Does Your Camera Have An Evil Twin?

What’s in a camera’s DNA? We’ll show you the features and technologies that have trickled down from the top-end models to the popular sweet-spot cameras.

Many camera manufacturers talk about their upper-mid-range models, those most used by nature photographers, as being inspired by the same technology as their uber-pro models. For most nature photographers, the top-end cameras aren’t practical options, however. They’re often quite expensive, tend to be large and heavy, and might be overbuilt for someone who isn’t as hard on their gear as a typical pro. Camera makers compromise by taking the most useful features from the top models and reworking them for lighter, more compact bodies. While these choices are indeed compromises, they almost always work out in favor of nature shooters like us. The trade-offs are made where we want them to be made. We get many of the benefits of technology built for the most demanding pros, but in a much more user-friendly package.

But how much of that coveted pro camera’s technology trickles down the line? We decided to make some comparisons for ourselves. For Canon and Nikon, we compared their top-end pro cameras to their advanced amateur/prosumer models. For Panasonic/Leica, Pentax/Samsung and Sony, we compared models in their lineups that are more like identical twins. Each manufacturer has cameras that are almost identical beneath the skin—the Sony A350 and A300 are identical except for their image sensors; the Sigma SD14 interchangeable-lens D-SLR and new DP1 fixed-lens compact share the same image sensor, but are otherwise completely different cameras.

Read on. You’ll get a sense of what you gain and what you miss out on between the top-end models and the more modestly priced options. Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide which camera will work best for your style of shooting.

Page 1 of 7

« StartPrev1234567Next End »

5 Comments

Feed

Fred makes this comment

Monday, 25 August 2008

Crop factor on Nikon is 1.5 not 1.6.
Pam makes this comment

Wednesday, 20 August 2008

This was an outstanding comparison. I usually read reviews on DPI but this was better. I was looking at the Sigma DP1 information last night and they made an interesting point about the lens being equivelent to 28mm. I think that 28mm is the closest thing to 'what you see with your eyes is what you get' in a camera. Again, great article.
Pete Langlois makes this comment

Monday, 18 August 2008

While I would love to have the D3 or D300 I'm patiently waiting to upgrade my D50 to the Dx0. Main thing I'm looking for is faster than 2.5 fps burst rate. 6mp is plenty of resolution to make 20x30 inch prints, so more MP just means more ability to crop.
JC makes this comment

Saturday, 16 August 2008

For the D3 and D300, there is actually a secret third "evil twin" (evil triplet?) not mentioned. The Sony Alpha 700. It has the same sensor as the D300 but the A700 is a few hundred dollars less (or as much as $400-$700 less if you got it on sale like many did from a big box retailer earlier this year). When you compare the image quality of the D300 with the A700, there is very little difference, especially for the price difference! Some people even prefer the Sony method of image processing, accurate some might say, over Nikon's orientation toward a late 20th century 35mm film look.
Lynnea makes this comment

Thursday, 14 August 2008

This article is a great insight for me. I want to buy the Nikon D300 and now am even more confident it is the camera I should go with. Thanks for all the great information.

Gear

Does Your Camera Have An Evil Twin?

What’s in a camera’s DNA? We’ll show you the features and technologies that have trickled down from the top-end models to the popular sweet-spot cameras.

5 Comments

Add Comment

Recent OP Articles

Popular OP Articles

OP Most Popular Tags