You are reading a single comment by @BrickMan and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@BrickMan
I used to be of the same thinking, its not about how many megapixel, but the quality of the pixels.
I have an archaic canon 20d (2004-2006 semipro body) which boasts a mighty 8MP but until quite recently I was really happy with it.
But now, finally, even absolute bottom end DSLR's show it up in every respect.
Its not the pixel count, its the ISO range (mine tops out at 3200, but not really usable beyond 1600) and the ridiculous brightness/contrast (right terms?) range. A modern camera, even a basic one will make your life a lot easier.
HOWEVER, there is a catch22. Which is now digital sensors are lightyears on from where they were even 4-5years ago, lenses have not, and bottom end kit lenses, are mostly exactly the same as what was supplied with a 2002-2004 age body. So whats happening now is these much more advanced sensors are heavily limited by the quality of glass most people are putting infront of them.
Also worth noting the 18-55IS (or the tele, or the 17-85IS) kit lenses that canon supply are some of the worst excuses for lenses I have ever come across, expect to have to replace them very quickly. Partly from being optically, 'limited', and partly because they will likely mechanically fail pretty quick too.
For a wide angle, cheapest one worth a damn is the Tokina 11-16/2.8 All the others are incredibly unsharp with suspect build quality*
*Truth. I've never ever come across a sigma 10-20 (not new one) where the elements are aligned properly, they always have a corner that is more vignetted than the others, and i've used/borrowed/stolen about 15 of them from different people/sources.