Just throwing this out there. I’ve seen a few threads in the past regarding photographing work, so I assume that there are a few of you with some interest in photography.
A friend got my wife interested in photography. She’s be out and about with our little point and shoot, but obviously that’s VERY limited. So now she wants an SLR. Given the expense of my hobby… who am I to argue.
Being the more research minded person I’ve was given the task to find one. Since she’s just beginning I narrowed it down to the Canon Rebel Xti or the Nikon D60 (the D40x seems to be gone now).
I’m in Canada… so the XTI is still very expensive. The newer D60 is only slightly more expensive (but appears to have the same features, and uses SD cards which is a plus since I have about 10 of them…).
Any suggestions?
Replies
I'm a Canon guy, so that's the one I recommend, obviously. (I think my wife and I are on our fifth Eos camera by now.) But either is a good choice. One thing I've noticed: Canon seems to completely dominate the sports and wildlife photography segments; I don't know if that's true in other sub-fields.
-Steve
B&H has the D-40 in stock.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/471716-REG/Nikon_25420_D40_SLR_Digital_Camera.html
I can't believe that the same type of camera I paid $2000 for (body only) just 5 years ago is now going for less than $500 including a lens. Having said that when I finish the set of chairs I'm working on, I'm getting a D-300, which in five years time, will be similarly eclipsed.
You might also want to look at the following link.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
Rob Millard
http://www.americanfederalperiod.com
You will absolutely love the D300. It is the best camera that I have ever laid my hands on. I bought my wife one for Christmas, and I think I've played with it more than she has...
Ryan,
Thanks, it is always good to have a first hand review of the camera.
At first I was leaning towards the D-200 but there were several features on the D-300 that tipped the balance. I especially like the fine focus adjustment that can entered into the camera, the play back on the TV in true HD, the super fast focusing ( my D-100 and D-70 are no slouch in the department, but the D-300 is supposed to be even better) but the better high ISO performance is the real advantage. My other two cameras have rather poor results above about 320 ISO, which is no big deal for furniture shots, but for nature photos it will be a big help.
What do you think of the ultra sonic sensor cleaning feature?
Rob Millard
http://www.americanfederalperiod.com
The lack of noise in high-iso shots will blow your mind for sure. I am not a fan of flash photography, so the high iso performance is key for me. I like to capture true lighting. Not to mention the ability to shoot at night without a tripod. I can crank the iso up, use VR on the 18-200mm lens and get excellent shots in dim or dark lighting. I enjoy shooting scenery at night, but I'm not into toting around a tripod....yet. Maybe at some point.As for the anti-dust vibration for the sensor, so far it has worked well for us. But we do not change lens very often, and when we do, we don't do it in a dusty or dirty environment. I think that helps, but I still want to learn how to clean my own sensor because the anti dust vibration mechanism will at some point not get the job done I'm sure. I've read others on photography forums talk about a pesky spec of dust the the anti dust mechanism just couldn't shake loose.My wife and I are in Photography Heaven with the D300 though, we went from digital point and shoot to this monster. I used a film Nikon N80 until my wife got a digital point and shoot and we really got away from film. You will not be disappointed with it.
Rob,You might check this out if you haven't alreadyhttp://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/d/Digital-Camera-Reviews&level_b=Nikon&level_c=DSLR.htmGlaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Here is a truly different viewpoint (viewfinder?). Unless you and your wife are already accomplished photographers, why not pick up a very high quality used film SLR? You can still easily get film developed. You can then take select negatives to a pro lab to get show-quality enlargements -- and you have to do that even with a digital camera unless you want to invest a fortune in printers. On the other hand, you lose the convenience and immediate gratification of the digital image -- plus the ability to mess with it in photoshop. Lots of people like the instant feedback, but few mess with ANY editing software, including the free stuff that comes with MS Office.
If things really take off for her, or you, in a year or two, you can buy an even better digital than you could now, for less money. If not, you have saved a bundle by getting far less expensive but very high quality gear.
I am still all film, although studying and scouting digital. We take a lot of pix, some pretty serious, and I teach youth classes in photo. I have Nikon, Pentax, and Contax gear in 35mm, and Hasselblad in medium format. Any of those other than Hasselblad are on sale pretty inexpensively in most places.
If you do go with digital, remember that the pixel count really only matters in enlargements. However, unless you are taking full-frame shots all the time, you may find that you want to crop down to a portion of the frame, and enlarge that portion. In that case, you need the all the pixels, used at the highest resolution you can get.
Cheers!
Joe
Joe,
My wife and I have been down the film path with point a click cameras. The thought of paying for developing again... I thinking the long run any savings on the camera side will be eaten up in the processing. After all, using digital you don't need to pay for developing any pictures, except the few you really want good quality images of. The only real cost is storage, shich is very cheap these days. I can buy a spindle of DVD's for $10.
I avoided replacing my film camera for a few years. 3.1MP cameras were over $450. Then I got married and our total cost to develope all the pictures was over $300! (That was just for my wife's snaps.) No more film, just went to digital.
Buster
Buster:
There is some truth in what you say, but it depends on how many pix you take and how you have them developed. In my case, I have the film developed, and just an index or contaxt sheet of the images. I then select the images I want to proof. I buy film via the internet, in pro packs that are significantly less expensive than retail. My cost of film and developing is about $0.13 US, plus the cost of enlargements for the few that I care to enlarge.
Now consider that yu can get a solid used Yashika body, with a Contax Zeiss 50mm f1.7 T* lens for about $100 to $120 altogether. You now have a servicable body and one of the very best 50mm lenses ever made for the 35mm format. No digital camera you will find is any better, and only the best will be as good. It is not only superb glass, but fully controlable to a degree that the point and shoot stuff you had will not compare.
Even if your cost per image is $0.20 per frame, or over 50% higher than mine, you can take 3150 frames of film before you equal the cost of a $750 digital camera alone, without regard to storage media (your cost of enlargements will be about the same either way you go). Now, ol' buddy, I got to tell you, 3150 pix is a boatload. It is the equivalent of 131 normal 24 exposure rolls of film.
Joe
Joe,
Your arguments for film are sound. However it does require that you find a very good lab to process a film; and yet another to scan (unless you buy a scanner). Also, you have much less idea if the pic is good enough when you actually take it, with film. You have no control over the quality of the deveoping or the scan, apart from trying to find a lab with a good reputation.
When I changed to digital it seemed to offer an enormous freedom. It really is a great advantage to be able to see the pic immediatey after you take it, and to take another if the first (or second or third) is not quite right. It's also a great advantage to see the histogram before you take it, not to mention the electronic view that indicates if the about-to-be-taken shot actually looks right, exposure-wise. (Electronic live-view has only recently reached the DSLR, of course).
Although it does cost money to buy a printer, I feel a lot happier printing my own, including the second or third print to get it perfect. After the first dozen A3 prints, you will be starting to recover your outlay, compared to having large format prints made by someone else (and they will never be as good as you could print them, because you can decide, as you print, the exact quality, colour balance, sharpness, etc. that you require, which a remote lab cannot).
As for Photoshopping - it gives an enormous amount of control, which allows you to obtain photographs from the least promising shots in dire conditions. In fact, I bought a good scanner and rescued or improved many of the film negs and slides I have accumulated over the years - but the effort of scanning/fixing film-based photographs is far greater than having a digital "negative" to start with.
