C-5050 vs C-5060 lens

[Dimitrios]

If C3040 has similar sensor size, it would be probably less noisy and with less pixel blooming (one of the factors that contribe to purple fringing). How much important is th, it's up to you. I'm not saying there are no image quality problems (as there are on any camera of this class) but have in mind that image quality must not be examined on a PC monitor at 100% size. Do a downsample first or print it.
Other than that, C5050 feature set cannot be beaten by a C3040.
--
Dimitrios

 

[Dimitrios]

Maybe you should have gotten him a C-5050 instead.

Maximum aperture and iso are not the holy grail for all kinds of photography. It really depends one one's needs. Surely, you can reduce (or elliminate in many cases) camera shaking and become able to make noiseless nighshots. But remember there are only two basic things that make a good picture:

• Lighting (good colour, even lighting, nice shadows or no shadows at all, special effects via over/underexposing or flash sync)
• Composition & perspective (wise focal legth choice, right distance from ground, perspective, dof etc)

A perfectly equipped, high image quality camera (like any dslr in the market right now) alone cannot convert someone to a good photographer. Reading books, a lot of experimentation, asking knowledgable persons, even attending photography seminars is needed. Having accumulated a wealth of photography skills, one could decide more easily on whether this or that feature is essential for him/her. Take high iso wide aperture for instance. Surely they can both enable you shooting under lower light conditions but you should ask yourself "is this available light good enough for a perfect picture? What about that harsh shadows? What about this monochromatic ambient light that cannot be corrected on the image editor? Wouldn't it be better to use a good external flash (or more than one flashes & accesories) or a reflector?".

Same can be said for the tripod. It doesn't shine on action/candid shots and it cannot compensate for poor noise performance. But it is quite handy sometimes (more if you spend a lot of time in composition).

A good viewfinder is also important but not as many times as one might think. Eg a dslr is a perfect candidate for careful composition but how could you make those nice candid shots without a tilting lcd? Or make pictures of pets with the camera positioned at their height?

Infinite number of examples of similar meaning can be found. Conclusion is, there are quite many camera parameters that help us in making good photographs. Not all of them affect our favourite kind of photography. The choise is ours.
--
Dimitrios

 

[jrynash188707]

Doesn't this also point to the fact that a C-5050 with a wide-angle
converter is a better option than a C-5060?

If you've held the WCON-07 before, you'd know that it is quite a
chunk of glass to be carrying around all of the time. BUT you can't
get around the fact that the 5060 will always have the wide angle
of view advantage. You can add a WCON-07 to the 5060 just as you
can on the 5050 and you'd get a 5.5mm wider angle of view. (19mm vs
24.5mm)

That's true, but we're back to the aperture issue. Wide-angle adapter with larger aperture (5050) or the convenience of no wide-angle adapter but smaller aperture, less light, slower shutter (5060).

 

[jrynash188707]

Maybe you should have gotten him a C-5050 instead.

Nice post. Thanks.

For me, the 5050 is a better choice than the 5060. I've found myself many times in situations where the lighting is marginal (evening or morning camping with young kids who can move) where I really need that extra light from a large aperture and I can't use a pod. I can keep the shutter speed faster and still use only the natural lighting that nature provides.

Maximum aperture and iso are not the holy grail for all kinds of
photography. It really depends one one's needs. Surely, you can
reduce (or elliminate in many cases) camera shaking and become able
to make noiseless nighshots. But remember there are only two basic
things that make a good picture:

• Lighting (good colour, even lighting, nice shadows or no shadows

at all, special effects via over/underexposing or flash sync)

• Composition & perspective (wise focal legth choice, right

distance from ground, perspective, dof etc)
A perfectly equipped, high image quality camera (like any dslr in
the market right now) alone cannot convert someone to a good
photographer. Reading books, a lot of experimentation, asking
knowledgable persons, even attending photography seminars is
needed. Having accumulated a wealth of photography skills, one
could decide more easily on whether this or that feature is
essential for him/her. Take high iso wide aperture for instance.
Surely they can both enable you shooting under lower light
conditions but you should ask yourself "is this available light
good enough for a perfect picture? What about that harsh shadows?
What about this monochromatic ambient light that cannot be
corrected on the image editor? Wouldn't it be better to use a good
external flash (or more than one flashes & accesories) or a
reflector?".
Same can be said for the tripod. It doesn't shine on action/candid
shots and it cannot compensate for poor noise performance. But it
is quite handy sometimes (more if you spend a lot of time in
composition).
A good viewfinder is also important but not as many times as one
might think. Eg a dslr is a perfect candidate for careful
composition but how could you make those nice candid shots without
a tilting lcd? Or make pictures of pets with the camera positioned
at their height?
Infinite number of examples of similar meaning can be found.
Conclusion is, there are quite many camera parameters that help us
in making good photographs. Not al of them affect our favourite
kind of photography. The choise is ours.
--
Dimitrios

 

[Dave Oddie]

" On one hand, the EFL of 28 mm is one of the most useful image
angles, for me at least, and the 1:4 zoom ratio is nice to have as
well, all other things equal.

On the other, the 5060 lens is much darker than the 5050 one. At
the wide end, the difference is 1.3 F-stops (EV), which can be
translated into the factor of about 2.4x. Yes, the 5060 lens
provides only 41% of the light, compared to the old one! This means
that if an available-light scene required an easily handholdable
1/50s shutter speed in the '5050, the same scene will need 1/20s if
you shoot with the '5060.

Now, let's make a similar comparison with the lens zoomed all the
way out. The difference between F/2.6 and F/4.8 (1.8 F-stops) can
be translated into a factor of 3.4x, i.e. the exposure with the
5060 lens is only 29% of that possible with the 5050 one (at
maximum aperture, that is). A scene requiring a 1/100s exposure
with the '5050 (this is a safe handholding speed for this focal
length) will need 1/30s with the new model.

If you don't care about low-light photography (and most of the mass
market does not, see the millions of pathetic pictures taken using
the built-in flash), then the additional wide-angle capacity is an
asset. If you do, however, then check out other cameras; clearly,
the C-5060Z does not excel here. "

The text you quoted is an incredably long-winded way of stating the obvious.

What is this with the % and 3.4x etc ??? This is cameras and lenses we are talking about here and 29% or 41% is a meaningless measure. Stick to F stops and shutter speeds.

However what he forgets to mention is that the minimum ISO on a 5050 is 64 whereas on the 5060 it is 80. That gives a 1/3 stop back to the 5060. So its one stop worse at the wide end and about 1 1/3 at the tele end.

So to use more traditional shutter speeds at the wide end 1/60 on a 5050 becomes 1/30 on a 5060 and at the tele end 1/125 becomes about 1/50.

Also there is no data on how well the two compare at differnt ISO's as regards noise. If the 5060 is better at ISO 200 than the 5050 is at 100 then the 1 1/3 stops at the wide end disadvantage has gone.

I don't know if it is, but you need to consider the capabilities of the package as a whole not one set of parameters (i.e. the lens spec) in isolation.

Dave

 

[Dave Oddie]

It really depends. Some situations would be better suited for the
1-stop advantage of the 5050 lens, others would call for a tripod.
Personally I don't like carrying around my tripod...

The answer is obvious. Buy a Minolta A1 with its in-built image stabalisation.

I reckon camera shake is the bane of many photographs.

Much more so than noise viewed at 200% or whatever.

Minolta with the A1 has inovated something for the masses who will NEVER carry a tripod.

BTW I think the 5060 needs a big discount to survive in the face of the A1 competition. In the UK the A1 can be had for 638 pounds. The recomended price for the 5060 is 600 pounds.

It is way over-priced at that ( the 5050 goes for 429 BTW from the same retailer).

I know the A1 has received a less-than-perfect review on here but, as always, when you print the images you won't notice the problems just as you don't with the 5050 at higher than the lowest ISO.

Dave

 

[Dave Oddie]

But when shooting a moving kid (my kids just refuse to stand still
waiting for me to take a shot) or any moving subject indoor under
low-light, a tripod does not help much. You need a faster shutter
speed anyway (to freeze the action and to get a sharp image?).
Especially when you can't use a flash. In this case a faster lens
like F1.8 does help, I believe.

It does but, what use is a fast lens with traditional digi-cam shutter lag?

Digi-cams apart from D-SLR's just don't seem to cut the mustard for action. Maybe the new Sony's do as they are reported to be very good in this area but as a rule they are pitiful.

As an example I got to use a Konica 3mp recent model while on holiday and it was just awful for shutter lag. The 5050 is not particularly fast is it??

Dave

 

[Canoeman]

Maybe you should have gotten him a C-5050 instead.

WRONG. And SILLY. He'd still be making blurry photos because he doesn't really care.

While I am probably the world's chief proponent (hyperbole, OK?) of tripods, there are situations where an extra stop can make a big difference.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to the extra cost of giving the 5060 successor (5065?) a faster len?. The wider FOV is important to me. In fact, effective 28mm is barely acceptable to me; 24mm or 21mm is what I think of as WIDE. If I can have 28mm equivalent for an extra $75-150, it's fine by me. Even if I invest in E-1 and take advantage of the promised 11mm focal length promised, I'd still want a more lightweight, more portable camera for grabshots, etc.

