Is it worth spending more to buy the Canon 500D vs the Canon 450D?

Question

I would like to get into photography but I'd like to gather more information about the topic first. I'm thinking about buying a starter D-SLR camera, and am leaning heavily towards a Canon (most of my friends are using Canon).

Budget is important for me, so do think is it worth it to spend more money to a buy the Canon 500D instead of the Canon 450D? I don't think I will use video feature...

Answer

The 450D is plenty camera for anyone taking up photography. I would spend the money saved on better lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there any noise difference between averaged and long exposure photos?

Question

Let's suppose I'm on a tripod, photographing a perfectly still scene (also dark) and I take these photos:

• 5 photos at ISO 3200 and 1s exposure
• 1 photo at ISO 100 and 5s exposure

There is a common thing between the items, and it's the total time used.

The EV of the first item is much higher, right? Now suppose I average the 5 photos at ISO 3200 to reduce noise, producing a single image.

After that, I take the ISO 100 photo and I adjust levels (which would increase noise) to reach the same EV of the blended photo, in a way if I look these 2 photos from far away they'd look the same.

Would the noise level be equal, comparing the blended photo and the levels adjusted photo?

I hope you understand my point.

EDIT

In response to drewbenn's commentary

Also, I don't think that blending the 5 photos will reduce noise the way you think it will

Blending photos reduce noise a lot, in fact here is an example:

I took 20 photos of a tree with: ISO 1600, F4.1 and 2s exp. The upper image is showing how much noise any of those images have. The lower is showing the result of averaging the 20 photos in one.

Sory for the bad focus.

As you can see, the noise gets almost completely deleted

EDIT2

For the ones who are asking, I used a very simply command of imagemagick to average the images:

convert [input1.JPG input2.JPG ...] -average output.JPG

If I have some time later, I'll try to conduct one of those experiments you're talking about. I guess there is no a static pattern and it'll vary on each camera.

EDIT3

I've also done a experiment a little more different:

This is the Scene:

And I've taken these set of photos (the aperture is always the same), I used manual mode.

• 01 @ ISO 100, 0.6s
• 02 @ ISO 200, 0.3s (averaged later)
• 04 @ ISO 400, 1/6s (averaged later)
• 08 @ ISO 800, 1/13s (averaged later)
• 16 @ ISO 1600, 1/25s (averaged later)

Each set has the exactly same EV, these are the results, in the same order:

It seems that a higher ISO, there is less noise but less details as well.

Answer

Provided your ISO100 image was not underexposed I wouldn't expect a noticeable reduction in noise (except maybe in the deep shadows) with the 5 1 second ISO1600 images blended together.

In the infamous other thread I demonstrated that a 1/30s ISO100 will contain more noise (lower signal to noise ratio) than a 1/30s ISO1600 image. Same amount if light but the higher ISO had less noise.

The reason for this was that the read noise is proportionally greater in the ISO100 image (as readout happens after amplification). In a "correctly" exposed ISO100 the read noise is so small compared to the signal that any reduction in read noise is probably not noticeable.

edit: just did the experiment

I shot one photo at ISO100 16 seconds, and 16 shots at ISO1600 but only 1 second. All images were well exposed. What follows are two crops, the top row is a single ISO1600 image, and the bottom two are the 16 ISO1600 images averaged in Photoshop, and the ISO100 image. I wont tell you which way round the bottom two are, to see if anyone can actually tell the difference - I certainly can't!

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does the cheap kit lens seem to be sharper than the expensive L wide-angle?

Question

So recently, I was just browsing through Canon's product lists and found the 17-40 f/4 L to be quite interesting, although I will not buy it anytime in the near future. Still, I decided to make some comparisons, just for fun:

EF 17-40 f/4 L USM vs EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS

These shots were, according to the website, done with the same camera, aperture and almost the same focal length. What struck me is that the L lens seems to be only a little bit sharper in the center, and, even worse, the kit lens seems to beat it in the corner areas!

How can this be? Is the test flawed? Anything I missed out?

Of course, the 17-40 needs to draw a bigger image circle in order to suit FF cameras, and the 18-55 is optimized for an APS-C sensor. But until now I assumed I could still expect clearly better image quality even on an APS-C camera?

Answer

"L" lenses aren't always necessarily sharper than their non-L cousins. In fact, some of them are very much softer, often as a consequence of being two or three stops faster than the cheaper lenses, but sometimes just because they're a decade or two older in design.

What you do get with "L" lenses is professional features and the build quality of a light armoured vehicle. For instance, you might not care so much about a constant aperture while zooming, but I can guarantee that somebody who is using separately-metered studio-type flashes either as main or auxiliary lights would. And the manual focus ring on kit lenses (so far true of both Canon and Nikon) is just a little less than useful.

There have been a couple of "L" lenses that were, frankly, lousy lenses by most objective standards, the most notorious being the now-discontinued 50mm f/1.0. Considering it as a "standard" lens and using it at f/5.6 or f/8, you'd have to be an idiot to spend the extra two grand on that lens (and that was in early-'90s dollars) -- but when TMax P3200 was that fastest thing around, being able to go to f/1.0 for "available darkness" shooting made the difference between being able to get the shot and not being able to get the shot. It didn't matter that the $50 (at the time) f/1.8 version could shoot rings around it at other apertures -- that stop and a half meant everything to the people who needed a lens that fast. Most of the "L" series for the old FD mount were like that -- they filled a niche that pros needed to do their jobs, but were actually worse for general photography than the non-"L" variety. Things got better for the AF EOS era, but there have been a couple of stinkers along the way too. The worst of them have already been replaced by updated designs, but some adequate performers are still in need of an update.

If you want (or need) the build quality, usability and environmental sealing of a pro lens, then the "L" is almost always worth the money. If you're making pictures for your own pleasure and can afford the sometimes fiddly and fragile nature of consumer lenses, then the newer, cheaper optics are often a much better option.

Check more discussion of this question.

Nikon D5000 vs Nikon D90 vs Canon 500D?

Question

I quite like the D90 but what concerns me is that it was launched almost 2 years back and is quite a bit heavier than other two. Although what I like most about it is the continuous shooting (4.5 vs 3.4/4). D5000 could be eliminated as its entry level, although good, but 500D wins over it hands down. So basically split between D90 and 500D.

Can someone provide a quick suggestion on which one should i go for, I am an amateur photographer with almost 2 years of exp. with compact camera. I looked at the comparison charts but could not figure out which one to pick.

Answer

Go into a store and hold them both. The ergonomics are a little different, and technically they aren't all that different.

Also, do you have any friends/relatives that have a Nikon or Canon? if so, you might want to keep in mind that if you had the same brand you could borrow lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

What constitutes the quality difference in lenses with exactly the same specifications but different brand names?

Question

Example: I wish to purchase a lens with the fixed maximum aperture of f/2, and some other features.

If I get the exactly same specifications in Tamron and Nikon, on what basis should I decide which one to go for (assuming there is a price difference)?

Answer

For lenses:

• overall build quality and durability (how long the lens will last)
• smoothness of zoom and focus, zoom creep
• materials - metal or plastic barrel and mount, glass or plastic lens elements
• optics
  • number and design of elements (two similar lenses may have a different number and configuration of elements and this may affect the performance of the lens)
  • lens coatings to eliminate flare
  • distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting (darkening of the corners)
  • contrast and sharpness throughout the range of apertures, both centre and in corners
  • bokeh (subjective quality of blurred areas of the image)
• autofocus speed and accuracy
• compatibility with current and future camera bodies (3rd party lenses are to some degree reverse-engineered, so no guarantee any and all communication between the lens and body will be equivalent with a 3rd party lens
• image stabilisation (VR/OS/IS)
• internal focusing (IF)
• ability to take filters and filter size (larger diameter = larger, more expensive filters)

There are some very good 3rd party lenses (Tokina 17-50mm, Tamron 90mm macro). Overall 3rd party lenses tend to be less expensive but with lower build quality. I don't think you can generalise - there are some very good Sigma lenses, and some poor ones. You'd need to read reviews and try out these lenses yourself to know which ones are good value.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to tell a Nikon or other-brand DX lens from an FX lens?

Question

I'm thinking about getting the Nikon D7000 body-only, and want to know how to tell an FX lens from a DX lens. I may upgrade in the future to an FX body and would like to have glass ready to go when I do.

I was looking on the B&H site and can't tell what lenses are FX and what's DX. Any help on this?

Answer

For Nikon, it will list with "DX" in the name, otherwise its a FX lens. For example, on the B&H page, it lists the 35mm DX as "AF-S Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX Lens".

For Sigma lenses that work with Nikon, its the "DC" that indicates a DX sized lenses.

For Tamron lenses that work with Nikon, its the "Di II" that indcates a DX sized lenses.

If it doesn't have one of those, its a normal, "FX" sized lenses.

(And realize that FX lenses will work with the D7000, as well as the DX lenses) .

Check more discussion of this question.

Will I regret buying an older lens that doesn't autofocus or have image stabilization with my Nikon D5000?

Question

I am planning to buy a Nikon Normal AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens.

It doesn't autofocus on the D5000 but for the price, I think it's a good choice of lens for portrait.

What do you think? Will I regret the fact that it doesn't have AutoFocus, neither VR?

Answer

VR: I don't think VR matters at all for portraits, where you can control the lighting to make sure you have a suitably fast shutter speed (1/125 or 1/250) to avoid blur due to camera shake.

AF: This depends on how good you are at focusing manually. For portraits with shallow depth of field (wide aperture), it's critical to make sure that one or both of the eyes is in perfect focus. If you can do this manually, then by all means, go for the manual focus lens.

Before buying, you can try manually focusing on one of the lenses you already have, and then check your focus by looking at the full-size image on your computer. I often find that I've missed by a bit when focusing manually, but some people are quite good.

Check more discussion of this question.