Digital hasn't replaced large format film yet but at the normal consumer-level, choosing between digital and film is becoming a "no-brainer". The advantages and overall cost reductions (assuming you don't buy a new toy every year) are large. I have around 12,000 digitally-taken photos now (from probably 4X that number of shots taken). How much would that have cost me if they had all been film-based? In practice, I would never have taken them all if I had remained confined to film.
Lataxe
Lataxe, Steve, et al:
You get me wrong. I'm not arguing against digital cameras, or their convenience. Far from it. They are fine and rapidly evolving technology. I plan to buy one on the next few months, and not a low end one, either.
A celebrated photographer here just opened his first all-digital museum show. He still develops silver geletine prints, but is going to digital cor more and more -- and finds it expecially convenient for very large prints (some 3 feet x 5 feet). I know him pretty well and recall the very first display images he shot with a digital camera. The fact that he would use digital at all says tat the technology has really arrived.
That said, however, even now, the outlay is unnecessary for beginners. My point was that you can have the very best of glass and IF you have the skill, the very best of prints with film gear that has become quite inexpensive. You need the same skill for good digital prints, although in the young people I teach I have noticed a trend towards taking a huge number of digital shots and playing the averages to get good ones.
Anyway, just to be clear, I am not a film luddite. It is just that many people "get into"hotography, and don't go far. Why not take a year to find out with superb but inexpensive gear?
As to other comments, very few people take 1000 pix in a week, ever. I've been in some pretty exotic places with my cameras, and despite photos being a prime reason for my trips, I rarely exceed a few hundred in a week -- usually more like 200 to 300 -- and I am no beginner.
The horse shot is very nice indeed, but it could as easily been done with the right film and camera.
The notion that a digial camera and its results are of better overall quality than the best film cameras is just wrong. If that is how things turn out, look to your film and your processor for the answer. That said, the AE1 is a fine little camera, capable of very good results. WIth all respects, though, while it is a popular, high quality piece of gear, no one has ever claimed that it is the best available.
Edited 3/16/2008 12:43 am ET by Joe Sullivan
Just jumping in as for the film cameras and digital cameras the big difference is that if you shoot a roll of film in a lower cost film camera like an AE-1 (my first film camera) and stick the same film and lens on a Canon F-1 (the highest cost Canon camera at the time) there is no difference in image quality. With digital camera there is a higher potential image quality between a camera like a Canon digital Rebel and a Canon EOS-1 digital when used with the same lens. As for which is better film or digital if you do a side buy side picture with digital and film a 6 mega pixel SLR type camera vs 35mm film with 100 ASA film the and print a 8x10 image the image quality will be about the same. The higher end cameras like the EOS-1 and the EOS 5d are really equal to a medium format camera. The EOS-1 digital just killed off medium format film cameras for most pros. Anyway it is an interesting subject pardon the pun and the change in technology has been amazing to watch.Troy
the AE1 is a fine little camera, capable of very good results. WIth all respects, though, while it is a popular, high quality piece of gear, no one has ever claimed that it is the best available.
I don't make that claim either Joe. Neither is my Rebel XT best available gear... BUT my XT does beat the sox off the coolpix 5000 which had already thoroughly beaten the AE1. So I think that you've got to get up beyond the cheap stuff in film to get anywhere close to what digital mid-range cameras will do. The AE1 is typical of cameras you can get cheaply in film versions BUT now you can get the Nikon coolpix 5000 with extras for around $125 to $150. IME this makes it a no brainer to get the Nikon coolpix. Even my Rebel XT is a third tier mid-range camera now and available for around $400. I don't think I'd ever want to work with film again and I wouldn't reccommend it to any beginners for sure. I realize that you are sincere in your advice but I just totally disagree with it. I think you have yet to experience the full digital epiphany. You will though!
Joe,
You make a great point for us once upon a time camera buffs. Recently I brought all my Nikon stuff in to be evaluated and priced by a camera shop. Wow, not much value there from a market standpoint. However, for my needs, getting digitized pics from the F2 is pretty cheap. Down the road we'll see what happens but for right now I can't imagine being disappointed with the output of a Nikon F2.
Joe,
I wasn't really disagreeing with your point that very good results can be achieved, still, from film; and that the cost of film (and the camera to make the most of it) is now much less than heretofore. I suppose my point is rather that digital puts us photographers in much greater control, as we don't have to find the best lab and we don't have to wait for it to do it's thang before knowing if our pics are what we intended.
As another poster notes, I thinkyou will be easily converted once you've seen not just the quality of digital but the great convenience and control, compared to film.
Lataxe
Edited 3/16/2008 7:11 am ET by Lataxe
Lataxe:
We don't disagree. I have used digital gear, BTW, and have a basic familiarity with Photoshop and other imaging software. I frequently work with digital images. I am not arguing against any of that. Quite the contrary.
To your other point, here in Dallas, we have very good pro labs, as do many cities. However, the truth is that most pictures do not merit or get pro lab development. Most folks want drugstore prints that they will look at a couple of times, smile about, and put away. Those can be had almost evreywhere, at least in the States. SImilarly, most people will not invest in a truly good photo printer (to say nothing of the $250,000 printer that my po shop uses). Instead, they'll use the printer they have -- because their pix are for fun, not for exhibition. The quality isn't very good, but they don't care.
However, you are completely right about the control. If gives people the control of a darkroom. Expecially with B&W, the darkroom is at least as important as the negative itself. In fact, I am building a darkroom right now for my medium format B&W, but wouldn't consider trying to process color at home. Too much trouble, and not enough benefit. Let the pro shop do it.
To the poster who commented about the increasing quality of the image as he upgraded -- that is to be expected. What you are seeing is the improvement in the sensor. There are still some glitches in even the best sensors that make it tricky to get results from digital cameras that quite match the best and technically most difficult of what can be done with 35mm film camersa, but for most shots the results are very good indeed, and by upgrading, you get more and better, for the most part. On the other hand, there is still no sensor for less that $5,000 (exclusive of camera and lenses) that can match the resolution and overall quality of 120 film in a Hasselblad or Rollei with Zeiss and Schneider glass. The day WILL come. It just isn't here yet.
All that aside, my real point was that for beginner photographers who may of may not stick with the hobby, there is a lot to be said for getting high quaity images inexpensively while learning the basics of the craft. If you drop out, you haven't lost much money. If you develop as a photographer, you can always buy a digital camera at some point. The very best digital camera will give bad results in the hands of a person without the basic craft skills and something of an eye.
Cheers!
J
Edited 3/16/2008 10:39 am ET by Joe Sullivan
Have you looked at the images from Canons 5D they really do give 120 film a run for its money. As for the German vs Japanese glass I think when you are comparing the Zeiss, Schneider and other German Glass makers with the pro grade of Nikon and Canon lenses there is very little if any difference. When I used to shoot photos for a living I used Canon 35mm cameras, Hasselblad 120 cameras and various 4x5 and 8x10 cameras with Nikon and Schneider lens and glass quality was never an issue. Once a long time ago I did a fun compare and contrast and did a headshot of a pretty young woman with one photo taken with my AE-1 with a 100mm lens and Kodak tech pan film and another of her with the same lighting and a 8x10 camera with tri-x and looking at the images side buy side you could not tell the difference on an 11x14 print. I think the biggest thing most amateurs could do to improve their images would be to get and use a good tripod:) Anyway I loved film and used the change to digital as an excuse to change carriers.
