\n\n
That second photo is pretty much worst case scenario -- not just ISO 1600 but really low light and underexposed. It looks pretty good at the resolution shown, and frankly it just looks pretty good. If I'd shot that picture with ISO 400 film and pushed it during processing (which is seriously expensive to do if you don't process your own film) it would look a heck of a lot grainier.\n\nAs you can probably guess, my tastes run to candid photography without flash, and so low light sensitivity is really crucial, and so the new generation of DSLRs (et al) has really got my mouth watering, but so far all of them have annoying limitations that make me hesitate before committing.\n
A Little Personal History
\n
\n\nI've been a Nikon fan ever since I bought myself an FM-10 (metered manual) in 1995 or so for $250. Prior to that I'd owned a succession of Minolta SLRs, the first two were aperture-priority automatics, the third was a second-generation autofocus camera (Minolta was the most innovative SLR maker in the late 70s through the 80s -- producing the first multimode automatics and the first autofocus bodies). The FM-10 was a simpler machine (and cheaper) but it took stunning photos with its kit lens. The D50 was the first Nikon DSLR for under $1000 -- enough said. A couple of days after my twin girls were born, I picked up an 18-200mm lens which has been affixed to the camera ever since. It's just wonderful (it's a bit slow, of course, but you can still eliminate depth of field by zooming in), and it's a major consideration in picking my next camera.\n\nFor \"walking around\" I usually carry a Panasonic TZ-series camera. We have two, a TZ3 (480p video) and a TZ5 (720p video). These are wonderful little cameras and the video capability on the latter is pretty stunning, certainly (image-quality-wise) better than my old mini-DV standard definition camcorder.\n\nRight now, Nikon is offering two tempting models, the D5000 and the D90. But both have half-assed features, and I hate products with half-assed features even if I don't plan to use them. Both have a weak HD video mode and very poorly implemented live view (and the D5000 has a poorly thought out flip-out LCD and the smallest viewfinder even on a Nikon DSLR). Good grief. And both lack 14-bit RAW capability which would make them just that little bit better for landscapes. Argh! What's more, in the digital world a weak capability usually means that there'll be a new model with that problem fixed real soon now. So, I've been waiting for a D90x with proper HD Video, decent live view focusing, and 14-bit RAW, but instead Canon released that camera (the T1i) but gave it inferior low light capability and a viewfinder just as crummy as the D5000. (And, being a Canon consumer DSLR, it also feels like a toy.)\nMeanwhile...
\nPanasonic has released the GH-1, a four-thirds camera with top notch HD video capability, Pentax has the K7 -- a pro-quality DSLR with HD video capability similar to the T1i, better low light performance, and in-body vibration reduction (and an 18-250mm lens that's cheaper than Canon's 18-200 thanks to the in-body VR), and Olympus has released both the E620 (which is essentially a D5000 without the dumb stuff, and significantly worse low light performance, but a very good kit lens) and now the E-P1 (which is, essentially, a nearly pocketable 620 without a viewfinder or built-in flash and really good lens options -- such as Olympus's Pancake 17mm, and the Panasonic 14-140mm and 7-14mm).\n\nThey're not making it easy! Indeed, the fact that Nikon can't make a DSLR that I -- a Nikon fan with a D50 -- simply must upgrade to is a serious marketing failure. (Not marketing in the sense of \"advertising\", but marketing in the sense of figuring out your market and pitching products at just the right segments.) Nikon, in the very unlikely event you're listening, fix the dumb stuff in your cameras and I will buy one.\n\nSo, here's my take.\n\nCanon: the T1i is almost compelling. I don't like Canon cameras' ergonomics (the control dials are just wrong for me) and their consumer-level cameras feel cheap. I'm actually rather tempted by the 50D which is essentially the T1i with better low light performance, awesome construction, and it's fast -- but without the video capability (which is annoyingly crippled in the T1i anyway). But it still has control dials in just the wrong places (with a Nikon I can have my thumb on the rear control dial and my finger on the shutter release while maintaining a good grip -- all one-handed).\n\nNikon: the D5000 is not so compelling. Three dumb things (badly designed flip-out display, bad live view making the flipout display even worse, and small viewfinder -- consider than my FM-10, which you can still buy new today, has a 0.84x full-frame pentaprism viewfinder, and that's without counting lack of 14-bit RAW) is just too many. The D90 is almost compelling, but it seems like a model that will get replaced any moment with at least one of its dumb things (no 14-bit RAW, lame video, weak live view) addressed.\n\nPanasonic: the GH-1 is almost compelling. I think the viewfinder perhaps needs to improve a notch (for low light shooting in particular), and it's a bit annoying that while Panasonic shares the Olympus 4/3 system, they prefer optical image stabilization (over in-camera sensor shift) which means that their lenses tend to be more expensive and they don't have VR when shooting with Olympus's excellent glass. I think that optical stabilization is a stop or two more effective than sensor-shift, but ... well, it's annoying. In the end, the GH-1 seems like a very nice video camera but its low-light performance means that I'd want a \"serious\" camera for low-light shots and it's not small enough to be a backup.\n\nOlympus: the E620's low light performance is just too poor for a DSLR-sized camera, even if it's smaller than other DSLRs. The E30 is just ridiculously overpriced. The E-P1 is almost compelling. Its low light performance seems, if anything, better than the E620's, and it shoots stunningly good (720p) video with little or no apparent jello effect (at least in good light). If it had a viewfinder and faster autofocus it would be a no-brainer. Just one would probably be enough. And the beauty of it is that it will probably end up being able to use pretty much any other camera's lenses, making it the ultimate backup / walkaround camera. While slow focus is a big deal, if its price drops below $400 or so, or a new version appears with a viewfinder and faster focusing, then I'm sold.","$updatedAt":"2024-06-05T09:24:43.243+00:00",path:"camera-lust",_created:"2024-07-09T20:32:15.200Z",id:"1340",_modified:"2024-07-09T20:32:15.200Z","$id":"1340",_path:"post/path=camera-lust"},"page/path=blog":{path:"blog",css:"",imageUrl:"",prefetch:[{regexp:"^\\/(([\\w\\d]+\\/)*)([\\w-]+)\\/?$",path:"post/path=[3]"}],tags:["public"],source:"",title:"",description:"",_path:"page/path=blog"}}