File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
A guy came into my shop today looking to buy a DSLR camera, and asked me the old "Nikon or Canon" question.

I went on to talk about several things, but i think that he felt most disturbed by the following subjects:

The FACT of dust in dslrs.
The problems of hot pixels and the manufacturers stand point them.
Top display or no top display.
Lens' with and without motors.
Defective LCDs.
Effective Flash.
Build quality.

In the end he left without buying one and looking a little worried.

The question is: Will there ever be a camera that solves all these problems?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon DIGITAL IXUS 50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2008:03:29 23:02:12Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/2.8Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, AutoFocal Length5.80 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height900RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>The FACT of dust in dslrs.
Not really that big of a problem unless you're an Adamsphile and shoot at f/32 every chance you can get. Dust isn't noticeable until you get to really small apertures.

>The problems of hot pixels and the manufacturers stand point them.
I'm sure someone'll fix this eventually. If only to give you the ability to take a black frame and a white frame and map out the dead pixels.
>Top display or no top display.
This isn't a problem, this is a design decision. If you want a top LCD, you'll have to get the next higher model. Top LCDs cost money and are (arguably) not really necessary given the nice big rear LCD on digital SLRs.
>Lens' with and without motors.
Well, Canon and Sony already have this solved, since all of their lenses have autofocus motors. For Nikon, it wasn't really a problem until they decided to release a low-end body without an in-body motor. But again, it's not really a "problem" so much as a design decision. If you want to be able to AF with all AF lenses Nikon's ever made, get a higher-end body. Eventually, Nikon will probably update its whole lens lineup with AF motors, hopefully before they take out the body motors in all of their cameras.
>Defective LCDs.
Eh? If the LCD is defective, send it back under warranty. If you're asking if a camera maker will ever get to the point where they never, ever have a defective part in any of their cameras... I dunno, maybe if they hand test them all before sending them out of the factory, which would cost enough to put the Rebel up where the 1Ds III is.
>Effective Flash.
Effective how so?
>Build quality.
Again, not a problem.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Oh, wait, you said *camera*, not camera *company*.

So yeah, get a one-digit model from either of the makers. Top LCDs, great build quality, top displays, full autofocus on all autofocus lenses. Dust still isn't a major problem, and hot pixels aren't really a big deal either (I'm pretty sure RAW converters fix 'em automatically. I'm pretty sure my Rebel has a hot pixel based on the RAW preview, but it doesn't show up in the JPEGs).

Maybe not "effective flash" since they don't have flash on-camera, but I still don't know what that means.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
In my experience most, if not all, hot pixels disapper when noise reduction is used.
>> Anonymous
>>150402

OP: thanks, the flash thing was all about how built in flash hasnt got the capability of a flashgun. But i guess thats not gonna change any time soon!

We actually did talk mainly about dust and hot pixels, ive got hot pixels and id love to see them solved too. Maybe a hardier sensor or something...

(Did i just say "hardier?" I did, didnt i..)
>> Anonymous
>A guy came into my shop today looking to buy a DSLR camera

A guy came into my shop yesterday, walked over to the Nikon cabinet, stared at the D300 for a few seconds and announced (you need to imagine this in an Indian accent), "I would like to buy a digital SLR camera for one hundred pounds."

For some reason I found it quite funny, and wasn't entirely sure what to say.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150428
I lol'd.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>150427
To make an internal flash that has the power of an external flash, it'd pretty much have to be as big as the external flash. My Vivitar 285HV already doubles the size and weight of my Rebel when I stick it on-camera.

And an internal flash with the same power as an external would still suck, because direct on-camera flash almost always sucks (Weegee notwithstanding). Which is why the single-digit models don't even have a built-in flash.
>> Anonymous
>>150394
To recapitulate ac's post from my point of view:

>The FACT of dust in dslrs.
>The problems of hot pixels and the manufacturers stand point them.

These two are kinda hilarious, to be honest. Because film would always have some dust on it, and I doubt a single roll ever left the factory with no flaws in however many bit of silver equal a pixel. Except now, correcting it is easy.

>Top display or no top display.

Nothing to add here, really. I prefer a top display for the discreet, quick-glance ability, but I wouldn't be pissed it they dropped it.

Actually, the ideal top LCD display would be a small little thing, with five values: aperture, shutter speed, iso, a meter reading (just as text, the reading, like "+2," to save space), and... the distance the lens if focused at at that moment, since lens barrels can be hard to read in low light.
>> Anonymous
>Lens' with and without motors.

I'd like more lenses without motors, actually. Anything that'll make the lens smaller and lighter without compromising optical performance gets my thumbs-up.

(Plus, this wouldn't be a problem at all if the D40's viewfinder didn't suck.)

>Defective LCDs.

I have nothing to add.

>Effective Flash.

Nothing wrong with a pop-up flash, except that it's direct. A piece of scotch tape done over in highlighter works as a gel. Only possible improvement here is if they have the flash articulate one step further up, to be used as a bounce flash. (A few Panasonic models did this.)

>Build quality.

Definitely should be improved, but they're all fine enough. Again, I'd like a camera the size of a Rebel with higher-end features, including build quality.

IMO, the only thing most DSLRs today are lacking is sensor-shift, maybe a little more build quality (I like metal, but plastic is fine) and weathersealing on all models, and good, full coverage finders.

One more feature that would be nice- a little up and down lever tucked somewhere on the body that controls manual focus through the autofocus motor, as an alternative MF option when your other hand is busy. But that's really, really minor.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
The Sony A100 is already out.
>> Anonymous
>>150520


Good show, sir.
>> Anonymous
>>150600
I don't know, to turn out a quality product that best serves the need of photographers?

(Not that I have hope for that anytime soon. But eventually, in their perpetual struggle to find new features to shove in because they need to sell an upgrade, one of them will do it and the other will have to follow suit.)
>> Anonymous
>>150604
The point is that most DSLRs don't have it. Doesn't matter who does, most models of DSLR don't have it.

And if someone hates these slow, big zooms running around today but wants IS...
>> Anonymous
>>150605I don't know, to turn out a quality product that best serves the need of photographers?

okay.. or they can just keep on releasing lenses with IS/VR as they are doing it now, the new EF-S lenses with IS are dirt cheap

i'm not saying it will never happen, it's just more logical to keep making IS lenses
>> Anonymous
>>150610
>And if someone hates these slow, big zooms running around today but wants IS...

Give me some great, beautiful primes with IS somehow optically tacked on and I'll be happier than I would with sensor shift.
>> Anonymous
>>150607The point is that most DSLRs don't have it. Doesn't matter who does, most models of DSLR don't have it.

that statement is retardedly useless
>> Anonymous
>>150612
This lack (IS primes) is what is hurting me the most about going with Canon.

I really, really want a 50mm 1.8/1.4 with IS. It's actually almost enough to make me go Sony/Pentax...
>> Anonymous
>>150894

lol....
>> Anonymous
>>150894
for low light handhelds?
>> Anonymous
I'm personally all for putting af motors and is/vr in the lens. By putting them in the lens you can tweak these items to optimize performance of each specific lens. Throw these in the body then your stuck using the same components for the entire line.
>> Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
Lyon's Three Laws of Photodynamics:

1. Even an ideal camera needs enough light to make a good photo.
2. There's no such thing as an ideal camera.
3. The closer you can come to the ideal camera, the better.
>> Nikon !!eX1E3IhZL8k
bump for the n00bs