Lataxe,
You make some fine points about NOT purchasing a DSLR. As a professional photographer, I'd love to avoid the expense of purchasing separate lenses for different purposes (I just dropped $1900.00 USD on a Nikon 14-24mm zoom), and having dust fall on the sensor of my new Nikon D3.
Unfortunately, I do need this stuff for my work (architectural and sports promotional photography), so I need to buy it, lug it around, insure it, and somehow try to pay it off by doing the jobs I get hired for. The good thing is that I can write everything off as a business expense. And heck, I'll admit it: I just like owning the gear.
But, I'm often consulted by friends when they first venture into the digital photo world. I tell them exactly what your first post recommended; buy a simple point and shoot camera first (even a used one) and explore its possibilities to their utmost. Most people are pathologically reluctant to learn how to use and optimize what they already own - and, in fact, to even read the manual that comes with the equipment. Their photos don't turn out as they expect (like they used to with film!), and they give up.
Digital photography - successful digital photography - requires quite a learning curve. You not only need to know the basics of lighting, exposure, depth of field, camera shake and shutter speeds; in short, everything film photography requires. But then you also need to learn digital image processing. And that's an entire subject in and of itself.
One advantage to shooting digital is that you can change and manipulate virtually everything - white balance, exposure, cropping, contrast - in post-production computer processing after the image has been captured. The downside is that those infinite possibilities are, well, infinite. You don't know where to start, and your monitor and entire print process need to be color matched in order for what you see on the screen to come out close to your printed piece. This all used to be handled by the lab. Now it's in your hands and it's complicated... For people who don't have the patience to read a manual, it's often overwhelming and they give up.
The solution, to many, is to get a camera with more megapixels! That will solve everything! More horsepower!
So, your advice to start off simple and basic is sound - unless you have compelling reasons to go with a DSLR. For shooting sports you need fast focusing and fast shutter speeds. That's a specialized use worthy of an upgraded camera. So is shooting in low light, where a sensor's low noise characteristics at high ISOs are important - and that, as you'll discover when you finally own your D3, is where Nikon's new flagship machine really excels...
And, to Steve, who remarked that Canon's cameras are dominating the sports photography scene, that's been true for a while. But I think you're going to see a reversal of that a little bit. People who have a large investment in glass likely won't switch from Canon to Nikon. But the advantages the D3 exhibits in low light situations are causing some Canonites to make the jump. It's a paradigm-swinging camera... Zolton If you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Z,
You're right that digital photography requires one to learn lots of new stuff. I have had no end of fun getting to fly CS2, not to mention mucking about with spyders and printer profilers from Colour Confidence.
The fun one can have messing with modern photography is not unlike that associated with making wooden thangs - lots to learn, many different routes to similar results and plenty of shiney tools to drool over.
So, although the average citizen might not enjoy having to get to grips wiith all this new fangled photography gubbins, for folk like the average Knotter it will al come as second nature, one feels. It even has the equivalent of the neanderthals - those who prefer full or half plate view cameras with bellowed movements, wooden tripods and the weird technology of yesteryear. I confess that I have been snooping around Robert White's website more than once, looking at those geet big boxes of brass, wood and leather!
Lataxe, addicted to school.
Troys:
I have done the compares, and have stood in the pro lab comparing outcomes there, too. Digital quality in the 35mm replacement market is very good, indeed. However, to-date, nothing equals good medium format except the ultra-expensive medium format digital, such as Hasselblad. For now, I'll stick with my film Hasselblad. Must say, though, for most pix, the difference is irrelevant. It is only with significant enlargements, or cropping and enlargement that it really starts to matter.
Agree that Japanese glass is excellent. However, in the objective tests for resolution and color rendering, the Zeiss T* and Schneider glass still has an edge. I don't know who makes Leica, but their glass rates very high, too.
Buster:
I factored in the costs of camera, film, and devellopment.
Lataxe:
I have never worked with large format of the boxes and bellows you mentioned, but really do feel the attraction. Maybe later this year after I get the darlkroom set up...
Cheers!
Joe
I have seen some of the bench tests on the various lenses but I think in real world applications its pretty hard to tell any difference and as soon as you translate that to film you would not be able to see it. If you like the 120 film you should try 4x5 :) A funny story for you. I knew of a very well known photog in San Francisco famous for his people pictures that showed every detail in the subject. His clients always insisted on him delivering 8x10 transparencies (this was in the early 1980s) What he did was keep the client and art directors out of the studios take the pictures with a 35mm camera and Kodachrome 25 and then dupe the film up to 8x10 then deliver them to the client. The client got his 8x10 transparency and everybody was happy.
Lataxe,
You - and I - are of one mind about learning new things. I'm stimulated by trying to master something that seems complicated and that I don't know much about. It gets me out of bed in the morning...
But, alas, many are not made of such stuff.
Thus the "digital backlash" I've observed. It is just too much to ask of some to have them read a hundred page camera manual (not to mention the 400 some page D3 tome!). Or to go online and do some tutorials for Photoshop, or Nikon NX.
It reminds me of a story I was told by a gentleman who worked for a computer customer service outfit. He had many to tell about people purchasing new computers who didn't know their asses from third base. One young woman called up and proclaimed that she had just paid $4,000 for this new computer, and that by God she'd better not have to read the manual in order for it to work right!
ZoltonIf you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Zolton,
The phrase oft passes my lip: "RTFM"! However, one understands if folk have manual-phobia. But such a phobia underlines Glaucon's point about getting a tool that's competant but easy to use, then concentrating on getting good pictures in the viewfinder. "It's the composition, stupid", to paraphrase that well-known phrase-or-saying.
My friend the plasterer & tiler is not a manual-reader. He is a practical man who hammers in nails with the butt-end of his electric drill. He has a now "old" 6 megapixel Konica-Minolta thang which never leaves the fully auto setting. Happily this works extremely well, technically.
It's been quite easy to teach him basic composition rules which, along with the simple advice of "watch the histogram" and "use the half-press of the shutter button with the electronic viewfinder to control the exposure" means he is now capturing some stunning shots. He could never do this with a film camera because there is no full WYSIWYG in an optical viewfinder - you only see the compsition, not the exposure.
However, he still doesn't get the most out of his photos, 'cause he won't learn to Photoshop........ Of course, he would suffer the same "problem" even if he had a Canon 21 megapixel monster. In fact, the "monster" would intimidate him and he would keep it in an obscure drawer somewhere.
Lataxe
My point exactly. If you need a DSLR- because you need a low noise, high sensitivity sensor- or interchangeable lenses or the like, you are certainly justified in buying one. But most people just think they do...Most of the reasons I have seen advanced in this thread are similar to the ones made for buying new tools...why settle for a LN when you can get a Bridge City or Hotley? Obviously you will be a better woodworker with a more expensive plane. The ones that really get me chuckling are the guys who are buying the new DSLR "for the wife..." They probably got the new Festool Domino for her last year; odd how she hasn't got round to making that Arts and Crafts dining table.Most people do not even use the capabilities of the cameras that they presently own. If you have a 3 year old point-and-shoot with 6 or more megapixels and manual controls, you'd have to be one heckuva demanding amateur to need much more. If you add in the ability to shoot RAW and a few other bits, it's even less likely. I see many posts talking about specs and test results, but few about photographs. It's like the fluff that surrounds the purchase of high end audio (or video) equipment. I think that most folks who are about to spend $1500 for a DSLR, would be better off spending $500 on a (point-and-shoot) camera and $1,000 for a class...Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Glaucon:
Well put. I move in both the amateur and pro photo worlds. For the most part, the pros get what they need, and the amateurs either get junk or go to the other extreme and get way more camera than they could possibly use. I frequently have amateurs ask me how to use basic features of expensive cameras (especialy digital cameras) that they have owned for a year or more.
Bottom line, good photography for most people is a nice idea, but when it coes time to snap the shutter, it is a hurried matter of lining up the subject on the bullseye and ZAP.
In teaching photography to beginners (mostly youth) I spend a lot of time trying to get them to snap far less pix, while taking far more time to do it -- looking at the image and "feeling" it. If they do nothing else, their picture picture quality will go WAY up.
Cheers!
Joe
Glaucon,
When you said,
<"Most people do not even use the capabilities of the cameras that they presently own. If you have a 3 year old point-and-shoot with 6 or more megapixels and manual controls, you'd have to be one heckuva demanding amateur to need much more. If you add in the ability to shoot RAW and a few other bits, it's even less likely. I see many posts talking about specs and test results, but few about photographs. It's like the fluff that surrounds the purchase of high end audio (or video) equipment.
I think that most folks who are about to spend $1500 for a DSLR, would be better off spending $500 on a (point-and-shoot) camera and $1,000 for a class...">
I agree completely. A nice articulation of something I've seen over and over...
I got my start as a gofer for a studio photograper, sweeping floors, obtaining props, moving lights and light stands around. Really mundane stuff. But I learned so much just by standing around and observing how my boss lit items large and small.
He had his opinions about things. And now that I've been doing photography as a profession for almost 20 years, I realize how he came to those opinions. It was a great way to learn; handheld light meters, Polaroids, and hours and hours of experimentation and testing. A real education in other words.
Yours, ZoltonIf you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
Joe and Zolton,I appreciate the kind words (I was expecting a torrent of abuse from the fan boys...).As for working as a gopher, sweeping floors and learning about setting up shots... well photography is all about the light- if you learned that in the apprenticeship, then you got a good education. Understanding exposure (how light is captured) and composition (how light is arranged in he frame) is all there is. Most decent digital cameras (DSLR or not) do an excellent job with the technical (if one ignores the presets such as "Portrait" or "Landscape"). I've taught more than a few people how to use a digital camera and the main things to understand are 1) Set up the shot and depress the shutter halfway to check the auto focus and exposure 2) Learn to use the aperture or shutter priority settings to check the exposure and then fine tune with manual 3) Use the viewfinder to set up the shot, not the LCD display 4) Override the autofocus and metering to really take control of your shot.One reason that I like the Canon is that until very recently, it was the easiest camera to do manual overrides with.
Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Except for fast moving stuff like races and ball games, I have never liked auto exposure and auto focus. If I had to use one, it would be auto focus. I have good meters and understand settings, but my eyes aren't what they were.
Joe
The ones that really get me chuckling are the guys who are buying the new DSLR "for the wife..." They probably got the new Festool Domino for her last year; odd how she hasn't got round to making that Arts and Crafts dining table.
Hey! I just noticed this cut at me! It really is for her. Though I must admit the tech side of me has had fun looking for them. During a regular week she's been shooting about 100 pictures, about 3/4 of the of the twins (10 months old). We're looking forward to getting out to the Rockies this spring and summer, she's excited about getting some nice landscape pictures. Her birthday is coming up, so I was going to register her in a class as a gift.
No festool here, and all the tools (except a hammer and a pink screwdriver) are mine. Though I haven't built that Arts and Crafts Dining table yet...
Fair enough... just consider weight in the bargain.I do a lot of hiking, especially out west. You have to carry your water (not a problem on the AT). 10 liters of water weighs 22 lbs- a camera and lenses starts to feel pretty heavy and bulky under those conditions (how much do the twins weigh?). No camera, no matter how good, takes good pictures when you leave it at home.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Fair enough... just consider weight in the bargain.
We've been looking at the Nikon D40/D60 which are fairly small. She looked at some of the bigger cameras, and had the exact same thought as you. Too heavy, too big.
The boys will keep us locked to the easy hikes for the next few years. We're fortunate, being so close to the national parks that they're are no shortage of easy and beautiful hikes.
Wow this is a long thread to read in one setting! Last April I had a short notice business trip to <!----><!----><!---->Cairo<!----><!----> for 19 days. I could have taken my venerable AE1 w/ f1.4 50mm or the wife’s pocket Pentax digital. Neither seemed up to the once in a life time opportunity at hand, so I got off the DSLR fence and bought the Canon 400D kit plus a 70-300 zoom at Ritz. I love it and have been getting more and more into photography. I also bought a 24” iMac 2 weeks ago - which makes even my pedestrian pictures look amazing. (I would love to hear any informed PS Elements vs Aperture opinions.)<!----><!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
Feb 25th, I decided to submit pictures of my koa and mahogany dining room table for the 500 Tables book. The files had to be RAW straight off the camera or PS'd, which I don’t own. Of course I remembered the morning of the last day which was also my 1st day as a serious “studio” photographer. <!----> My exhaustive search of the FWW archives during morning coffee and the “reading” time following the coffee indicated each of the 3 planes should be lit at a different level and the camera should be centered on the piece in both axis.
For lighting I rounded up 3 various 400 & 500 w halogen work lights, a foam board “reflector” and a couple of tea towel “diffusers” in case the accumulated drywall mud and paint wasn’t diffusing enough. Fortunately only one tea towel diffuser nearly caught fire when I left the light on too long. My pro equipment consisted of a rented backdrop stand and a $40 roll of 9’x36’ white paper (which the wife & I spliced to get 12’ wide – not easy).<!----><!----><!----><!---->
<!----> <!---->
I found the automatic bracketing feature and used it extensively. The base shot was usually too dark, the -1 worse yet and the +1 the better. I played with the WB, ISO, f-stops, and every exposure mode with and without the flash. I must have taken 200-250 pix to get 2 keepers. I even learned a little bit about histograms that day too. Exhausted, but bolstered by a cold <!----><!---->Newcastle<!----><!----> or 2 during the final selection process we had the shots and raced off to the Post Office. She drove (sober) and I (enhanced) filled out the form on the way and we got there at 6:50 pm with 10 minutes to spare and all in just 12 short hours after my initial “o-sh*t” that morning.<!----><!---->
John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Edited 3/20/2008 7:38 pm by Elcoholic
Congratulations on a fine piece. I hope you make the cut.It is interesting, in the debate over film/digital, (I admit I have NOT read the entire thread) that the process you describe would not be practical with film - over 200 trial shots. With digital (I have done this too) you can take some WB shots, or change lighting, download to the computer and see the results. Then, back to the camera to modify settings. If it was necessary to process film every few shots it would take forever - and many more beers.I don't know of the two programs you mention but I am delighted by iPhoto on my Mac.Frosty"I sometimes think we consider the good fortune of the early bird and overlook the bad fortune of the early worm." FDR - 1922
What you say is true. However, even someone with no knowledge of lighting could have done it manually with decent meters and a camera with a composing screen (medium or large format). I'm not suggesting anyone go buy a medium or large format camera, just pointing out that good product pix were taken for a long time before digital, by people who didn't need to take 200 test shots to do it.