Canoeman

 

[Canoeman]

Dimitrios:

I agree with much of what you say, but would add that probably the most important thing one can do to become a better photographer is LOOK AT GREAT PHOTOGRAPHS. Go to exhibits. See original prints made by or made from the negatives of the greats. Adams, Kertesz, the Westons, Cartier-Bresson, Uelsman, Porter, Patterson, White, Evans, Karsh... the list goes on.

I disagree about candid shots requiring a tilting LCD. C'mon... have you seen the work of Cartier-Bresson? Leica rangefinder, not even SLR. Great candids, h e l l, ANY great photographs, are made by the photographers who can SEE. The equipment is secondary. As a matter of fact, I don't like the LCD, but use it on my C2000 because it's bloody necessary for accurate composition. But when I step up, I really don't want to have to use one for making a photo, only for reviewing.

Canoeman

 

[jrynash188707]

" On one hand, the EFL of 28 mm is one of the most useful image
angles, for me at least, and the 1:4 zoom ratio is nice to have as
well, all other things equal.

On the other, the 5060 lens is much darker than the 5050 one. At
the wide end, the difference is 1.3 F-stops (EV), which can be
translated into the factor of about 2.4x. Yes, the 5060 lens
provides only 41% of the light, compared to the old one! This means
that if an available-light scene required an easily handholdable
1/50s shutter speed in the '5050, the same scene will need 1/20s if
you shoot with the '5060.

Now, let's make a similar comparison with the lens zoomed all the
way out. The difference between F/2.6 and F/4.8 (1.8 F-stops) can
be translated into a factor of 3.4x, i.e. the exposure with the
5060 lens is only 29% of that possible with the 5050 one (at
maximum aperture, that is). A scene requiring a 1/100s exposure
with the '5050 (this is a safe handholding speed for this focal
length) will need 1/30s with the new model.

If you don't care about low-light photography (and most of the mass
market does not, see the millions of pathetic pictures taken using
the built-in flash), then the additional wide-angle capacity is an
asset. If you do, however, then check out other cameras; clearly,
the C-5060Z does not excel here. "

The text you quoted is an incredably long-winded way of stating the
obvious.

What is this with the % and 3.4x etc ??? This is cameras and lenses
we are talking about here and 29% or 41% is a meaningless measure.
Stick to F stops and shutter speeds.

However what he forgets to mention is that the minimum ISO on a
5050 is 64 whereas on the 5060 it is 80. That gives a 1/3 stop back
to the 5060. So its one stop worse at the wide end and about 1 1/3
at the tele end.

So to use more traditional shutter speeds at the wide end 1/60 on a
5050 becomes 1/30 on a 5060 and at the tele end 1/125 becomes about
1/50.

Also there is no data on how well the two compare at differnt ISO's
as regards noise. If the 5060 is better at ISO 200 than the 5050
is at 100 then the 1 1/3 stops at the wide end disadvantage has
gone.

A lot of ifs and speculation on the 5050 vs 5060 sensor ISO and noise. We'll see soon enough I suppose.

 

[Corne26033]

Bright not so wide lens vs Wide not so bright lens. Choose what you like.
Nothing more to it, is there?

 

[jrynash188707]

But when shooting a moving kid (my kids just refuse to stand still
waiting for me to take a shot) or any moving subject indoor under
low-light, a tripod does not help much. You need a faster shutter
speed anyway (to freeze the action and to get a sharp image?).
Especially when you can't use a flash. In this case a faster lens
like F1.8 does help, I believe.

It does but, what use is a fast lens with traditional digi-cam
shutter lag?

Shutter release lag on the 5050 is 0.1 seconds. (see dpreview review). And, of course we're comparing the 5050 and the 5060, not the 5050 and a DSLR. The 5050
has a faster lens than the 5060 and that's what we're talking about here.

Digi-cams apart from D-SLR's just don't seem to cut the mustard for
action. Maybe the new Sony's do as they are reported to be very
good in this area but as a rule they are pitiful.

As an example I got to use a Konica 3mp recent model while on
holiday and it was just awful for shutter lag. The 5050 is not
particularly fast is it??

0.1 seconds

 

[jrynash188707]

It really depends. Some situations would be better suited for the
1-stop advantage of the 5050 lens, others would call for a tripod.
Personally I don't like carrying around my tripod...

The answer is obvious. Buy a Minolta A1 with its in-built image
stabalisation.

Obvious to you perhaps. The A1 has twice as bad shutter lag as the 5050 (0.2 vs 0.1) and image quality is a big problem on the A1. Read the dpreview review for details.

Weren't you the one making a deal out of shutter lag in another post in this thread?

 

[jrynash188707]

Bright not so wide lens vs Wide not so bright lens. Choose what you
like.
Nothing more to it, is there?

LOL. That's like asking why dpreview forums are so busy. Just pick the camera that you like, take pictures and quit talking about it. Just think, there'd be no need for any dpreview forums at all.

 

[iamphil]

Shutter release lag on the 5050 is 0.1 seconds. (see dpreview
review). And, of course we're comparing the 5050 and the 5060, not
the 5050 and a DSLR. The 5050
has a faster lens than the 5060 and that's what we're talking about
here.

Yawn. You should put an asterisk beside that.

0.1 seconds

Asterisk.

 

[iamphil]

Bright not so wide lens vs Wide not so bright lens. Choose what you
like.
Nothing more to it, is there?

LOL. That's like asking why dpreview forums are so busy. Just
pick the camera that you like, take pictures and quit talking about
it. Just think, there'd be no need for any dpreview forums at all.

It's true though. There is nothing more to it. You made a statement of the obvious. 5050 fast, not so wide; 5060 not so fast, wide. Is that really that hard to understand? Not much to discuss.

 

[Corne26033]

Ignore my post, you're absolutely right. People want to discuss thing like this if they have an interest in either the c5050, the c5060 or both.
Cheers

LOL. That's like asking why dpreview forums are so busy. Just

pick the camera that you like, take pictures and quit talking about
it. Just think, there'd be no need for any dpreview forums at all.

 

[jrynash188707]

Bright not so wide lens vs Wide not so bright lens. Choose what you
like.
Nothing more to it, is there?

LOL. That's like asking why dpreview forums are so busy. Just
pick the camera that you like, take pictures and quit talking about
it. Just think, there'd be no need for any dpreview forums at all.

It's true though. There is nothing more to it. You made a statement
of the obvious. 5050 fast, not so wide; 5060 not so fast, wide. Is
that really that hard to understand? Not much to discuss.

Perhaps we should just tell Phil to keep his camera reviews short, just a few lines. How about this?:

Canon 10D: EOS system, good color, low noise - Highly recommend

Minolta A1: not so fast, wide, 7x zoom, poor image quality - recommend

Canon 300D: low noise, good color, plastic - highly recommend

What else is there to say?

 

[iamphil]

I hope you're not comparing what you wrote to what Phil normally writes in a full review (and not just words, the all important pictures too). All you did was post a four paragraph statement telling us that the 5050 lens has a bigger aperture than the 5060 lens.

Bright not so wide lens vs Wide not so bright lens. Choose what you
like.
Nothing more to it, is there?

LOL. That's like asking why dpreview forums are so busy. Just
pick the camera that you like, take pictures and quit talking about
it. Just think, there'd be no need for any dpreview forums at all.

It's true though. There is nothing more to it. You made a statement
of the obvious. 5050 fast, not so wide; 5060 not so fast, wide. Is
that really that hard to understand? Not much to discuss.

Perhaps we should just tell Phil to keep his camera reviews short,
just a few lines. How about this?:

Canon 10D: EOS system, good color, low noise - Highly recommend

Minolta A1: not so fast, wide, 7x zoom, poor image quality - recommend

Canon 300D: low noise, good color, plastic - highly recommend

What else is there to say?

 

[Dimitrios]

I agree with much of what you say, but would add that probably the
most important thing one can do to become a better photographer is
LOOK AT GREAT PHOTOGRAPHS. Go to exhibits. See original prints
made by or made from the negatives of the greats. Adams, Kertesz,
the Westons, Cartier-Bresson, Uelsman, Porter, Patterson, White,
Evans, Karsh... the list goes on.

Canoeman, that was a nice shot. Thank you for reminding. I also try to do this. Even the examining of pictures in popular magazines can reveal a lot about composition techniques.

I disagree about candid shots requiring a tilting LCD. C'mon...
have you seen the work of Cartier-Bresson? Leica rangefinder, not
even SLR. Great candids, h e l l, ANY great photographs, are made
by the photographers who can SEE. The equipment is secondary. As
a matter of fact, I don't like the LCD, but use it on my C2000
because it's bloody necessary for accurate composition. But when I
step up, I really don't want to have to use one for making a photo,
only for reviewing.

Not disagreeing to the argument about Leica and Cartier Bresson. But even then, the equipment had played some role. A rangefinder offers an unobtrusive means of shooting. No slapping mirror, small size, clear viewfinder. The same about tilting lcd. It can free someone from the stress of being your subject. Do you remember the old cameras with the double lens in the front and the viewfinder on top? But yes, skill is MUCH more important from equipment, as I initially stated (being an engineer, I tend to forget this quite often ).

--
Dimitrios