Do I really need class 10 or 30MB/s card for my DSLR?

Question

My camera came with 4GB class 10, 30 MB/sec card. I wanted to upgrade to high capacity memory card but I was skeptical, a lower speed card such as class 10, 20MB/sec will cripple my camera when I use it at its highest setting. I checked reviews online for super fast cards. I found this review quite useful. When I did the same test on my camera, I would notice it would stop in the middle (quite long pauses) and I really did not get the full 4 f/s picture that my camera is cable of.

Recently I went to NYC and used up all the memory of my 4GB card in one day so I got worried, I need a high capacity card esp because I want to shoot in raw. Instead of buying an new fast card first, I tried my 16 GB, class 2, micro SD card from my phone and put it test :)

It could shoot continuously (with no delay) at 2 or 2.2 f/s.This was in RAW format. I was actually very happy with that! I though it would just totally cripple my camera. I did video test too on High Quality, 25 fps and it came out good, no jerks. So I am really happy that I can use my 16 GB class 2 card in my camera.

My question is, am I missing something? Do we really need a 30MB/sec card for the DSLR. Will the photo and video quality be the same with both the cards?

One thing I noticed with class 2 card is that browsing in camera was slow (noticeably slow), but as long as the camera captures the moments right, I am happy with it. Am I missing anything.

This question is more intended to ward, is it kind of myth that you have to use 30MB/sec card?

Answer

This other question covers how to figure out what speed you really need. But to answer the other part of what you are asking: No, card speed does not affect image quality in any way. The image files are digital, and it's not like analog cassette tapes where the composition of the media can make a difference. The only case image quality could be affected is when the slower speed force you to choose a lower-quality setting in order to make smaller files. But that's a choice you'd make intentionally.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is Pentax AF360 same as Jessops 360AFD?

Question

I've got a Jessops 360AFD flash and I'm looking for a diffuser for it (the original one is broken). I have been led to believe it is the same as a Pentax AF360.

Is this the case? Or have I had misinformation?

Answer

No. It is almost certainly a relabeled version of the Tumax DPT386AFZ. This flash is made by Icorp Development Ltd., a Hong Kong company which makes low-cost reverse-engineered dedicated system flashes sold under the Tumax brand and also as what they call "private label" products.

Other versions of this flash, or other models from Tumax, are sold under brands like Digital Concepts, Vivitar (a brand unrelated to the old-school Vivitar company), Bell and Howell, Bower, and so on. Various versions of this flash often claim slightly different guide numbers, but 36m is on the low side. Presumably a company can order them that way to cut costs — or it's possible that it's just older version than currently offered.

Reviews are mixed; some people are happy with the results for the lower price than the camera-system brands or from bigger third-party flash companies, while others have bad experiences with quality and support. Support is a big deal: in the US, the companies selling these models are basically cheap-chinese-electronics-importers, not camera companies, and customer support is not in their business model. I don't know if that's the case with Jessops. Have you contacted them about the broken diffuser?

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the differences of bringing RAW or JPEG into Photoshop?

Question

Most of my images are in RAW format. When I bring an image into Photoshop, does it make a difference whether it's a JPEG or RAW? I understand the difference between JPEGs and RAW images. I'm just wondering if it is better to bring in a JPEG or RAW into Photoshop, not Camera RAW?

Answer

The short answer to this question is: The raw option is better.

The slightly longer answer is: The raw image data gives you the chance, in ACR, to effectively "develop" the image based on your own desires and do that many times in a non-destructive manner with a lot more data available because it's the base data for the image. Drop into jpeg and you've already started with data being lost, partly a result of the 8 bit image format, but also because jpeg is lossy in compression. So, you've already dropped some color information and you've also discarded some pixels. Not to mention, your start point is what the camera maker decided was a "good" result.

So, seriously, there is no condition in which jpeg is superior to raw when you have the time ans space to deal with the image. The only time I would recommend jpeg is when you won't have the time to post-process, but in the last 4 or 5 years, for me, that has never happened... Your mileage may vary.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the differences between an entry-level DSLR and a Canon PowerShot?

Question

A Canon Powershot series camera has program mode that lets the user control the shutter speed and aperture

Even though an Entry-level DSLR has more features, this looks similar to an entry-level DSLR.

In other words, is it necessary for an amateur to own a DSLR over a point and shoot camera such as a Canon Powershot?

Answer

The 1st difference, and arguably the most important one, is the image sensor's size. DSLR has an APS-C or Full-Frame (35mm) sizes CMOS sensors, where owershots have much smaller, some CCD some CMOS sensors. this translates to superior image quality in terms of digital image noise - the larger the sensor, the less noise is apparent in the image. In this picture from Wikipedia, the 1/1.6" and smaller rectangles are the realm of P&S:

Also important is the fact that DSLR have interchangeable lenses, as well as TTL (Through The Lens) Optical Viewfinders which lets you see what the sensor sees.

DSLR are generally quicker than P&S, and occasionally have more features (but not necessarily, as the Powershot line has compatible CHDK alternative firmwares which enable many of the DSLR features).

Is it "enough"? This is a very subjective question. Given the price tag, the different size and weight group and more factors, only you can evaluate the "enough-ness" of a P&S camera to your needs.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the differences between two generations of Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS?

Question

I was going to buy Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS lens from eBay. But I saw there is a another lens available as MK II with same focal lengths. I googled to find difference between above lenses, but there were no results for that.

Can anyone explain the difference between these two lenses? Something I noticed is that the MK II lens is priced a little bit higher than the other.

Answer

According to announcement, the mkII version is only a few months old (the original one was introduced in 2007). Compared to older one, it seems to have gotten only a cosmetic makeover - some writings have moved to other locations and the plastic seems different. It has been noted that some of the new design features, like painted mount marker instead of a moulded one, and one-color finish (which I consider nicer), are probably cheaper than the older design.

The UD glass and Canon Super Spectra coating touted in the announcement were actually already present in the original design.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the differences between two generations of Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX AF 12-24mm f/4?

Question

I have been looking for a wide angle lens for a long time and have finally decided on the Tokina 12-24mm. When I went looking on eBay, I found there are two different types:

• The Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX AF 12-24mm f/4
• The Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX AF 12-24mm f/4 II

The only difference I can find is they've put some different coating on the glass – but there has to be more differences than that, right?

Also, does anyone have this lens? If so, what do you think of it?

Cheers.

Answer

From looking on DXOMark it appears the new one has its own focussing motor and it's a bit lighter as well as it has a new coating.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the differences between two generations of Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX AF 12-24mm f/4?

Question

I have been looking for a wide angle lens for a long time and have finally decided on the Tokina 12-24mm. When I went looking on eBay, I found there are two different types:

• The Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX AF 12-24mm f/4
• The Tokina AT-X 124 AF PRO DX AF 12-24mm f/4 II

The only difference I can find is they've put some different coating on the glass – but there has to be more differences than that, right?

Also, does anyone have this lens? If so, what do you think of it?

Cheers.

Answer

From looking on DXOMark it appears the new one has its own focussing motor and it's a bit lighter as well as it has a new coating.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to compare two DSLR bodies?

Question

All DSLRs generally have:

• A manual setting for ISO, shutter speed, aperture
• Manual focus
• Raw format support
• Macro focus
• Custom white balance settings

So, what are the factors which distinguish one DSLR body from another?

Factors which I know can be ISO Noise and Maximum/Minimum aperture.

What are the other significant and not-so-significant things to be considered while comparing two DSLR bodies?

Answer

The simplest is to compare them side-by-side. This will give you specification differences. Then you have to divided the differences into two groups: Ones that matter to you and ones that do not.

For example, some DSLRs have a sync-port. Some people look for it, some do not. A top shutter-speed of 1/8000 vs 1/4000 does not matter to everyone either.

Some differences you will encounter:

• Sensor size (Affects image quality, depth-of-field, field-of-view of your lenses)
• Lens mount (Decides which lens you can use, which ones will autofocus)
• Stabilization (Determines if all lenses get stabilized or not)
• Maximum ISO (This an indication of low-light performance but not directly correlated since not all ISOs show the same image quality)
• Maximum Shutter-Speed (How fast you can capture motion without using a flash as primary light source)
• Viewfinder coverage (Either you can precisely frame in-camera or not)
• Viewfinder Size (Affects comfort, perception of focus and fine-details)
• Number of control-dials (Efficiency of use)
• Weather sealing (Usable in rain, snow, sandstorms, etc - Note: requires weather-sealed lens too)
• Metering modes
• Depth-of-field preview
• Maximum continuous drive
• Autofocus points
• Weight
• Size
• Price
• Much much more... the database at Neocamera has over 180 data points per camera, about 50 or so are exposed in the Camera Finder which you can use to find cameras that match specifications you need.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the differences between Picasa and Lightroom, other than price?

Question

I've heard about Adobe Lightroom before, but never really understood what's so great about it, or why you'd pay for it when you can get Picasa for free.

I know Lightroom probably has more sophisticated editing options, but what are they, exactly, and how to do they compare to Picasa? Why would you use one over the other? Is Lightroom better for streamlining editing workflow, but Picasa is better for organizing & tagging photos? And would you ever use both programs?

Basically, what are the differences between Picasa and Lightroom?

Answer

There are several features that I think are just awesome in one or the other. Depending on your needs, one of these features will make you (usually + some other things) go towards Picasa or Lightroom.

Lightroom:

• Integration with other Adobe product (Photoshop, InDesign, etc)
• More sophistication in editing (somewhere in between Picasa & Photoshop)
  • Color correction, CA correction
  • NR & sharpening
  • Exposure & WB adjustments
• Can do batch processing

Picasa:

• Arguably faster (much faster for me)
• Integration with Google product (Blogger, etc)
• Simpler editing tools

So, if your workflow deals with more Photoshop, other Adobe stuff, Lightroom is the way to go. If you need more editing tools but don't want Photoshop, go Lightroom. Other than that, like me, I went for Picasa.

Check more discussion of this question.

Nikon D3100 vs D300?

Question

Within the Nikon D range of cameras, which would you say is a better camera? The Nikon D300 or the Nikon D3100?

I am new to photography, and have the D3100 and a friend of mine has the D300 and she's big into photography. I don't know which is a better camera, mine or her's.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Answer

They're different generations and different 'levels'. Your friend's is a pro level and the D3100 is an entry level. Your's may carry a slight edge in resolution and high ISO, but in every other way thats important, the D300 is almost certainly better.

Check more discussion of this question.

A website that can help me in choice of new lens?

Question

Is there any website that can help me to choose the best lens?

I would like to find a website where I can specify a range of minimum focus distance, a range of maximum focus distance, range of aperture, number of elements/groups, compatibility to bayonetes(mounts), etc. to search the lens that fit to my criteria.

A website with additional samples of photos on different focus+aperture would be useful.

Answer

You should try www.lenshero.com. You can select your camera and then narrow down lens choices based on aperture, focal length, etc. I've not used it much myself but it sounds like exactly what you're after.

Check more discussion of this question.

EOS 40d and an EOS 1d original - which one should I use?

Question

I've been trying to figure out the comparison of the two - I've gone out onto the 'field' and taken excellent photos on both cameras. The question is mainly this, given the substantially better viewfinder and AF (Servo especially) performance, lesser crop factor (and the consequent bigger sensor) - is the trade-off worth it to gain the +6 MP?

Now according to some specifications, the pixel size of the 1d is about 350% the size of current mainstream equipment, being 10,8 x 10,8um. It's bigger than anything I have ever found on any other camera.

I agree however that the performance at high ISO's for the 1d is poor, but - as most, I try to restrain myself within the ISO 400 border.

Then there is the RAW bit depth. This has led me to a conundrum which I absolutely HAVE to gain insight from professionals much rather than reading specs and whatnot, perhaps the best answer is then for me to go outside and take more photos and realize the print size I will be requiring of my photos.

This might end up as one of those CMOS vs CCD quality thread, but please - I realize the difference between the two and I'm hoping to find people who have more 'professional' experience on the two cameras that might shed some light on the matter.

How are the two comparable? How can I choose one from the other?

Answer

I have a 1Ds mkII and 30D both of which I still use as backups and can offer you some advice, though I've never used a 1D.

The 1Ds mkII was released in 2005 and feels very old now. The screen is small and difficult to see with low contrast and resolution, the menu system is bizarre and requires three hands to use efficiently, certain features from lower models of the same era you'd expect to have are missing (e.g. the ability to use the flash's AF assist lamp without the flash firing), for some unfathomable reason certain settings can only be altered by connecting the camera to a computer via firewire (USB wont do) card write speeds aren't great and whilst the frame buffer is large enough but takes ages to clear once full.

The image quality however is good, thanks to the large sensor and big pixels. So is the viewfinder and of course the 45 point autofocus system.

The 30D on the other hand has a bigger later generation screen, and generally more sane controls.

The 1D was released in 2001 and is really pretty long in the tooth now. I've never used one but imagine the menu system will be the same, probably minus even more features. It's also only APS-H and 4 megapixels isn't going to give you a lot of room to crop if you're making prints. The original battery probably wont have much life left in it and replacements could be rare. Ditto on the shutter.

Unless you really know what you're doing, or specifically need the AF or whether sealing I would go with the 40D, otherwise, depending on what you shoot, over time you may find the 1D lacking. The 40D does a few things like live-view which are very useful in certain circumstances.

The 1D is however the only Canon with an electronic shutter, meaning you can sync your flash at much faster speeds, see:

Which cameras can sync at faster than 1/250?

Check more discussion of this question.

Is ISO 200 still considered to be a bad choice, on digital cameras?

Question

In times of film photography there was a rule to either use ISO 100 film (or even great Velvia 50) which usually had considerably less grain noise than ISO 400 film. So 100 for outside or well lit subjects and 400 for indoor everyday photography. It was also considered that ISO 200 film was a bad choice because it provided no obvious advantage over 400. It had more noise than 100 and was slower than 400.

What's up with ISO 200 these days on a digital camera? Can same rules with 100 and 400 still be applied to DSLRs or have times changed considerably and nowadays even 200 gets used lots?

Disadvantagaes/advantages in terms of colours, contrast, noise and any other factors. What ISO settings do you usually use?

And I'm talking here about cropped sensor DSLRs (Canon and Nikon brethren).

Answer

I think it's still generally true that one tends to either use lowest-possible ISO in bright lighting, or else higher-than-200 ISO settings in darker situations. But I wouldn't say I'd avoid ISO 200; it just often doesn't seem to be convenient. If I'm in the sun, there's usually no need for it, and if I'm indoors, I'd often rather get a little more depth of field or a faster shutter speed than worry about keeping ISO down. But if ISO 200 fit the exposure and aperture+time I want, I'd not think twice about using it.

One reason is that changing ISO is trivial now; I can choose ISO 200 for a particular shot with the press of a button and flick of a dial (or going into a menu), rather than committing to it until I change film. I can even let the camera automatically use it whenever it fits best.

Another other consideration is that modern digital SLR cameras, especially of recent vintage, have really very good high-ISO capabilities. The noise might not be attractive as film grain sometimes can be, but there's much, much less of it. So rather than going to ISO 400, one might not think twice about ISO 800, 1600, or beyond. I think you're right, though, that ISO 200 is still left in an awkward spot — if ISO 1600 looks great, why not use that instead?

On some cameras, though, there is a reason where ISO 200 is actually technically preferred over ISO 100. This is because on these cameras the base iso of the sensor is 200, and going below that is actually worse, since it reduces dynamic range.

Or, one might want to use a highlight-preserving mode, if you camera offers it. Because digital sensors clip highlights in an ugly way rather than the graceful analog response of film, having blown-out bright areas is particularly bad. Some cameras offer a mode where they actually underexpose by one stop and the adjust upwards — you get more protection for highlights at the cost of increased shadow noise. And since each shot is really exposed one ISO step down, the bottom of the scale — ISO 100, on my camera — isn't an option. So, when I turn that on, ISO 200 becomes the lowest setting.

So, overall: I don't think there's a special problem with ISO 200, but I do think it tends to fall kind of in a less-used middle point. If you're using a camera which, for technical reasons, makes ISO 200 a good choice, don't be afraid of it. If you're using a small-sensor point & shoot camera where ISO 200 is worse than 400, there may be times when it makes a good compromise setting, but on cameras which exhibit less noise at higher levels, you'll probably just use those instead.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there any significant difference between Nikon and Canon?

Question

I'm considering purchasing a DSLR for the first time here in the next couple of months. The two "big boys" seem to be Canon and Nikon. I've looked at both companies, and I can't really see significant differences between the two.

Are there any?

(Please don't go into a flame war here -- I'm looking for factual differences between the cameras, not "I enjoy X because of Y...")

Answer

There's very few minor differences between those two.

Nikon has a consistent mount throughout its current generation of amateur and pro cameras. If a lens mounts on one, it should mount on the other. On some entry-level cameras with older lenses, you may not get autofocus and/or metering — but the lens is still functional. Nikon used to have only autofocus in the body. Some previous generation lenses require a camera with a focus motor in the body to autofocus.

Canon current has two mounts: EF and EF-S, and an EF-S lens is made for a APS-C sized sensor and physically won't mount to a full frame camera. (Based on Matt's comment below, it may be possible to mount a EF-S lens on a fullframe camera with some modification to the lenses and a limited zoom range.) EF lenses will work on either APS-C or full frame cameras. All autofocus Canon lenses have focus motors in the lens.

The off-camera flash system is very different between the two as well.

They each have a few lenses in their arsenal that the other is lacking — extreme macro or adjustable soft focus lenses for example. But those are really niche cases.

Canon is making their own sensors and Nikon has started to use some Sony sensors that are shared among several cameras (Nikon D7000, Pentax K-5, and Sony A580 all use the same sensor - or very close to it). The current generation of Sony sensors in these cameras appear to be superior to the current Canon sensors. Most of the technology advantages between the "big two" tends to switch back and forth as they each introduce new generations of cameras - so a sensor advantage today may not exist tomorrow.

Realistically, either would take good pics.

Don't forget about Pentax and Sony as well — they're competing for market share instead of against their own lines and look to be feature packing even their lower level cameras. Canon and Nikon (especially) leave off obvious (sometimes even basic) software enhancements from their lower lines in order to encourage mid-to-top tier purchase.

Check more discussion of this question.