My neighbor films movies, real ones -- like Master and Commander, the Ace Ventura series, and Last of the Mohicans, on film, with no second chances.
Digital is fun, convenient, and these days of acceptable quality, but it is not necessary for superb shots.
J
J,Agree. Digital is convenient and fun. But having been trained in manual techniques, I learned how to get the shot in just one or a few takes... using digital is great- but I can see how it can also lead to photographic laziness- many, many shots using presets... it becomes a digital "Brownie" camera.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
Indeed so. That is just what I see happening. Lots and lots of pix are taken, as the marginal cost of each exposure is about nil. Often a good one results, but it is sort of a happy accident. Sometimes the young people in my youth classes send disks or emails with huge tedious numbers of shots to be sorted for a few that are decent, let alone exhibition quality. I work hard to break that habit and get them to feel the whot and take their time so each can potentially be good. Exhibition shots are still a small subset, but the rest can at least be respectable.
The other issue is that when people burn through dozens of pix for the one good one, they are not learning much. The digital camera could be a very good learning tool if it were simply used for immediate feedback on careful work. However, that is not usualy the case.
For me personally, with a set shot and lighting, two to three exposures should do from each angle, presuming that I want to bracket. The 24 shots on a roll of 220 represent a large numberof pix. Where I burn film is with action shots -- cattle branding, sports, etc. There the problem is not exposure, but trying to catch the action which even with the most careful planning is partly luck.
Joe
I suggest a class exercise: here is your assignment, and you must use one 128k SD card- submit the shots on the card for grading.Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
All through college (1944-1948) I earned money with my 4 x 5 Speed Graphic. I don't know why I haven't died from the effects of licking the base of my flashbulbs! Sheet film was the answer and film packs were 'too flimsy'. Now great work is done with 35 mm.Time moves us on. But - I still marvel at the glorious skin tones in old B & W movies and of my old pics.P.S. I just remembered that the early Kodachrome had an ASA of 10! It was upped to 12 - a 20% increase! Wow.Frosty"I sometimes think we consider the good fortune of the early bird and overlook the bad fortune of the early worm." FDR - 1922
Frosty:
RIght all around. remember when anything over 50 or 100 asa was "fast film?"
I was watching a Bergman B&W film last night. The composition of each shot was a margel, and the richness of the tones was wonderful. The old boys had to understand light.
J
Thank you. With film I would have shot a 36 exp roll of 200 asa with my old AE-1 & 50 mm f1.4 lens and hoped for the best. Clearly digital allows a lot of trial and error. I agree with other poster in that generally one should focus on quality instead of quantity and avoid digital laziness. I did learn a lot about lighting and my camera that day. So much so that the next morning I shot the attached in about 20 tries before I turned the 'studio' back into the dining room. Another digital advantage is having the picture info and histograms to review and learn from.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Forgot the pix.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
An advantage with digital that, I don't believe, anyone has mentioned is it's adaptability to various kinds of light. I often have to shoot my work (furniture, sculpture) in a clients home. Too often the light available is a combination of daylight, florescent, incandescent, and quartz halogen (my studio lights). To this non-professional photographer this is a nightmare with film. But with digital, I can do a manual white balance and get very good/true colors. Even indoors in my studio (a clean area of the shop) using lights is tricky with film because I don't have electronic studio flash and I cannot always wait for night to eliminate the daylight. Digital solves these difficulties for me. And yet another advantage...... Digital reproductions are cheap. I went through a time period where I was actively promoting my work. This involved sending out sheets of twenty 35 mm transparencies, often with no hope of ever seeing them again. The pieces included were always being updated as new work was produced. Needless to say, this got expensive after a while. Digital solves the problem. Yeah, I know some will say that slides can be digitized, but that's problematic also.
You are absolutely right that mixed light is a problem for film. There is no good solution -- filtration is only partially effective. Cost of repro is also another definite digital advantage.
Note though, that these are advanced issues, as is photographing furniture for competitive purposes. This thread started out talking about what would be good for a relative beginner.
TWO Gold stars!One for the quality of the work and the selection of the wood.The second for the lighting: excellent rendition of the three planes.Frosty"I sometimes think we consider the good fortune of the early bird and overlook the bad fortune of the early worm." FDR - 1922
Thank you for the kind words. If you're referring to the end tables (not the dining table earlier in this discussion) the wood is old growth air dried walnut left over from a picture frame I made for my wife. Too bad the purple highlights have faded because they were spectacular for about 6-9 months.About the frame. My wife did a lot of counted cross stitch which is what got me started in woodworking. She wanted a 1-piece walnut frame for her tigers. I hunted all over and finally found some wide walnut right here on knots. The frame is 19 x 40 and 1/4" thick at the edges and 1 1/8" thick in the center.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Still too big. I'll try again.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Wow! That's beautiful. You two make quite a team.Frosty"I sometimes think we consider the good fortune of the early bird and overlook the bad fortune of the early worm." FDR - 1922
Thanks. I'll pass that along.John O'Connell - JKO Handcrafted Woodworking
The more things change ...
We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.
Petronious Arbiter, 210 BC
Just wanted to thank everybody for the great advice. In the end my wife picked up a Canon XSi. She preferred the feel and the faster focusing on the camera compared to the Nikon D40 and D60. I preferred the SD Card, and the fact there isn't a huge price discrepancy between the Canadian and US prices...
She's been having fun taking pictures of the boys, and learning the features of the camera.
"Even if your cost per image is $0.20 per frame, or over 50% higher than mine, you can take 3150 frames of film before you equal the cost of a $750 digital camera alone, without regard to storage media..."
Hmmm. When my wife and I are on a birding trip, we're typically doing around 1000 frames/week.
-Steve
I have a Canon AE1 only the most popular camera ever made. I own a 70mm F1.2 lens for it that is about as good as can be bought today. When I got my Nikon coolpix 5000 to shoot some internet photos, I was amazed to find that it really out-performed the AE1 and I really never used it again. THEN the Nikon got misplaced for several months (reappearing ironically the day after I purchased a new Canon Rebel XT on ebay) and the new digital Canon was so much better than the Nikon that I never used the Nikon again. I shot my brother's wedding with the old Canon AE1 and I got some great stuff. My processor said that a professional wedding specialist, with a good reputation, who brought her film there, had never brought him a roll as nice as ANY of those rolls I brought him. I know that I would have done much better and got much more too with the Rebel XT. I'd never even THINK of going back. I shot around 150 photos with Santa for a fair at my son's school this year and people were amazed at the quality... far better than they had been used to. We printed them all out before people went home!
Sometimes I will shoot 150 or more shots at a basketball game. If I print 40 to 50 of them my costs are about $20 to $25. Compare that to around $140 if I had used film (I'd have significantly poorer results too). This gives me about $1,000.00 per year to apply to my digital equipment from savings on the basketball season alone! If I used cheaper film and processing my quality gap would widen even more.
Here is an example shot in my huge timber frame barn with a 100 watt bare bulb way overhead. Handheld @ 1/200th of a second, F2.8, ISO value 800. You COULD get this picture with film but the odds against it happening are HUGE. Take note of the nice whisker definition... even at low res for the web.
Edited 3/16/2008 2:55 am ET by bigfootnampa
Even if your cost per image is $0.20 per frame, or over 50% higher than mine, you can take 3150 frames of film before you equal the cost of a $750 digital camera alone, without regard to storage media (your cost of enlargements will be about the same either way you go).
Joe... While I see what you're saying. The are additional costs with film cameras your not factoring in. First the cost of the film camera! Even used, they'll be more than $0!
Second, you have to buy the film. Digital storage is much cheaper than film, and I already own close to a TB of hard disk capacity (most of it empty). I haven't bought a roll of film in ages. The cost of film adds $0.10 per picture, and regardless of if you make a print you still have to pay for the processing.
My opinion. As a beginner: digital is the only way to go.
EDIT: Joe, I responded to you post... then read the rest of the thread. I see what your saying. But it still seems to me, while the initial outlay of money is less in the long run the processing costs would bite into that gain significantly. Your point is still well taken.
My wife has been using her point a click for the last few years. She does enjoy it, maybe too much! Hundreds of pictures, I suspect if she had to go back film she'd go nuts! From our past experience ($300 in developing and processing fees, as well as having to physically store the photos, film, and contact sheets) digital is much more convienient.
Edited 3/16/2008 4:43 pm by Buster2000
I feel your pain :-). Now I get slides, or just negatives. Bought a 35mm film/slide scanner a couple of years ago and never looked back. Although top-quality inkjet photo paper is around a buck a sheet, and photo-quality ink isn't cheap either, I can pick and choose the pics I want to print.
I will have to agree with most of your argument; 35mm film will still provide better quality than digital but that gap is narrowing fast. For those who don't want to buy a digital camera but want all the benefits (like the ability to easily crop and adjust color to name just two) use your film camera but don't get prints. Get a CD with the images. From there you can do everything the digital folks can do.
Ben, digital enthusiast whose Canon F-1n is now patiently awaiting museum status
Ben,
Then of course is the Canon Ftbn. Haven't used it for a long time.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I love my Nikon D80... the D300 is wonderful, but it is more camera than most folks need and it is very heavy. The thing about any SLR digital (or film) to keep in mind is that you are really buying into the family of lenses - the bodys are almost disposable since they get eclipsed with new technology in just a few years- the lenses endure for many many years and are usually compatible with the new bodys.
the Ken Rockwell site someone else recommended is excellent place to start with for reviews.
Jeff
I bought the Nikon D80 back when it first came out and I love it. I'm not an expert, but the wife does more than I so she can play with the buttions. I just put it on auto and shoot. The D60 is just the D80 without some of the bells and whistles. I have always been a fan of Nikon. Some feel the same about the Cannon. I think its ford .vs. chevy kind of thing. I also love the AVR lenses from Nikon. I'm not the steadest of hands so I need all the help I can. Good luck.
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Go with the Canon. I have the Rebel XT and am thoroughly delighted with it. I would suggest that you get the XT and also order the Canon 50 mm F1.4 lens (unless you can afford the lens and the XTI). You'll hardly ever use the zoom lens that comes on the camera once you have the 50 mm F1.4. This lens goes for about $300 USD at Amazon. The rapid sequential shuttering and the RAM memory loading are incredibly nice features. Also get at least one extra battery (I get two for about $8 USD on ebay). I like having the lens shade on and then I don't need a lens cap. You can get one from Amazon shipped with the lens.
PS pick up a 4 gig card and you can shoot 400 high file pix.. enough for a whole vacation.
Clay
Edited 3/12/2008 1:09 am ET by bigfootnampa
A couple years ago a surgeon who is a very good photographer was slicing and dicing some growths off my back.
I took the opportunity to question him as to which digital camera to buy. My criteria was:
1 All the bells and whistles/mega pix I will want in the next 20 years.
2. Fairly light and compact, easy to use.
He immediately said the Nikon D40x (Not the D40).
We finally got the $ and started a final pricing search. I will tell you to stay away from fotoconnection.com!!! This site will verify this. http://www.resellerratings.com/store/fotoconnection_1.
I finally got the D40x, and love it! I will spend the next year learning the b&w's, and the software is fantastic (also download free photoshop). Some reliable sites (this info from Popular Photography): bhphotovideo.com, adorama.com,keh.com,beachcamera.com.
I would not buy an "entry level" or even a mid level, because the price difference is not that great to get a top of the line. Canon has a very devoted following, and check the Popular Photography user forum.
Whatever you end up with, enjoy! Pete
Edited 3/11/2008 8:41 pm ET by PCM
I used to do this for a living and used canon equipment. All of my friends who are still in the business use Canon digital SLRs. Both Canon and Nikon make great glass. If you can swing the extra $$ go for the Canon 40D if your wife gets real serious she will be pleased with the extra features and more manual controls. While your at it go for the 50mm macro lens great for furniture photography. Good luck.
Troy
Just so you know, I am a Nikon fan. I have many Nikon lenses. I have graduated from Nikon 35mm film cameras to the D70s digital. That model is not longer available but many others, such as the D60 are. My D70s is a whale of a camera, even though it is not the top of the line digital model. Nikon's work well and are very reliable.
There are lots of mail order places to buy from, most of them are in New York, and in my many years experience there are only two that I will buy from. 1st is B&H and the other is Adorama.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
http://www.adorama.com
So many of the others are unreliable or just down right crooked.
Try to look at the cameras in person locally if you can, Nikon and Canon, and then do some checking locally and on the net for pricing and make your decision.
One thing you want to make sure you do not do if you buy on the Internet, do not buy the lower priced "Grey Market" labeled cameras. Make sure it is from Canon USA or Nikon USA. The grey market cameras are for International distribution, and while they are the same camera, the warranty will not be honored in the US. That means you have to ship the camera back to Japan for repair if needed. NSG!
Bruce
Edited 3/12/2008 10:47 am ET by Wingdoctor
Interesting. I also buy only from Adorama and B&H, but I go to Adorama first and B&H second. ;-)
-Steve
I guess that is Ford's and Chevy's again! We all have our preferences and that is OK too.
Bruce"A man's got to know his limitations." Dirty Harry Calahan
Wing,
I'm kinda starting over with the camera. I've got a bunch of Ai lenses with an F2 body. I've decided to hold off a bit on the digital selection as my immediate needs are not great and I can put my film on disc fairly cheaply. Eventually I'll select a new digital camera. The confusing part is lens compatability. Can you enlighten? thanks
BG,
You didn't ask me but I think the following link will help.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility.htm
Rob Millard
http://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Rob,
I think you gave me that article link before and its a great article. There is a line in the article that caused me some concern" This article covers generalities. To figure out if any particular combo works, you'll have to read your manuals carefully or, if you're in the USA, ask Nikon at (800) NIKON-UX (digital) or (800) NIKON-US (film). "
My plan is to possibly sell some of the lenses and buy a new body with the proceeds. I'm figuring if I sell some on e-bay someone is gonna ask if the lens is compatible with what ever they have...hense the question.
In the meantime, I think you also provided a link that said if you process your film at Costco and put it on disc..not so bad a price...which is what I'm going to do to sell the lenses. I'm doing my best to stay away from camera shops...
Sorry for the redundant links.
I hadn't actually read the compatibility article, because I don't have any lenses that have those issues.
If you're like me, once the bug bites, there is no turning back, that's why a D-300 will be at my door very soon.
Rob Millard
Buster,
I used to have an extensive Pentax film SLR system but since the advent of digital photography I have eschewed a DSLR in favour of something more practical and cost-effective. DSLRs do produce very good results; but so do various bridge, prosumer and compact digicams. The latter do not have the dust-on-the-sensor problem, high cost of peripherals (particularly lenses) or the weight/tote-all-the-bits issue.
Of course, if you want the versatility of being able to swap out lenses for exotic ones (e.g. very wide or telephoto) then you need a DSLR. If you need best possible (as opposed to just excellent) photos, then you need a DSLR. However, I have come to believe that most non-professionals do not need these things, unless they have a specialist need for their photo-hobby (eg super macros or wildlife ultra-teles). Most quality-marque digicams are superb - much better than my film Pentax SLR and most other 35mm SLRs, despite what the film-fans claim.
I use the following cameras extensively and find them good for the points listed:
Canon G5 (latest version G9; (S3/IS and good substitute with similar virtues): great quality in terms of colour, sharpness and a versatile camera. Not good at high sensitivity (high ISO); in fact, stick to 80 ISO. The tilting LCD and the F2 lens are very useful. (f2.8 on the S3/IS, but that has a much longer telephoto zoom).
Fuji S9000: great quality in all respects, especially via RAW. 28 - 300mm lens is superb. Produces very, very good prints. Good up to 400 ISO (800 with the right subject, if you do noise reduction in Photoshop well)
Sony R1: now a classic and hard to find. Has a large sensor as per SLR and an excellent 24 - 120mm Zeis lens. Produces beautiful lanscapes and portraits, especially as it has much more controllable depth of field than consumer digicams with their tiny sensors. Also matches entry level DSLRs for quality at high ISOs (goes to ISO 3200, which is usable for many landscapes, with good noise reduction software on your PC or Mac).
Once you have bought one of these, for around $300 - $400 (a bit more for that Sony R1) you need spend only a little more on filters, big flash and similar. You find that you make do with the lens on the camera, which in the above cases is of excellent quality and wide range. Unless you have those specialist needs, you will be VERY happy with the results.
But the DSLR and its system is seductive, no doubt about it. I am saving up for a Nikon D3, which will be cheaper by the time I've saved - but also supplanted by a wonderous new Nikon D4 or even 5! :-)
Lataxe, watching out for photographic gew-gaw traps.
So... I'm going to be the iconoclast here.
I started in photography at age 10, using a view camera that I inherited (a view camera is a completely manual, Ansel Adams type camera). I had my own darkroom, and I moved through the SLR and finally digital camera era.
Presently, I use a Canon Powershot (point and shoot). Here are my reasons:
1. It's light and small, and easy to carry when I hike. It's also easy to take along on any family function.
2. Digital SLRs are not only more expensive, but heavier and bulkier. There advantages are less than you think because:
3. The major advantages of pre-digital SLRs was a) you see what the film sees looking through the viewfinder, b) the light metering is accomplished through the lens (especially important for color exposures) and c) interchangeable lenses. Except for the last one, the digital era removes these advantages. Since you will see the picture right after taking it, you will know whether it is composed, focused and exposed correctly. Unless you will invest in, carry and use a bunch of lenses, a digital SLR is not worth it for most folks (pros used to carry SLRs so they could change out the film backs and also take motorized fast action shots- both moot in the digital era).
4. The Canon point and shoot I use is a pretty sophisticated camera, with many manual overrides that I use all the time... this an area that many neglect. It is also a common misconception that "real" photography did not begin until 1959 with the Nikon F SLR. But most of the great 20 C photographers (Capra, Bourke-White, Cartier-Bresson and others) favored the Leica M3- the "point-and-shoot" camera of its time (albeit with interchangeable lenses). Attached are some shots taken on my rambles with the Canon Powershot.
Just my 2p,
Glaucon
If you don't think too good, then don't think too much...
I carry a Canon PowerShot S3 IS in the field almost all of the time. As you say, it's lightweight, convenient, and pretty powerful. My wife and I also have a Canon EOS 5D (it's more her camera than mine). With lenses, flash, etc., it's close to twenty times as expensive as the PowerShot, and several times as heavy, too. So it generally doesn't go on the arduous four-hour hikes up steep, muddy trails, etc. But with it we can take photos that are all but impossible with the PowerShot.
So that's what it really boils down to: What kind of photography are you going to do?
-Steve (some hummingbird photos from a recent trip to Ecuador attached)
G & S,
I see this thread may well become the Knots official photo (non-furniture) thread. :-) I am sorely tempted .... but ..... as you like the spuggies, Steve, have a look at this website. This photographer-bloke lives just 20 miles away from my hoosey.
http://www.wildsnaps.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new_page_8%20todays%20pic's.htm
Lataxe
Very nice. But be careful--I have a few thousand other photos I could post....
-Steve
I'm with you, still using film cameras, but all of mine are also digital! They all need one digit to press the button. I also play a digital cornet, but it needs three digits.
Tom
Tom,
I enjoyed your post. I work in digital photography, and I've also got a digital thermostat for my forced air heating system. I use my digits to turn the dial down when I go to bed at night, and to turn it back up in the morning. I've never wanted for anything better or more sophisticated.
ZoltonIf you see a possum running around in here, kill it. It's not a pet. - Jackie Moon
I would suggest looking at the Pentax K10D. It's decently priced, fully sealed, and it can compete with the higher end Canon/Nikons.
I've had it for a few months, and I can't find very much to complain about, other than the relative lack of lenses (compared to the Canon/Nikon dynasties).
Get the D80 through Costco with the two lens kit. You will save a bunch and their guarantee is great.
Michael,
I'd love to get the D80 through Costco... but they don't carry it up here in Canada. It's the one problem I've been running into. The other is the cost difference between the US and Canada. While the Canadian Dollar is virtually at par with the US, some of the price differences are wildly out of line. For instance the Xti through Amazon is $100 cheaper than I can find it in Canada... and of course Amazon doesn't ship to Canada.
I'll be in Orlando in April, so I was thinking about looking around then...
Buster
I would wait untill you come here then find a Costco.
Are they actually in the store or is it an online thing?
Hello Buster,
I have had my eye on the new Canon EOS Rebel XSi. Larger LCD Screen, Live view, 12.6? Mega Pix, 3.5 FPS. Available in April.
Bob, Tupper Lake, NY
Bob,
I know me too... The XSi looks great, and I may end up waiting for it. Or at least seeing what the Xti does once the Xsi is released. I'm not so worried about the MP, 10 is probably enough.
i have a nikon d 100 which is great and i love it. it shoots a bit warm on the color scale. i have a smaller canon which which is more accurate in color rendition.
i have bought all electronics and cameras from b + h for the last 20 years without any problems. highly recommended here.
good luck,
greg
This site seems to have a lot of info about lenses.http://lensplay.com/index.html
Buster:
When cameras moved from being mechanical devices to electronic ones, they became subject to Moore's Law. Insofar as digital SLR's go, I think the big question is sensor size. The high-end Cannon's and Nikons now have a sensor the same size as 35mm film. And why is this important? It means that your lenses work at the marked focal length, i.e., you don't have to multiply by 1.4 to take into account the smaller sensor. This is particularly important for wide-angle lenses.
