means larger sensors generally have better low-light capability. And a couple of side benefits are a bit better contrast and color definition.
APS-C DSLRs, the kinds you see at Walmart costing $500, have slightly smaller sensors, around 370sq mm (Canon DSLRs are 329 sq mm as they have smaller sensors yet).
Next come the M4/3rds cameras - often called 2" sensors, with a size of 225 sq mm. And after that are the Nikon 1, Sony RX100, and so on with 1" sensors having a size of 116mm.
Then the best compact cameras; Nikon P7800, P340/P330, Canon G15, Canon S120, etc that have 1/1.7" sensors - or 43 sq mm.
And then the run-of-the-mill compact cameras, including most bridge cameras, which range from 25 to 28 sq mm.
And finally smartphones, which most are around 4 sq mm, but a few are as large as 25mm compact cameras.
So you see, a full frame DSLR with a 864 sq mm sensor compared to a smartphone with a 4 sq mm sensor is physically well over 200 times larger - which accounts for a DSLR's much superior low-light capability, contrast, and color definition.
And realize that 1980x1024 Full HD video only takes about 2.1Megapixels - which is much less than even the most basic camera these days. So there must be some way to resolve the difference between 2.1Megapixels that HD video requires vs the high megapixels of a typical camera.
Most cameras simply skip rows of unneeded pixels. However, this can be a problem as those pixels do contain information and that can result in a jagged edge between the remaining pixels. But since video is constantly moving, your brain often does not see those artifacts.
A few cameras, such as the Nikon 1 and Sony RX10, have sensors that are just the right size, and additional processors that "oversample", or average the pixels into a composite video that has fewer artifacts than simply skipping pixels that most cameras do to cut down to 2.1Megapixels needed for Full HD.
And since the pixel skipping is common from the least expensive compact camera to DSLRs (other than the afore mentioned Nikon 1 and Sony RX10), the higher the megapixel count in the sensor, the worse this is likely going to be.
Also, since those high megapixel cameras are designed first and foremost for photos, and since it takes a lot of processing power to convert their sensors to resolve at 2.1Mp for video, camera sensors tend to overheat. And this happens with ALL cameras having a video mode. This then limits the time you can use the camera. Often, inexpensive cameras may only give you 5~10 minutes of recording time before they shut down due to overheating, but I would not expect any more than 20 minutes from even the best DSLRs.
Regardless, there is a tariff limit (WTO/ITA) of 29 minutes 59 seconds for the video mode of cameras, so unless you have a video camcorder, don't expect times longer than that.
So if video is the number one need, I would highly recommend looking at a video camcorder rather than a camera.
Well as you surmised, more megapixels and big lenses are not necessarily better - it is a marketing ploy generated by camera manufacturers that says "Pick me" when you look at various cameras.
The number of Megapixels a camera has defines it's resolution. Resolution basically is how large of a photo you can print out and still have high quality. These days, 12Megapixels is enough for most situations. However, some people have gone to cropping their photos in lieu of having a good telephoto lens, and with a high Megapixel camera I suppose allows this to some extent, but the purists would find that sacrilege.
The real judge of the sensor is not the Megapixels it has, it's how large it is physically. The benchmark these days is the old 35mm film format, which is 36mm x 24mm - or around 864 sq mm. Simply put, the larger the sensor, the larger the individual pixels, and the better they are at capturing light. That means larger sensors generally have better low-light capability. And a couple of side benefits are a bit better contrast and color definition.
APS-C DSLRs, the kinds you see at Walmart costing $500, have slightly smaller sensors, around 370sq mm (Canon DSLRs are 329 sq mm as they have smaller sensors yet).
Next come the M4/3rds cameras - often called 2" sensors, with a size of 225 sq mm. And after that are the Nikon 1, Sony RX100, and so on with 1" sensors having a size of 116mm.
Then the best compact cameras; Nikon P7800, P340/P330, Canon G15, Canon S120, etc that have 1/1.7" sensors - or 43 sq mm.
And then the run-of-the-mill compact cameras, including most bridge cameras, which range from 25 to 28 sq mm.
And finally smartphones, which most are around 4 sq mm, but a few are as large as 25mm compact cameras.
So you see, a full frame DSLR with a 864 sq mm sensor compared to a smartphone with a 4 sq mm sensor is physically well over 200 times larger - which accounts for a DSLR's much superior low-light capability, contrast, and color definition.
And realize that 1980x1024 Full HD video only takes about 2.1Megapixels - which is much less than even the most basic camera these days. So there must be some way to resolve the difference between 2.1Megapixels that HD video requires vs the high megapixels of a typical camera.
Most cameras simply skip rows of unneeded pixels. However, this can be a problem as those pixels do contain information and that can result in a jagged edge between the remaining pixels. But since video is constantly moving, your brain often does not see those artifacts.
A few cameras, such as the Nikon 1 and Sony RX10, have sensors that are just the right size, and additional processors that "oversample", or average the pixels into a composite video that has fewer artifacts than simply skipping pixels that most cameras do to cut down to 2.1Megapixels needed for Full HD.
And since the pixel skipping is common from the least expensive compact camera to DSLRs (other than the afore mentioned Nikon 1 and Sony RX10), the higher the megapixel count in the sensor, the worse this is likely going to be.
Also, since those high megapixel cameras are designed first and foremost for photos, and since it takes a lot of processing power to convert their sensors to resolve at 2.1Mp for video, camera sensors tend to overheat. And this happens with ALL cameras having a video mode. This then limits the time you can use the camera. Often, inexpensive cameras may only give you 5~10 minutes of recording time before they shut down due to overheating, but I would not expect any more than 20 minutes from even the best DSLRs.
Regardless, there is a tariff limit (WTO/ITA) of 29 minutes 59 seconds for the video mode of cameras, so unless you have a video camcorder, don't expect times longer than that.
So if video is the number one need, I would highly recommend looking at a video camcorder rather than a camera.
Does anyone know much about DSLR lenses?
Dave
Basically, Iâm looking to get a new camera, and will probably get an SLR. Itâs the first time Iâve bought an SLR, so donât really understand a lot of the terminology!
With my compact, I get a x4 zoom on it. With some of the high end SLR look-alike cameras Iâve seen, I can get x18 zoom â I understand all of that (sort of). But, when I look at a âproperâ SLR, it doesnât seem to use the xZoom rating, rather mm, and was just wondering how these translate into xZoom equivalent! For example, 1 camera I looked at comes with an 18-55mm lens & a 55-200mm lens and wondered how that compared with a x18 zoom camera.
thanks
Answer
All camera lenses will have a focal length measured in mm, even point and shoot lenses. If you check the specs for a camera with a built-in lens, you'll find the lens equivalent in 35mm film cameras posted, because 35mm cameras were a standard for so long. To find the specs in mm for any camera, visit the camera database at http://www.dpreview.com
Measuring the equivalent in 35mm terms is the most accurate way to do a comparison, because it equalizes everything, which the xZoom measurement doesn't do. Here's why:
To get an xZoom measurement, you take the big # and divide it by the smaller one. So 55mm/18mm = 3.05x, which means it's a 3x lens. However, 200mm/55mm = 3.64x. If you just compared the xzoom powers, the lenses would appear to be nearly identical (between 3x and 4x), yet they are very different lenses, with the first lens being wide angle to mild telephoto and the second lens being a telephoto zoom. They have very different looks through the viewfinder.
So, like I said, convert everything to a 35mm equivalent. For a digital SLR, multiply the lens by 1.5, so an 18-55mm has a 35mm equivalent view of 27-82.5mm
Now, for comparsion: the Canon A570 IS, which has a 4x zoom. Look at the lens specs here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona570is/
35mm to 140mm equivalent lens per the specs.
So, the 18-55mm spec again: 27-82.5mm This means the 18-55mm lens will be wider (27mm is wider than 35mm), but have less telephoto power (82.5mm isn't as powerful as 140mm). Adding in the 55-200mm, which is 82.5-300mm equivalent--the two lenses cover more telephoto now too from 27.5mm to 300mm (vs. 35mm to 140mm).
Now, let's look at an 18x zoom, the Panasonic FZ18:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz18/
Lens specs: 28-504mm
The 18-55mm covers 27-82.5mm.
The 55-200mm covers 82.5-300mm
Bottom line: the two lenses won't be as powerful, but it will still cover a very wide range (200mm / 18mm = 11.1x)
Finally, while LEM is mostly correct (and a thumbs up to him), he is somewhat mistaken about Sigma/Tamron/Tokina third party lenses. The fact is that those companies make some unique and very good lenses. For example, while Nikon makes an 80-400mm VR lens, Sigma makes an 80-400 optical stabilized lens with a built-in motor. Optically, the Sigma is the equal or superior of the Nikon. Yet it's far less expensive! Another example: Only Tamron makes an 18-250mm lens (an equivalent 13.8x zoom) for SLRs. Yet another example: the Sigma 10-20mm is relatively inexpensive, yet performs fantastically for wide angle and I've seen this lens used by pros for interior photos because it doesn't distort.
So, I disagree with LEM on third party lenses. If you know what you are doing, it's possible to get superb third party lenses, including lenses you can't find or get from the big camera companies, for a lot less money.
All camera lenses will have a focal length measured in mm, even point and shoot lenses. If you check the specs for a camera with a built-in lens, you'll find the lens equivalent in 35mm film cameras posted, because 35mm cameras were a standard for so long. To find the specs in mm for any camera, visit the camera database at http://www.dpreview.com
Measuring the equivalent in 35mm terms is the most accurate way to do a comparison, because it equalizes everything, which the xZoom measurement doesn't do. Here's why:
To get an xZoom measurement, you take the big # and divide it by the smaller one. So 55mm/18mm = 3.05x, which means it's a 3x lens. However, 200mm/55mm = 3.64x. If you just compared the xzoom powers, the lenses would appear to be nearly identical (between 3x and 4x), yet they are very different lenses, with the first lens being wide angle to mild telephoto and the second lens being a telephoto zoom. They have very different looks through the viewfinder.
So, like I said, convert everything to a 35mm equivalent. For a digital SLR, multiply the lens by 1.5, so an 18-55mm has a 35mm equivalent view of 27-82.5mm
Now, for comparsion: the Canon A570 IS, which has a 4x zoom. Look at the lens specs here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona570is/
35mm to 140mm equivalent lens per the specs.
So, the 18-55mm spec again: 27-82.5mm This means the 18-55mm lens will be wider (27mm is wider than 35mm), but have less telephoto power (82.5mm isn't as powerful as 140mm). Adding in the 55-200mm, which is 82.5-300mm equivalent--the two lenses cover more telephoto now too from 27.5mm to 300mm (vs. 35mm to 140mm).
Now, let's look at an 18x zoom, the Panasonic FZ18:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz18/
Lens specs: 28-504mm
The 18-55mm covers 27-82.5mm.
The 55-200mm covers 82.5-300mm
Bottom line: the two lenses won't be as powerful, but it will still cover a very wide range (200mm / 18mm = 11.1x)
Finally, while LEM is mostly correct (and a thumbs up to him), he is somewhat mistaken about Sigma/Tamron/Tokina third party lenses. The fact is that those companies make some unique and very good lenses. For example, while Nikon makes an 80-400mm VR lens, Sigma makes an 80-400 optical stabilized lens with a built-in motor. Optically, the Sigma is the equal or superior of the Nikon. Yet it's far less expensive! Another example: Only Tamron makes an 18-250mm lens (an equivalent 13.8x zoom) for SLRs. Yet another example: the Sigma 10-20mm is relatively inexpensive, yet performs fantastically for wide angle and I've seen this lens used by pros for interior photos because it doesn't distort.
So, I disagree with LEM on third party lenses. If you know what you are doing, it's possible to get superb third party lenses, including lenses you can't find or get from the big camera companies, for a lot less money.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment