unblinded wrote:
Any more tests or testimonies regarding the efficacy of the Dust Reduction System? How well it works wasn't mentioned in Phil Askey's review.
I spent a couple of days on the deck of a ship with this camera (with effective 30mph winds to work in), and changed lenses quite often (at least 6 times each day). I still do not have any visible dust on the shots I took (f8-f11). At f22 shot against the sky I can see some small bits. When I used to do this with the 1D2 I had to clean my sensor every couple of days.
BUT, you cannot expect this system to be perfect. It will 'help' for sure, but I have no illusions about being 'dust free' for life. At some point I do expect to clean the sensor, but so far I have not had to.
nikt wrote:
The camera takes nice pics. But... bang for buck.... it is no longer a first choice camera considering the opposition, if you are just starting out. If you have canon lens, then fine. Otherwise, consider the K100 Pentax, the Olympus E500 or the Nikon D80. Sorry, but using the 400D amounts to a ho-hum feeling. Its the little things that are a problem. Image quality is not one of them, the pictures are great.
Whats missing from the 400D? The user interface is much better, but there are things that should be displayed in the viewfinder that are not. It took me ages to work out how to get the Auto Focus assist to work (I finally read the manual). And why on earth is there no spot metering. The level of configuration I thought could be better.
It's good, but if you are considering buying an entry level DSLR for the first time, keep the other makes in mind with this one....Show more →
If I were just getting started I would still select the 400D over the others. Lens selection, image stabilization, image quality, price of lenses, price of body, 3rd party accessory / lens support, and the very active used market are all reasons to go Canon.
I agree we should expect more out of Canon, but ultimately this rash of new really good entry level bodies increases competition and pushes the quality higher and price lower.
I have a 350D that works very well, so I can afford to wait to see what the 40D and 450D bring to the table. If I had no body I would almost certainly select the 400D..
I understand that Canon has some serious competition in the entry level dSLR market with the D80, K10, and Sony. That being said I still bought a 400D.
I just bought a 400D and sold the 10D.It is a good little camera with potentials.The build quality is not up to 10D but for that there is the 30D.If I was starting now the K10D would have been very very tempting.
On another note...
In speaking of new camera releases, I prefer it when accessories such as battery grips, QR plates and L-brackets fit identically to the camera it replaces. For instance, 350D to 400D. It just makes it easier when not having to sell and buy new accessories. I guess $160 L-brackets shouldn't mean much when cameras cost at least $800, but still...
Then again, major improvements in ergonomics significantly changing the body design are also a plus.
I'd hate to be a party pooper (ok, not true), but I have seen the image quality from the other D-SLR lenses directly against the 400D , and it in not a reason to buy the 400D. Now before everyone gets their knickers in a knot, lets just clarify my statement. The other entry level D-SLR's are as good as the 400D. I make this as an informed statement..... I have tested the Alpha 100, D80 and E-330 together... because thats what I've been doing lately.
Price of lenses, price of body (value for money?), lens selection. The Olympus has 16 'digitial' lenses. Canon has 4 or 5. Why is this important? Digital lenses are designed to ensure the light comes in straighter. Nikon and Canon lag behind here. And lets remember, the market that these cameras are aimed at will only ever buy 1 other lens, a 75-300 f4.5 - 5.6, if they even do that.
This is an entry level market. 99.5% will not buy an external flash. Canon will sell many many 400D's. People walk in the shop and say, "I want a 400D". Their friend told 'em to get one. Thats great. Nothing wrong with brand loyalty, but my comments here aren't designed around brand loyalty.
nikt wrote:
I'd hate to be a party pooper (ok, not true),...lens selection. The Olympus has 16 'digitial' lenses. Canon has 4 or 5.
Lens selection? Olympus shows 14 lenses on their website. Canon shows 62 lenses. Nikon shows 46 af and 9 mf lenses. Third party lens makers(Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc.) offer many more Canon and Nikon lens mounts than Olympus, many of them digital designs. Just because Canon only offers five EF-S mount lenses, does not mean that other EF lenses do not have coatings and other lens design considerations to solve problems with digital sensors. I have non-EFS Canon lenses that certainly have digital design considerations.
nikt wrote:
Why is this important? Digital lenses are designed to ensure the light comes in straighter.
I learn something new every day.
nikt wrote:
Nikon and Canon lag behind here.
There are many differences between the different camera bodies. There may be reasons to choose Olympus over the Canon or Nikon offerings. Lens selection is not one of them. It is not reasonable to say that Nikon and Canon lag behind Olympus in lens selection.
nikt wrote:
The Olympus has 16 'digitial' lenses. Canon has 4 or 5. Why is this important? Digital lenses are designed to ensure the light comes in straighter.
The Digital lenses are primarily designed to work with crop sensor bodies. They are less expensive designs than full frame lenses. Any lens introduced/revamped in the last 3-4 years is designed for digital bodies.
I own 2 lenses designed long before digital bodies were on the drawing boards the "Magic Drainpipe", 80-200 F2.8L, and the 50 1.8 M1. I notice no problems/limitations using these lenses on my digital bodies.
I look at Digital making on full frame lenses like "New" Tide. Yes it might be better, but old Tide washed my clothes fine.
nikt wrote:
The other entry level D-SLR's are as good as the 400D. I make this as an informed statement..... I have tested the Alpha 100, D80 and E-330 together... because thats what I've been doing lately.
That is simply NOT true. I can make an informed statement as I have tested the A100 and 350D side by side. The A100 produces noisy images above ISO 400, even at the RAW level. The same applies to E330. Only the D80 comes very close to the 400D in terms of image quality.
Of course, if you only shoot ISO 400 and below, then this does not matter.
nikt wrote:
Price of lenses, price of body (value for money?), lens selection. The Olympus has 16 'digitial' lenses. Canon has 4 or 5. Why is this important? Digital lenses are designed to ensure the light comes in straighter. Nikon and Canon lag behind here.
I can assure you Oly lenses vignette like Nikon and Canon lenses too. Same problems with edge sharpness too. Slap a standard lens on an APS-C camera, and these problems become even less apparent.
You must also remember: the same small sensor ALSO gives you noisier images at high ISO even though 4/3rd lenses are typically smaller and lighter.
nikt wrote:
Nothing wrong with brand loyalty, but my comments here aren't designed around brand loyalty.
If I have to make a recommendation, I will say wait and look at Pentax K10D. Let's see what they can come up with. If I were to start from scratch, I will only consider the Nikon D80, Canon 400D/30D and Pentax K10D.
thw2 wrote:
You must also remember: the same small sensor ALSO gives you noisier images at high ISO even though 4/3rd lenses are typically smaller and lighter.
FYI. The Olympus 4/3 sensor is 18x13.5MM. This is smaller than the Canon or Nikon sensors, giving the Olympus a 2x crop factor.
When you see 4/3 "designed for digital", substitute "designed for cropped digital".
nikt wrote:
And lets remember, the market that these cameras are aimed at will only ever buy 1 other lens, a 75-300 f4.5 - 5.6, if they even do that.
This is an entry level market. 99.5% will not buy an external flash. Canon will sell many many 400D's. People walk in the shop and say, "I want a 400D". Their friend told 'em to get one. Thats great.
Although this is true, and there may be a lot of new DSLR users, the camera is just a tool and the photographer is what matters. There are many people who have entry level DSLRs, use a kit lens, and leave it in auto mode. I am sure good photographers could take better pictures than these with a P&S. Its kind of like going to a track day and passing cars that should be faster, yet their drivers can't drive.
Its good to see somethings have been stired up and so many responded to my comments. If you disagree, then thats fine. In the next few days I will PM some links of photos from the A100, the Oly E-330 and the 400D. You can then tell me where I am wrong.
Just a few clarifications though. I did say Oly has 16 digital lenses (though it may be 14) and I said Nikon and Canon lag behind... with digitial lenses. No point counting how many 'non' digital lenses each might have 'cause that ain't what I said. We can discuss the merits of the other lenses as another matter. Some 35mm film lenses on APC-S sized cameras can actually have improved sharpness at the edges since they are not using the edges of the lenses. Typically where softness occurs. Thats true, but I never made mention of that. (Trying one point at a time).
I can't stress enough that my points here are aimed at helping the entry level crowd. The 99% of people who will NEVER EVER use the camera to its full potential. "ISO 1600..... whats ISO?" crowd.
The same people that will print 6x4 and the occasional 8x12 (and heavens forbid the one 12x18in they do one day!). At these sizes, 'noise' is very much a minute issue. I'm not pixel peeping here, and neither will the users these cameras are aimed at.
I'm not here to debunk the myths, hearsay, hypotheses. There are plenty of resources on the web that can inform you of how CCD/CMOS/Live MOS chips work and why its different to film, better than I can. And I'm not going to go back and forth on the same point too much, people have already made up their mind on things.
But there is one point I'd like to make since we got onto lenses. The digital lens is designed to work with a CCD/CMOS. The lens elements need to be more refined and sharper than they were on film.
Just because someone has a very expensive 35mm film lens that already has these properties, and the pictures look great on their DSLR, doesn't make it any less valid.
These are fundamental points, yet, they're debated. Strange.
Edited by nikt on Oct 26, 2006 at 01:07 AM GMT (Reason: some points were too brief, so took them out.)
nikt wrote:
But there is one point I'd like to make since we got onto lenses. The digital lens is designed to work with a CCD/CMOS. Why? One reason (from a few) is the Anti Alaising filter. Do you know what the AA filter is supposed to do?. Blur the image to ensure that neighbouring pixels can capture the full spectrum of light. To compensate for this, light needs to come in straighter, and the lens elements need to be more refined and sharper than they were on film. The processor then tries to put it all back together.
Somehow, this basic point is lost on people. Just because someone has a very expensive 35mm film lens that already has these properties, and the pictures look great on their DSLR, doesn't make it any less valid.
These are fundamental points, yet, they're debated. Strange.
With all due respect I think you need to brush on your 'fundamentals'
1. AA filter does not have anything to do with 'full spectrum'. Blurring removes high spatial frequencies, not the spectral ones. It is done to remove aliasing which can result in moire.
2. "digital" lenses do not make the light go "straighter". If you need to focus light you have to bend it. It's optics 101.
3. Some 'digitial' lenses do have some antireflective coating to counter secondary reflections from the AA filter and that's mostly it. The fact that a lens has a reduced image circle does not make it digital.
I'm not sure what point 3. is about. When we talk 'digital' lens we are specifially talking characteristics of lenses for DSLR. Use whatever word makes you feel comfortable.
Imaging artifacts like moires and colour alaising (shown as unrelated green, blue, red pixels or discolouration) is fought by putting an anti-alaising filter infront of the sensor. The filter actually blurs the image and distributes colour information to neighbouring photo sites. While the AA filter addresses one problem, it introduces another in loss of sharpness.
Fine.... digital lenses don't make the light go "straighter".
"Film is capable of responding to light striking the surface at a high angle of incidence, a high angle of incidence can prevent sufficient light from reaching sensor elements at the periphery of a CCD and result in reduced color definition." The light must hit the sensor at a more perpendicular angle than was required with film.
nikt wrote:
Price of lenses, price of body (value for money?), lens selection. The Olympus has 16 'digitial' lenses. Canon has 4 or 5. Why is this important? Digital lenses are designed to ensure the light comes in straighter. Nikon and Canon lag behind here.
nikt wrote:
When we talk 'digital' lens we are specifially talking characteristics of lenses for DSLR. Use whatever word makes you feel comfortable.
I don't understand your point. Canon only has five lenses that perform as well as Olympus lenses on digital bodies? Canon only has five lenses that are limited to digital crop bodies? The other 50+ should be limited to crop bodies, too?
I'll take a 1.5x or 1.6x crop and Canon or Nikon lens selection over a 2x crop and 4/3 lens selection any day of the week.
The only advantage I see in the Olympus bodies is that due to the fact that there is no upgrade path to a larger than 2x crop, all of their new lenses can be limited in size and weight. If you carry that to another level, you end up with an even smaller sensor on a superzoom point and shoot.
The 4/3 systems will be more than adequate for lots of entry level people. P&S cameras are more that adequate for lots of entry level people. I just don't see the cost benefit to these people when a better systems exist with the latest offerings from Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax. The noise reduction in the Olypmus bodies loses detail while only coming close to the Canon in noise with this blurring feature.
PS. This thread is really getting away from the "Hands-On" topic. It's either time to get back on topic or time to die.
nikt wrote:
2Just a few clarifications though. I did say Oly has 16 digital lenses (though it may be 14) and I said Nikon and Canon lag behind... with digitial lenses. No point counting how many 'non' digital lenses each might have 'cause that ain't what I said. We can discuss the merits of the other lenses as another matter. Some 35mm film lenses on APC-S sized cameras can actually have improved sharpness at the edges since they are not using the edges of the lenses. Typically where softness occurs. Thats true, but I never made mention of that. (Trying one point at a time).
I can't stress enough that my points here are aimed at helping the entry level crowd. The 99% of people who will NEVER EVER use the camera to its full potential. "ISO 1600..... whats ISO?" crowd.
The same people that will print 6x4 and the occasional 8x12 (and heavens forbid the one 12x18in they do one day!). At these sizes, 'noise' is very much a minute issue. I'm not pixel peeping here, and neither will the users these cameras are aimed at. ...Show more →
After all this, what you're trying to do here is convince the crowd that Canon sucks and Oly 4/3rd system is THE best.
However, you have just managed to contradict yourself within the same post. If users only make small prints and don't even bother too much about their quality, do you think it makes a difference whether they are using digital lenses (which according to Oly marketing 'are designed to ensure the light comes in straighter'? The latter is of course just marketing talk 'cos, like I said, the lenses STILL vignette and have weaker edge sharpness.) After all, according to you, they either can't tell the difference or can't be bothered!
Besides, if I am not too concerned about image quality, I am better off getting a compact digicam. It's smaller, lighter and cheaper. Why bother with ANY DSLR in the first place?
Before this turned into what it is, my point was simply. Olympus E-330, Pentax , Sony , Nikon D80 are serious alternatives to the 400D. The 400D is not the first choice entry level camera.
Olympus make some excellent lenses. The 14-54mm for example.
We talk 'systems'. Most people purchasing an entry level camera don't buy anything other than what came with the camera. The don't buy systems. The other camera brands are an EXCELLENT alternative. They have a place in the world. Olympus are innovative. This is an excellent market segment for this consumer. My point exactly, "the 4/3 system will be more than adequate for lots of entry level people".
You don't see a cost benefit. I do. I also would like to see Olympus continue their innovation and become even stronger. Where did dust reduction come from? You might not see any value in a company like Olympus, but many do.
Having used the 400D leaves me with a feeling everytime I use it, that the Nikon D80 is MUCH better value for money, as was the K100, A100 and E300.
No, I'm not trying to convince a Canon crowd they suck and Oly is the best. No, I didn't contradict myself. But you believe whatever you want to believe, and you can take any word out of its sentence you see fit and manipulate it as you like.
olympus were great until they abandoned their OM series and concentrated on p&s. now they may be back in dslr-land but i can no longer take them seriously. (i used to shoot with a complete OM system).
Olympus shows 14 lenses on their website. Canon shows 62 lenses. Nikon shows 46 af and 9 mf lenses. Third party lens makers(Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc.) offer many more Canon and Nikon lens mounts than Olympus, many of them digital designs. Just because Canon only offers five EF-S mount lenses, does not mean that other EF lenses do not have coatings and other lens design considerations to solve problems with digital sensors. I have non-EFS Canon lenses that certainly have digital design considerations.