This feature will eventually find itself onto the "prosumer" and consumer models. In the meantime, you should really make the choice about the lenses. The glass is expensive and once you have committed, you are stuck without incurring a heavy loss to sell the old lenses and buy the new.
At this point I would buy the cheapest and best and plan on upgrading once the sensor prices come down. The Nikon D40 or D60 would fit the bill nicely, as would the Canon equivalents. (I played the same waiting game with plasma TV and paid $1,100 dollars for 42" 720p).
Finally, make sure that you can set the exposure off center by half depressing the shutter release. This is essential for any back-lit situation. My Nikon D50 allows this but my friend's early-model Rebel doesn't (or at least I cannot find the feature).
The "kit" lenses sold with the consumer models are not particularly good. A fast 50mm fixed focal length lens is very good value and you can always zoom by moving closer or further away!
Regards,
Hastings
Hi Buster... First decide on what features you need and then what features you want. Second decide on a price range, and add 25%. Now the fun part. Since your wife is going to be the main user of the camera, have HER handle the cameras you (she) has decided on. Some cameras will just fit her into her hands more comfortably than others. THAT is the camera you want. Yes it is fun discussing the various brands, but it is what feels best in the hands of the user that is most important. Yea, the $2,000 dollar camera of today is next months 'closeout special' at $1000, but that is the problem with most technologies. (cars are the exception). Todays latest, greatest router will be overshaddowed by next years model, which will also be cheaper than what you purchased today.
SawdustSteve
I found a great digital camera testing website. This link is for "Dave's Picks" on the "Imaging Resource" site. He posts three top cameras in each of several categories of user needs.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/WB/WB.HTM
Your research-mindedness will go wild on this site. Testing is done in a laboratory under controlled lighting and with identical target subjects, so comparisons among cameras are accurate and complete. You'll see tests for sharpness at edges and center, distortion, chromatic aberration, macro capability, noise at different ISO levels, flash performance, shutter delay, cycle times and more.
Your wife may want to exercise her skills with something like the Panasonic DMC-FZ18 with its Leica 28mm-504mm (35mm-equivalent) zoom lens or Olympus SP-570 26-520mm zoom or SP-560 27-486mm zoom before graduating to one of the bigger, heavier and costlier DSLRs.
They both look and feel like slightly smaller SLRs but with huge zoom reach, high image quality and they can store images as RAW files or as jpg files.
Been a Nikon Dude forever so there you go but the D70 series is awesome. Easy to use and plenty of MPs for anything I use it for.
I also use the D70S at work and it is used hard, believe me.
Brian
Hi Buster2k,
I just bought the D60 on February 29. I guess it will last longer that way right? ha.
I like it a lot. I've been a sony point and shooter up to now, though i've had two film slrs. I chose the Nikon D60 because it is small by DSLR standards. I also like the active d feature that is very good at contrasty photos. I suggest she buy a camera with live view. You can frame your shot on the screen and fire away. Once you've gotten used to that feature on a point and shoot it's hard to go back to peeping thru a keyhole to take pictures. The D60 takes great pix and is very fast. As you mentioned it's basically the same specs as the D40x. Checkout Nikon's new site for samples.
If you want to compare features of cameras, I suggest you check out the imaging resource for specs.
http://www.imaging-resource.com or
http://www.dpreview.com great sample photos on this site
Canon seems to always have the most cameras in the top 10 viewed or sold on these sites.
Thanks. I put a Nikon D60 and a Conon Xsi on hold last week. I've been trying to find the D40x, but there are none to be found here. I doubt at her skill level that it makes much difference. One thing I discovered about Nikon is that they have a better warranty on the lenses and camera.
Anyway, I was 100% on the D60... then she was out shopping this weekend and had a chance to hold the Xti and D40. Of course she prefered the Xti...
Also, check the nikon website for some awesome pix with their latest and older cameras. Some of the D40 pix are awesome. Also, Nikon will have rebates on their lenses now and then, so you should keep an eyepeeled for that if you buy the Nikon. They also sell a training dvd to learn their various cameras.
Obligatory wood comment: I like to take pictures of tree bark up close for wallpaper on my computer. I have oak floor in several rooms and my wife has left the room laughing while I am on my knees or belly taking pictures of the grain in it for the same purpose.
I used to shoot commercially for years, gave it up in the early 90's.
I've owned & used both mfgs,as well as medium and large format cameras (up to 8x10)I'm still in the digital imaging business on the print side.
I dont think theres really that much of a difference in the mid range camera's on the market these days. It a personal choice.
I would suggest buying from a retailer that offers a full rental service of equipment and lenses, So you dont have to go out and buy a particular piece of equipment for a particular job.
I noticed that youre in Calgary (I'm in Toronto)
Vistek has a location in Calgary (& here as well)... see what they inventory with respect to lenses (probably ONLY Nikon), lighting equipment, backgrounds etc. in their rental department. Could save some big bucks by renting the accessories you wont need EVERY day
r2
edit to add, if youre seriuos about image quality make sure the camera you choose shoots in RAW format, much better colour fidelity than standard Jpeg
check out "vistek.ca"
Edited 3/25/2008 4:08 pm ET by RRav
I chose a Nikon D80 on the advice of a good photographer, and I have been very satisfied with it. One of my main activities is taking snapshots of my woodwork in progress, partly just to have a record of what I did, but mainly to have good references for repeating the jobs (I build mountain dulcimers and Shaker-style furniture). I used to do that with an Olympus film SLR. Now with a digital SLR I love being able to see the quality of the picture instantly and retake the shot when it doesn't show what I wanted. The Nikon will allow me to be as technical as I wish with exposure, and it also works great as a "point and shoot" camera. I looked at a lot of DSLRs before choosing the D80; one of my major requirements was a lens that had excellent macro capability so I could zero right in on the project details that I wanted to preserve. The D80 met my requirements. It also is a very versatile camera for other kinds of photography. The D40 and D60 Nikons are equally versatile.
You asked for comments on D60 versus D40. I have no experience photographing with the D60, but I did look hard at the D40 before choosing the D80 (a much more expensive camera). The D40 should do what you want, but my guess is that you might want to pony up the extra dollars for a D60 to take advantage of technical improvements in the camera - especially in the lens. Read all the details of all the independent expert reviews you can find for the cameras you are considering and compare what they have (or lack) with what you need for the photography you will be doing. I found references to good reviews in the Amazon descriptions of the cameras I was evaluating. And, of course, owner comments on the Amazon pages were valuable.
I don't think you will go wrong with either camera, but my guess is that you will be more satisfied with the D60. Good luck!
Hi Buster,
I bought a Nikon D60. Love it. Small yet very fast. 10 Mega pixels. I also have a Sony W70 that fits in a shirt pocket. It doesn't matter what kind of camera you have if you don't have it with you when you want to take a picture. I carry both on photo outings. The D60 is small enough and light enough that it doesn't get in the way much. Though I will admit, I didn't have much room for it and a hotdog and a brewski at a recent rays game. Speed is a great thing and it is very fast. Plus if you look at http://www.dpreview.com they have a great list of upgrades over the D40 and D40x. I've been looking at various sites for months and pulled the trigger on this one the first day Circuit City had it. If you are close to the border I'd consider crossing the border to buy it. Checkout their website and get on a mailing list from them. They send out discount coupons every so often.
Plus the new Sony that was just announced is 14mp so that may drive prices down for the 10mp cameras.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled