Digital SLR Cameras

[JP]

Since there are a plethora of pics on this board, I'm shopping for a digital SLR.

Who has what and what do you think?

[RedMan]

I have a Minolta A2.
It is mid sized 8MP, great manual zoom and actually shoots decent video.
Great camera.

I also have a pocket sized Optio WP which is water and dust proof, great knock around camera, take very good shots for a point and shoot.
Only has the LCD so it cna be a bit of PIA in the bright sun but there are LCD shades that help.

[JP]

My knock around cameras have been Olympus. Right now I'm using the SP350. Not a bad little camera and takes great pics. It's not a speed demon, but the pics it does capture are great.

[DiscGo]

I'm too hard on things to have ever really owned a nice camera, but my friend is a professional and he uses Nikon. He just loves it.

[Rev. Coyote]

I have the Pentax ISTD L, and love it. I used to do news photography, and carried a Pentax K1000 (35 mm). Good, durable, true. Went with the Pentax SLR because it accepts the lenses from my old reporter kit.

So, if you have old lenses from something else, you might want to see about a body that will accept them.

But the Pentax digital is a damn fine machine -- price was great too.

[marc olivares]

LEICA

[JP]

So, if you have old lenses from something else, you might want to see about a body that will accept them.
I had the Canon in the 35mm SLR with two different lens. I don't want to make my decision strictly off of what I had in the past under film photography. I'm looking for excellent picture quality and some speed shooting qualities. I guess I should throw in a price, up to $2000. Within that price range to come with a lens or two, not just the body.

[Rev. Coyote]

I had the Canon in the 35mm SLR with two different lens. I don't want to make my decision strictly off of what I had in the past under film photography. I'm looking for excellent picture quality and some speed shooting qualities. I guess I should throw in a price, up to $2000. Within that price range to come with a lens or two, not just the body.

I still stand by the Pentax on price and features. The camera was only $600 through Circuit City online, and came with a sweet lens. I only tinker with the old ones. Look up some reviews -- it's been real well-received. Plus, my shoot-on-the fly reporter techniques jibe well with this camera.

But hell, if you stick with Canon (like the Rebel), it won't suck!

[Joe Gardner]

If I had $2k to spend on a DSLR:

$750 - Canon Digital Rebel XTi : http://www.pictureline.com/product.php?id=13712
$490 - Canon EF 28-135mm IS lens : http://www.pictureline.com/product.php?id=57
$360 - Cannon 2x extender : http://www.pictureline.com/product.php?id=66

That will leave you $400 for a quality tripod, bag, extra batteries and memory cards.

I think the rebel is an amazing camera for the price, I love mine. :D

[JP]

I've been looking at the XTi as well as the Sigma SD14.

[Rev. Coyote]

I've been looking at the XTi as well as the Sigma SD14.


If anything, wait for Richard Barron to weigh in on this one. He's a picture-snappin' gawd.

[JP]

That's what I'm looking for, information!!!

[Rev. Coyote]

Here's a link to Richard's equipment page:

http://richardbarron.net/equipment/

Browse his site, though, and check out his work. It's really great. Richard is a member of Uutah, too.

[R]

As much as I'd like to chime in with an easy answer, I can't, for this reason: your camera doesn't matter. Find one with features that you personally prefer - other than that, they are all pretty capable.

A parallel metaphor is this: what kind of piano should I get if I want to play like Mozart?

Also read Ken Rockwell's article here...

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

-Richard :nod:

[Sombeech]

Sorry, but what's SLR?

[JP]

Sorry, but what's SLR?
Single Lens Reflex :nod:

Here is some info on it :popcorn:

SLR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera)

It gets a little bit deeper when speaking of digital now a days :haha:



Ken Rockwell
I fully understand his concepts, 100%. I can't agree more. When speaking of cameras, they may all be capable of capturing that moment in time that leaves your jaw dropped, but how about the longevity of the camera? What ones do better in adverse conditions like blowing sand/dirt, mist, the cold, etc. What ones seem to stand the test of time with little to no issues?

[Rev. Coyote]

Sorry, but what's SLR?

Single-lens reflex camera
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The single-lens reflex (SLR) is a type of camera that uses a movable mirror placed between the lens and the film to project the image seen through the lens to a matte focusing screen. Most SLRs use a roof pentaprism or pentamirror to observe the image via an eyepiece, but there are also other finder arrangements, such as the waist-level finder or porro prisms.

The shutter in almost all contemporary SLRs sits just in front of the focal plane. If it does not, some other mechanism is required to ensure that no light reaches the film between exposures. For example, the Hasselblad 500C camera uses an auxiliary shutter blind in addition to its in-lens leaf shutter.

The cross-section (side-view) of the optical components of an SLR shows how the light passes through the lens assembly (1), is reflected by the mirror (2) and is projected on the matte focusing screen (5). Via a condensing lens (6) and internal reflections in the roof pentaprism (7) the image appears in the eyepiece (8). When an image is taken, the mirror moves in the direction of the arrow, the focal plane shutter (3) opens, and the image is projected onto the film or sensor (4) in exactly the same manner as on the focusing screen.

This feature separates SLRs from other cameras, as the photographer sees the image composed exactly as it will be captured on the film or sensor (see Advantages below).

Since the technology became widespread in the 1970s, SLRs have become the main type of camera used by dedicated amateur photographers and professionals, though some landscape photographers may prefer view cameras.

History

Large format SLR cameras were first built in the early years of the 20th century. The Ihagee Kine-Exakta was the first 35 mm SLR and it was truly influential. Further Exakta models, all with waist-level finders, were produced up to and during World War II. Another ancestor of the modern SLR camera was the Swiss-made Alpa, which was innovative, and proved influential for the later Japanese cameras. The first solution for an eye-level viewfinder was patented in Hungary during the war

[Rev. Coyote]

As much as I'd like to chime in with an easy answer, I can't, for this reason: your camera doesn't matter.

Spoken in the manner of the true shaman!

[Win]

I'm using a Canon 5D, which I absolutely love. That being said, I also have a 5 MP Olympus that fits in my jacket or vest pocket and is much more convient if scrambling.

The major debate is Canon vs Nikon in DSLR. I chose Canon based on friends recommendations and the availibilty of excellent and numerous lenses.

For 2K, the XTI with one or two good lenses would be fine. Alot of people buy at B&H Photo, including me. you would also want a good Circular Polarizer filter and I'd get one of the Giotto blowers for cleaning. Canon has some rebates going, if you buy two or more of certain items it doubles.

I you're shopping on the Web, be careful of places that lowball! There's alot of bad people in the camera business!

Win

www.photography-on-the.net Canon Resource

www.bhphotovideo.com Good prices, excellent service

www.dpreview.com Excellent reviews of all cameras

[R]

I also like this from Ken's brilliant Seven Levels of Photographers diatribe ( http://kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm )...

Equipment Measurbator: Bottom Level 1 (equivalent to "Hell" in Christian mythology)

These men (and they are all men) have no interest in art or photography because they have no souls. Lacking souls they cannot express imagination or feeling, which is why their images, if they ever bother to make any, suck.

These folks have analysis paralysis and never accomplish anything.

Does poring over a microscope analyzing test images have anything to do with photographing a Joshua tree at dawn? Of course not. Even worse, time wasted concentrating on tests is time not spent learning useful aspects of photography and certainly time that could have been better spent actually photographing. Test just enough to know what your gear can do, and then get on with real photography.

They are interested solely in equipment for its own sake. They will talk your ear off for hours if you let them, but as soon as you ask to see their portfolio their bravado scurries away, or they think you want to see their cameras or stocks. You can read why cameras simply don't matter here.

Most seem to come from technical avocations, like engineering, computers and sciences. These people worry so much about trying to put numerical ratings on things that they are completely oblivious to the fact that cameras or test charts have nothing to do with the spirit of an image. Because they worry so much about measuring camera performance we have dubbed them "Measurbators." Unfortunately, many of them wander into KenRockwell.com looking for information on camera performance.

Many of them also play with audio equipment, computers or automobiles. They enjoy these toys just like their cameras for their own sake, but rarely if ever actually use them for the intended purposes.

Younger ones play video games or engage in chat rooms and web surfing. Older ones join "camera" clubs. (You should join photography clubs, but never camera clubs or any clubs that try to score art, since art is entirely subjective and cannot be scored numerically.) Likewise, these people never create anything notable with any of this other gear either, but they sure get excited by just having, getting or talking to you about it.

The one type of gear these people ignore is the only type of gear that actually helps: lighting.

Someone with a decent portfolio is not an equipment measurbator. Someone with more cameras than decent photos just may be. People with websites teeming with technical articles but few interesting photographs probably are.

Do not under any circumstances deal with these people, talk to them, read their websites or especially ask them for photography advice. To the innocent they seem like founts of knowledge, however their sick, lifeless souls would love to drag you into their own personal Hells and have your spirit forever mired in worrying about how sharp your lens is. If you start worrying about this and you'll never photograph anything again except brick walls and test charts.

These people are easy to identify. If you've read this far you've probably seen their websites. They always have lots of info about equipment, but very few real photographs. Beware of any information from any website not loaded with photography you admire.

Other people have other words for these people. This article here adds some more perspective.

I had to pull most of the photos of equipment off my site because these people were spending more time looking at my equipment than my art! The bandwidth for which I pay was being eaten up by these idiots looking at my lenses, instead of looking at the photos in my gallery which is the whole point of this site. That's why all the stupid pages like this one are in yellow, so that their eyes hurt too much to waste too much time on the nuts and bolts.

Most people who waste my time e-mailing me with technical and equipment questions through this site unfortunately belong to this unenlightened bottom group. Almost anyone who actually worries about the level they occupy belong to the bottom. Many of these folks stalk the Internet, and spend hours getting off "contributing" to technical websites and photography chat rooms like Photo.net, www.dpreview.com and photocritique.net instead of making photos. The guys here aren't too bad, and most of the Leica people here are just equipment collectors.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

[shanehadman]

Sorry, but what's SLR?

A camera is a camera to me no matter what features it has, they all snap photos right!!!!

[Rev. Coyote]

These men (and they are all men) have no interest in art or photography because they have no souls. Lacking souls they cannot express imagination or feeling, which is why their images, if they ever bother to make any, suck.

Richard;

That is one righteous piece of writing. I've met those guys who focus far too much on the gear and not enough on the craft. That said, I think the original question had more to do with "roadworthiness" as opposed to "gee-whiz" factors. Which brand is most durable? Or are all the majors pretty much the same in terms of durability (my impression is they are)?

As a news photographer I got approached a lot by shutterbugs asking about my gear, and they were always a bit deflated to see my K1000 full-manual and my thin collection of lenses (a wide, a 50, and an 80-210 zoom). Those getting into the craft would ask what they should start with, and then go through a litany of the most expensive cameras you could imagine.

My answer was, "Buy a cheap box camera -- a point-and-shoot like a little Koadak -- and learn how to frame your shots. Learn where the light is coming from. When you produce good pictures that way, then look at the sexy gear."

Bottom line, though, is "the eye" is something deep inside a person, something that can't fully be taught. Anyone can learn to take good pictures, but the ability to capture the creative image is somethign a person either "has" or doesn't.

[R]

Richard;

That is one righteous piece of writing.

Ken Rockwell is a fairly controversial figure on the internet. Sometimes he can spew complete bullspit, and other times brilliant stuff like his "Seven Levels of Photographers" thing.

Okay, camera durability: The toughest camera I have is the Kodak DCS 720x, a no longer made digital camera based on a Nikon F5 with Kodak digital guts. It handles like a chunk of armor from an M1A2 Abrams tank. The most delicate camera I have is also a Kodak, an EasyShare CX4230 point-and-shoot that my dad got at a garage sale.

For hiking I carry the Nikon D70s and the D100, which are both light weight, with a couple of lightweight zooms.

For news I carry the Nikon D1H and the D1, and the Kodak 720x, all of which are heavy and very rugged. On them I have big, heavy, bright lenses that make shooting news possible in challenging light. Well built Nikkors are rugged, professional tools, but you pay for them not only with dollars, but in weight.

If I were assembling a hiking and nature photography bag from scratch today, I would look hard at the Nikon D80 with the vertical grip, and a couple of lightweight, versatile lenses like maybe a 12-24 and a 70-300. There's a new 70-300 from Nikon that's got Vibration Reduction in it. I might add a fast 50mm to the mix, since they are cheap and sharp.

A lot of people are going with Nikon's new 18-200mm zoom, which would be pretty useful as a one-lens solution. For me though, it would be not quite wide enough on one end and not quite long enough on the other.

Of course, no matter what cameras and lenses, the idea is to get out there and shoot lots. My wife does, when we travel together, and despite the fact that she's an amateur who doesn't get to shoot as much as she likes, she gets nice stuff. She doesn't care about equipment at all. See her stuff here...

http://abby.richardbarron.net/galleries/

(She's a forum member, but only has three posts. I'll try to encourage her to participate more.)

-Richard
:nod:

[JP]

Sorry, but what's SLR?

Single-lens reflex camera
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All that could have been summed up in a CLICKY like in my post before yours :haha:


Okay, camera durability:
Thanks for that insight! :2thumbs: