I need a Good, Affordable Camera. Any suggestions?

RRfan Oct 12, 2012

  1. paperkite

    paperkite TrainBoard Member

    935
    35
    12
    Yep go here http://www.rokkorfiles.com/olympus.htm . you can use your manual lenses with the custom adapter ( 175$) About half way down the page "The Olympus digital bodies are all priced between US$599 and US$999 at B&H Photo, making them very attractive alternatives to the higher priced DSLRs from other manufacturers. On ebay prices are even better, with the E-300 available for under US$400 new, and the E-1 available for approximately US$450 " all able to use the manual lenses .
     
  2. paperkite

    paperkite TrainBoard Member

    935
    35
    12
    Perfect, I just need to find out from someone that has this adapter , how much trouble it is to focus at full arpature then stop down to shoot.. it would be like get out the old light meter first , take reading - then foucs and shoot .. no point and shoot and movies would be a test ... thanks Rhb_HJ I will check this out ... oooo boy golly , I get to keep the new toy : swoon : snort: faint: where's my tripod .......
     
  3. TrainboySD40

    TrainboySD40 TrainBoard Member

    257
    21
    22
    Yeah, pretty much anything will adapt onto an olympus! However, FD-EOS adapters are, generally speaking, not worth it. Due to the differing mounts there has to be an optical piece in the adapter which reduces quality noticeably.
     
  4. paperkite

    paperkite TrainBoard Member

    935
    35
    12
    Did my bubble just pop? reduces quality noticeabley ... have you ever seen it your self or have access to photos taken that way ?
    shoot .... doggone it Ralph...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2012
  5. Fishplate

    Fishplate TrainBoard Supporter

    446
    64
    11
    I use my old Minolta lenses (24mm MD f/2.8, 50mm f/1.7 [my favorite], 35-105 zoom, and a nice Kiron 105mm macro) on my Olympus using a CameraQuest adapter. There are cheaper Chinese knockoff adapters available which supposedly work fine. My camera has the original 4/3 lens mount, but the newer Micro 4/3 cameras are even more adaptable. If you don't mind manual focusing, I think you will be pleased with the results.
     
  6. paperkite

    paperkite TrainBoard Member

    935
    35
    12
    Thanks Steve , I had grave misginings about the cheap Chineese adapters .... no glass is the only way to go and it seems like adapters at camera quest got it spot on !.
     
  7. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    Actually, with respect to the megapixel rating, more is always better. Here is why: Say you are X hundred yards from a train, as close as you can physically get. Assuming you've got some sort of zoom lens, you zoom in all the way, and you still only see flyspecks for freight cars. No problem, you've got a 14 megapixel sensor, so back home you can crop the image down to that boxcar you were hoping to nab. Now, if you only had an 8 mp sensor, the boxcar would be a fuzzy glob of pixels, but with a bigger sensor you may actually be able to read the road name on the side. Having the option to crop and enlarge adds an enormous amount of power to photography.

    Bottom line: get the biggest sensor you can afford. You may not think you need the resolution, but it's there on that one occasion when you really do.
     
  8. RRfan

    RRfan TrainBoard Member

    955
    2
    17
    My main focus right now is taking pictures at night and any low light conditions like fog and all that. The Nikon D90 that somebody mentioned seems like it takes nice pictures at night.
     
  9. TrainboySD40

    TrainboySD40 TrainBoard Member

    257
    21
    22
    I was doing research into it a few years ago, but I have no idea where I found the photos. Blur would be noticeable on any image bigger than about 800 pixels wide for most of them. Which leads me into the next point...

    While you're right in some respects, you're wrong on a couple others...more is not always better. See cellphone cameras. The more megapixels you jam onto a sensor decreases the size of the photosite, which means it can haul in less light. Basically, the more MP without technological improvements means more noise. This is why the 1D and 5D series have better high ISO performance than the rebel series.

    As for cropping...yes and no. I admit to having cropped rampantly, but you run into the technical limitations of your lenses VERY quickly. The difference between 8MP cropped to 2 and 16MP cropped to 4 is that you'd be able to see higher definition blur. You're right, though - get the biggest sensoryou can afford. This means physical size, not megapixels. Pretty much any DSLR in your price range, however, so you'll have to go by reviews to find the best camera within your budget...and I can't even remember what that was since I started writing this post.
    :headspin:
     
  10. BoxcabE50

    BoxcabE50 HOn30 & N Scales Staff Member TrainBoard Supporter

    67,280
    23,523
    653
    Yikes. Head spinning is right! A photo techie type I am not, so when this all starts to even slightly step past laymans terms, I start quickly falling behind. :(
     
  11. RhB_HJ

    RhB_HJ TrainBoard Member

    163
    0
    9
  12. paperkite

    paperkite TrainBoard Member

    935
    35
    12
    Hans , thanks for posting the article link, I read the shutterbug test about the sensor's. interesting for sure. I also read an indepth article from a camera forum on the merits of adapters by a pro in the photogrophy field and I will stick to my cool pix for now . quality is down when using f stops below F5.6 - to F8.0 using the adapter/s that are available ... the lenses ability to gather light is ok , it is just sorta limited to f stops above 5.6 and that is about have the useful range for the manual lenses I have and is suspect. I will continue to save for a better mouse trap... I did take the EOS T3 back to the blue borg ... I know enuf to want a better than entry level camera (and lenses that I don't have to manipulate ) for retirement to leave to one of the grandkids someday ...
     
  13. Steve S

    Steve S TrainBoard Member

    95
    22
    8
    I disagree. More megapixels often means more noise. I'd rather have a clear 6 MP pic than a noisy 10 MP pic.



    More megapixels doesn't mean a bigger sensor. It means tinier pixels crammed onto the same sized sensor.

    Steve S
     
  14. RhB_HJ

    RhB_HJ TrainBoard Member

    163
    0
    9
    Exactly; which means larger sensors for better quality at the same Meg count and that in turn means a bigger price tag.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sensor_sizes_overlaid_inside_-_updated.svg

    The above shows the difference between the sensor formats. Want to get the same resolution as a standards SLR? Go for the "35mm full frame" with the most pixels! If not you'll be happy with a 10Meg APS-C and with the money you don't spend you can buy a good HD camcorder to get some really good video. Of course this is strictly my own experience.

    PS in either case, having good equipment is only the start, having a good eye will be just as necessary and that you can't buy.
     
  15. David K. Smith

    David K. Smith TrainBoard Supporter

    1,211
    1
    22
    This may have been true in the past, but noise reduction technology has come a long way, and most modern cameras have negligible noise.
     
  16. hiline

    hiline New Member

    1
    0
    4
    Hi everyone, I just joined the forum because I'm thinking of getting started in the hobby, altho I know nothing about it yet. It does seems that model railroading has some of the same characteristics of photography tho, one of them being it's a real moneypit. lol.

    Anyway I know a lot about photography, I've probably been doing it for forty years and have owned (and still do) a lot of gear. So, since I'll probably be asking you all a lot of questions about railroading I see I can help out here a bit as there is some confusion going on.

    There are three factors that will affect the quality of an image you can capture (in addition to lenses, of course).

    1. The size of the sensor itself.
    2. The number of megapixels on the sensor.
    3. The sensitivity of the sensor, which generally correlates with its age.

    The relationship of all of these in the quality of the image has varied as the technology evolves.

    Right now, it's pretty much agreed that cramming more megapixels onto existing sensor sizes does little to improve image quality, and people are focusing more on sensor size. A 'full-frame' sensor is called that because it is the same size as a 35mm negative, approx 24x36mm. Contemporary cameras with a full frame sensor would be the Canon/Nikon pro bodies, Canon 1dx and Nikon D3/D4. Next would be the more prosumer/amateur bodies with full frame sensors (Image quality [IQ] as good as the pro bodies but build quality not up to the pro bodies) Nikon D600/D700/D800 and Canon 6D and 5D Mkiii (the latter is what I have). Sony also makes a full frame sensor body. In addition to the highest IQ, these bodies have the advantage of using lenses the way they were designed, i.e., a 50mm lens on a full frame body is 50mm, while if you put it on a body with a smaller sensor (APS-C) it becomes a moderate telephoto.

    (Before some one beats me to it, I should also mention that there are cameras with even larger sensors, made by Hasselblad, Phase One, and others. They can easily cost $50,000).

    As this has been recognized, camera makers are now building larger sensors in small non-SLR bodies, in particular, the Sony RX100 and the Canon G1-X. I've owned both of these and now use the Sony as my walking-around camera. Great IQ.

    Larger sensors have better IQ for one main reason and a host of smaller reasons, but the main reason is greater dynamic range (DR). That means a larger sensor can capture greater greater detail in the highlights and shadows with smoother gradations in between.

    As has been pointed out, more megapixels gives you a larger image, which isn't all that important for photos to be shown on the internet, but is helpful if you are bit sloppy and need to crop your photos. The only reason for increasing the megapixel count was that was all the consumer could see, along with zoom ratio. If two cameras were both $300, the one with 12 mpx had to be better than 10mpx, right? Ditto with zoom ratio, a 10x zoom has to be better than a 6x zoom. Of course both of these assumptions are wrong, but consumers like simple to understand numbers. So they got them.

    The third issue is the sensitivity and quality of the sensor itself, and that is related to advances in technology and the age of the sensor, and you can't put a number on it. Well, you can, sort of, that's the ability of newer sensors to shoot clean clear images at increasingly high ISOs. A new full frame body like my 5D mkiii can shoot amazing images at ISO 3200. The original 5D of eight years ago could not, even tho it is about the same mpx count and the same sensor size. However, the original 5D full frame body will give you excellent images in good light. In fact I would not hesitate to recommend it to the OP as you can probably get a 5D body for not much more than his budget.

    And if you're going to buy an expensive body, full frame or no, you won't get all that you can out of it if you buy one of those cheap 18-300mm zooms. Maybe you have to for financial reasons now but over time get some good glass. Good lenses never become technologically obsolete and especially if you buy used you'll be able to sell them for nearly what you paid if you have to. The Canon L lenses that I owned ten yars ago (three generations of camera body) are even better on my current bodies.
     

Share This Page