If you're in the market for a new SLR, it is likely to be in front of a camera from Canon, Nikon, Sony o. Many of you will already have lenses, flash and other accessories that you purchased, it is inevitable forcing, with the brand you chose stick. And while this is not very exciting, companies are in terms of quality and features in the vicinity that are not really missing much. But for those of us who begin our SLR camera body and lens collectionThe decision can be daunting - if not impossible. I happen to fit in this group. I have all my SLR equipment to other photo projects, sold in the last two years for funding. I used an Olympus E-3 and a Sigma SD9 own. I loved these two outfits (especially the Olympus lenses), but decided to sell anyway. Looking back, I found that for me the sensor 4 / 3 's is better in the line of micro-cameras. While the Olympus lenses are fantastic, the sensor can not reachthe quality of the competing full-frame sensors. The Sigma SLR, I think that some of the best picture quality you can get. If you are above ISO 200, you will not like the results from their cameras to shoot. So how can we choose among the three other major companies?
Nikon
If you look at Nikon, a couple of standout details about the competition. Build high-ISO performance and usability Nikon cameras are still the market leader in high-ISO performance, each camera in their line (except maybe the D3100) 's best-in-class. Nikon D3S images at ISO 12 800, which seems to run as the noise-free ISO 800 with the Sony A900. L '? Cons Nikon cameras have a very low resolution, the lowest of all three companies with a wide margin. The D3s for example, has 12 megapixels. Canon's competitors, the 1D Mark III 16.1 (Sony does not have a direct competitor to this camera). The D700only 12 megapixels, while the range of Canon and Sony over 20. Further deductions will be more difficult with Nikon, but unless you print poster-size mural they probably are not important to you.
The build quality of Nikon's crazy. Most bricks are indestructible, that does not feel cheap or thin. Just keep the D700 and Canon 5D Mark II, the build quality is not even close. Nikon is more contoured to man and most usersagree that they are much more comfortable to use than Canon in the long run. However, Sony is probably in terms of comfort Nikon (and very close in build quality) are equal. The disadvantage is that Nikon are usually very difficult. The Canon 5D Mark II is 1.79 pounds, the A850 from Sony is 1.875 pounds, but the Nikon D700 is £ 2.19! Although the difference does not seem like much, will definitely notice the difference during a whole day.
Nikon users constantly preach and disturbing, theNikon's usability. Ken Rockwell I'm talking to you! As annoying as it is, is the fact that they are correct. Nikon are faster in the operation field as Canon and Sony. Not to play, to analyze the images that you press straight shot, so that almost all functions with one hand, Nikon handle easily be retrieved. But until the last Nikon D7000 did not have the ability, all camera settings for quick access to store custom settings. They have three distinct commercial banks in both Canon and Sony Professional (the new Nikon D7000 still only 2).
Canon
Canon's strengths are price, performance / resolution ratio and a story worthy of trust. Canon lenses are generally cheaper than the competition. While Nikon is insanely expensive compared to Canon seems to always offer a cheaper price to have. For example, the Canon 35 mm f/1.4 Lens $ 1,369 to B & H Photo, while Nikon> 35 mm f/1.4 Lens $ 1799 (not the addition of Sony's choice here, because, in my opinion, the Sony version is far lower. 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss If Sony is released, then a real bench test will be).
Canon bodies are probably the leader when it comes to comparing performance against the resolution. In most cases, the higher the resolution the camera has, the lower the frames per second (FPS), and is worse at high ISO. Canon 1D Mark IV is a very good jobHigh ISO sensitivity and with FPS but there is still a fairly high resolution of 16 megapixels. D3S The above is only 12 With Canon, you get the best of both worlds ..... in some way. If Canon, you need to make concessions on both sides (high ISO sensitivity and resolution), but both have decent performance. While Nikon offers better high ISO performance and resolution of the detail is better than Sony and Canon both well enough yet. So if you're good performance of the Canon bodysufficient for the needs of these two factors, as is the way to go.
Canon also has a long history of trust, which is supported by most professional users. You know, Canon is around, will continue to develop new products and strive to create new technologies. With Sony, are relatively new to the game and you can not secure support for their line in the long run.
Sony
Sony is an interesting animal, because they seem to show morePromise, but are also the most behind. Sony, Zeiss glass of the advantages of large size, resolution and the phenomenal upper body and feel in the viewfinder. Sony has a contract with Zeiss Zeiss lens and autofocus creates for Sony SLR that offers better than the comparable Nikon and Canon. They are fantastic. However, there are not that many lenses Zeiss 35mm f2.8 at 80mm zoom and a 16--. Until now they have a 24 mm f / 2, a 85 mm f/1.4, 135mm f/1.8 one, a 24-70mm f/2.8 has a 16(What is not very good). This may seem like a lot of lenses, but there are too many holes right now. Zeiss is known for large prime numbers, primes, and I only shoot, so I could care less about us zoom. So, with the first decisions we only Zeiss 24mm, 85mm and 135mm. Be added up to 35mm and 50mm f/1.4 lenses ladder, and a macro lens, the list is incomplete. Fortunately, she shows some Zeiss conference plans to make many new lenses and I had to take thispart of the roll-out this year. Sony lenses, including the G-series lenses are usually not on par with the best Canon and Nikon. The only exception is the first 300 mm f/2.8, which is a great goal. I should also mention that there are super-telephoto first as of yet, but it was announced 500 mm f / 4 / 1. What if it's as good as a lens 30omm great for sports and nature photographers
Resolution of Sony and the detail is higher than the competition, becausenot much to argue against this. Sony to produce images of the body (with a glass) are amazing. But when you also get their Pro SLR at ISO 400, which is too low compared to the competition out loud. To capture images in low light conditions it is difficult to Sony's professional cameras. However, their latest consumer offerings, including the A-33 and-55 (and the NEX-5) fantastic high ISO performance. Hopefully this is a sign of learning from Sony, such as noise and theirUpgrade the A850 and A900 are much better at high ISO.
Finally, Sony's bodies are very well built, very comfortable, and the sights are the brightest I've ever seen. In addition, he managed to keep weight under control (unlike Nikon), which is a good sign. There really is not anything negative, like taking a Sony, several are a bit 'heavier than the competition from Canon.
Completion
Well, it all depends (I know you hate that). But I will not cop-out andsay it is really up to you and no final decision, I hate it when other authors do. I broke the pros and cons of each camera can make, from my different needs. But at this point I chose Sony, if you start over. It is the combination of Zeiss lenses, tele-promising line of prime numbers, great handling and high resolution are not many negatives to point out. The main problem with Sony's high-ISO performance, which appear to beCorrection communicated in their new camera. So, what I would do is buy a Sony and a Zeiss A55. And expect to be updated for a850/a900 and then buy a camera that as a professional.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar