Digital 35mm SLRs? 386
pipingguy asks: "Canon has released the first(?) 'low-priced' digital 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses with the Digital Rebel. I've owned a few digital and non-digital cameras over the years (and am by no means a photography expert), and most annoying was the lack of manual zoom and focus, not to mention the barely-noticeable millisecond delay between button click and shutter closure. Can any owners of this and other digitals provide some opinions on how this new model compares to the more expensive digital 35mm's and typical $300 SLRs? Is it time to buy?"
Good deal! (Score:4, Informative)
Digital 35 mm? (Score:2, Informative)
Nikon has one of those, D100 which uses the whole line fo AF lenses, it's kind of expensive though!
Digital Photography Review (Score:5, Informative)
P.S. I own the predecessor to the 10D, the D60, and it is an excellent camera. I highly recommend a DSLR, but be prepared...photograph is an expensive hobby!
Makes perfect sense to ask slashdot... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Digital Photography Review (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Digital 35 mm? (Score:3, Informative)
Just as the D100 uses any Nikon AF lens, the Canon digital SLRs (1D, 1Ds, 10D, 300D, D30, D60) will use any Canon EF lens.
Here's some links. (Score:1, Informative)
Manufacturer's site [canoneos.com].
Review on ImagingResource.com [imaging-resource.com].
The second link kind of answers the question, proving - yet again - that asking Google before asking on Slashdot tends to be productive and smell less of a product placement.
Good and bad news (Score:1, Informative)
The bad news is, it compares well with a $300 35mm SLR.
There are things to be alert to, most notably that the sensor frame is not the same size as a 35mm frame - it's more like APS-sized - so lenses have a 'focal length multiplier' - that is, the same lens is more 'telephoto' on the EOS 300D.
Otherwise it looks like what it is - a cheapish film SLR with expensive digital gubbins (it's the EOS 300V, but digital).
I'm not sure it's the first really cheap 35mm-compatible SLR - the Sigma SD9 has that honour in the UK at least, and is a very well specified camera with the interesting foveon chip.
Major that would bug me: lack of a true spot-metering mode. And a few other minor bits and pieces. It's certainly cheaper than what's gone before from Canon, however, and it looks nice enough.
Me, I started photography seriously with digital cameras (including the sensibly-designed fuji 6900), but I 'progressed' to old fashioned film cameras and scanning of prints/negs/transparencies. It seems to me to be like the linux approach - I can afford a lot of effective and varied film kit (including medium format for quality), I'm learning more, the knowledge is less proprietory, and with the right approaches, film quality still edges digital in things like shadow detail (and in the case of scans of medium format transparencies, outright quality and resolution).
Real slashdot anonymous cowards use film.
Digital Rebel...delibratly cheaped out (Score:5, Informative)
The image quality of prety much all the digital SLRs is very nice. Including the Digital Rebel. The focus time and shutter lag compaired ot the non SLR digitals is also very good (I have the now very old Canon D30, and while it has more shutter lag then the current digital SLRs it is low enough to get pictures of flying birds, or jumping dogs which I found really hard to do with compact digital cameras).
The digital rebel however suffers from being inteonally cheapened. It still takes great pictures, but if you had intended to use the camera in "manual mode" where you control both the shutter time and the apeature you'll find Canon decided to only put one dial on the camera. You have to switch between the two controls with a small button (there is also no way to assign auto focus to a button other then the shutter button). That's a royal pain if you ever get to a situation where you are smarter then the camera's light meter (and you'll run into them, digital cameras have less exposure latatude then print film, think of them more like slide film).
It also has cuppled the exposure mode and auto focus mode with the shooting mode. They took about 4 things that their other cameras let you set independantly and merged them into one thing and gave you maybe 12 choices, so a bunch of the combinations are not possiable.
Basically if your film SLR is a rebel you won't feel constrained by the digital rebal. If your film camera is an Elan you will be frustrated. If your digital camera is the point and click kind, then you will either be delighted or confused. Or both.
P.S. remember the camera is only the start of the spending :-) Lenses are very important. In fact the Digital Rebel's imager is better then most lenses. If you buy the DR and slap a $400 75-300mm USM-IS f/5.6 lens on it you won't get pictures nearly as sharp as the 300L f/4 lens...unfortuantly that lens costs quite a bit more then the camera. I strongly recomend at least one fast fixed focal length lens, the 50mm f/1.8 is in expsnave (under $100 used I think). It will show you how sharp your pictures can be, and more importantly it will let you get some natrual light shots where most zooms can't.
Digital Rebel vs 10D (Score:5, Informative)
The digital rebel has the same sensor as the 10D, and the same digic processor, and you can find them for $800 or so. A LOT of the features are the same. The white balance settings, the shutter speed options, flash compatibility, metering modes, 7 AF points, etc. The main differences are in the buffer, and the construction. The rebel can only do about 2.5fps and a maximum burst of 4 shots, instead of the 3fps for 9 shots the 10d can manage. Having handled the rebel at the local camera store recently, I can also testify that the body does not feel NEARLY as durable as the 10D. The 10D has a magnesium alloy body that feels solid, and seems like it could take some punishment. I think the rebel was more plasticy. Eh.
Still, if you're an amateur photographer who wants an SLR I have to say the rebel is the way to go. It's got almost all the features of the 10D, but for a lot less money. Digital will completely change the way you shoot, too...I never ever ever want to go back to film.
Oh, and some other companies have cheap SLRs out there...Fuji has a cheap DSLR, and I think Olympus or Sigma or somebody does, too, but I've never been impressed with any of their products, or their lenses (Sigma lenses are horribly soft) and I only shoot Canon, so I can't really comment on those.
Re:Digital 35 mm? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:4, Informative)
In some cases digital is exponentially better - paparazzi work comes to mind, so does newspaper sports photography (think about fields where lots of photos are taken with quick turnaround needed - a sports photographer shooting the night game has maybe 1/2 hour after the game to develop 20+ rolls of film and pick the right 2-3 shots, digital helps a lot there).
In other cases digital, even the highend, $12000+ digital backs for hassie's and large formats, doesn't yet match the quality of 120 or 8x10 film. (while your eye might not see the difference, someone who is experienced will)
Also, digital usually doesn't handle the extremes too well - a 30 minute digital exposure on digital cameras doesn't compare to a 30 minute film exposure. Last i checked the latitude of film was still much better than digital too (the range from white to black that the camera can capture).
To say digital is really really good these days would be accurate, and i'm actually waiting for my digital rebel to arrive (it was exactly what i was waiting for, price/performance wise). But there are things digital still can't do, and places where film is still cheaper (a decent 4x5 and film for it is purchasable by me, but a digital back for that camera means i don't eat for a decade).
Digital Rebel is not 35 mm SLR (Score:5, Informative)
Check out photo.net (Score:3, Informative)
For all the information you could ever want to know about how the new 300D/Digital Rebel compares to the other DSLRs that are out there just go check out photo.net [photo.net]. There is a full review [photo.net] of the body, plus lots of discussion [photo.net] about it in the forums.
Your second question, about whether or not to switch to digital, is not a question that we can answer for you, especially with the amount of information that you gave us. Both film and digital have their respective advantages. Both will continue to exist for quite some time. For a well thought out examination of film and digital photography, see Ken Rockwell's article [kenrockwell.com] on the subject.
What most people don't realize is that digital and film have been working together quite well for some time now and that the digital revolution has already made a huge impact in the printing phase. Lightjet [cymbolic.com] and Chromira [zbe.com] machines enable the highest quality prints and Fuji Frontier [fujifilm.com] machines create good quality prints quickly. The quality of these prints is not just the resolution, but the color reproduction and tonality as well.
What it all comes down to, though, is not the equipment. You have to be in the right place when the light happens. Mastering light is far more important than having a certain kind of camera.
--joshRe:Good deal! (Score:1, Informative)
Bjorn
It's a half-frame. Focal length issues. (Score:5, Informative)
Click, click... no, it's 22.7x15 mm. Roughly comparable a half-frame 35 mm camera.
That means that no lens is going to have the same coverage on this camera as it does on a 35 mm camera.
Canon says "Focal length conversion factor: Equivalent to approx. 1.6x indicated focal length compared to 35mm format." Your 50 mm. lens will act like an 80 mm; your 35 mm like a 56... and if you like to use a 28 mm on your film camera, you'll have to shell out for an 18mm to use on this one.
It works in your favor for telephoto lenses, though.
It also means that for the equivalent angle of coverage, this camera will have a greater depth of field. Nice for some things. Not so nice for others, e.g. portraits.
Re:Good deal! (Score:5, Informative)
And for the submitter of the article: the decision to get a digital SLR or not is a question of money, and of willingness to be an early adopter. I recommend (as someone who sells the damn things) to get a basic film SLR like the Rebel 2000 or Ti, both of which just had a price drop, and wait a year before upgrading the body to a digital SLR. Canon's keeping the same lens mount and flash hotshoe, so any extras bought between now and then will work just fine with a future Canon DSLR body.
Nikon is good, but they have no true DSLRs anywhere near the price range of the Digital Rebel. The closest they have is the Coolpix 5700. It's a good camera, certainly, but it's not an SLR. It's an all-in-one-system.
Canon 10D, skip the D60... (Score:2, Informative)
I would recommend skipping the D60 if possible, it was kind of a premature upgrade after the D30. The 10D is the true successor to the D30. My wishlist at this point is the same for all digital cameras: better low light performance and dynamic range - this is the last place that film has digital beat, more pixels of course, and a faster performing camera... they are a bit slow in reviewing big photos.
I highly recommend the D60 and it goes well with the Epson 2200 photo printer... You won't believe it the first time you do a 13x19 print at home and it looks like a professional print.
- Pat
Possibly consider one of the 'pro-sumers' instead (Score:3, Informative)
I was nearly ready to buy the Canon 300D, but I don't have any Canon lenses (what lenses I do have are for an Olympus OM-2). After talking to friends, I decided that for what I need, a 'pro-sumer' would probably be a better fit. The Minolta A1 is probably the best availiable at the moment, but I plan to hold out and see how the Panasonic FZ-10 turns out (released in Japan today, US mid November). It'll be a 35-420mm 35mm equivalent, with a F2.8 Leica lens all the way through the range. Also has image stabilization, which should allow shooting at maximum zoom without a tripod. It is only a 4MP camera, but with a MSRP of $599, it is very tmepting.
With the 300D, I'd need to carry 2-3 lenses (need a range of 18mm-300mm for the Canon to get the equivalent range), and to get them at F2.8 with image-stabilization, that's easily $2k in lenses (and probably quite a bit more). For the money, the 300D is probably the best DSLR on the market, but the question is whether it is what you want.
I'll wait till the reviews come out for the FZ10 before I decide, but for the price, this is probably a better camera for me.
Info on the FZ10 (what is availiable so far at least) can be found here [dpreview.com]
There's not one camera for everyone, but you should think about what you need it for, decide what you are willing to spend, and decide how much paraphanelia you are willing to lug around before choosing to part with your $$$ (It probably helps if you have a load of Canon lenses already though).
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:2, Informative)
Medium format film still has an image quality advantage, but the cost is high (however, the price of high end digital = entry level Ha$$elblad). Wal Mart doesn't sell or process 120 size film, you have to go the pro shops. Nothing matches the quality of high end large format film cameras, but that's beyond the means and needs of mere mortals.
Longevity of the image is another matter. You can still print negatives shot a lifetime ago; all they need is careful storage. Digital media has limited storage life, and a shorter hardware obsolesence cycle. Eight inch floppies, anybody? They were in widesprerad use 25 years ago, but now the hardware to read them is a collector's item (or hazardous technological waste, take your pick). So please copy the good shots to silver halide technology, so your grandkids will be able to see them!
Canon EOS 10D is wonderful (Score:3, Informative)
I wish I could blow $7,500 because the Canon EOS 1Ds makes me drool everytime I hold one at the camera shop. It has a full 35mm sensor and firewire. Oh, so pro! The Digital Rebel is really nice but the $500 more for the 10D is worth it. Think of it costing an extra good lens.
Re:Field of view crop & other digital oddities (Score:2, Informative)
Digital comments (Score:2, Informative)
1) The timing between shutter and button release. Digitals have a slight delay compared to most film SLRs. It takes some getting used to.
2) Printing. I take mine to a Ritz camera store and have them printed using the same chemical process that a C41 negative would be printed with. The prints run $0.39 for a 4x6, only take ~1 hour, and will last much longer than prints from an inkjet.
3) Buy a version of Adobe Photoshop. Nothing makes a photo look better than a quick blast of the unsharp mask. People will ask how you manage to take such sharp and clear photos. Cropping and color balancing can also work wonders.
4) Batteries! When your battery is low, your digital camera will respond much slower! Storing files will have a noticable delay. Buy a few extra recharable batteries and keep them handy.
5) A quality lens can go a long way toward attaining more professional looking photos. I'm not talking a cheap 70-210 zoom. Spend a little bit extra and get something with a GOOD APERATURE. Or better yet, make use of your new SLR abilities and get two! A handy 50mm f/1.4 [bhphotovideo.com] and an expensive 70-200mm f/2.8 [bhphotovideo.com].
6) Think about an external flash. Using the built in flash is okay, but you will get red-eye and more noticable shadows than if you had an external. Plus the built in flash can really drain your camera's batteries!
The bottom line? Merely switching to digital is not going to give you instant ability. It can make learning easier (instant-grat is so nice), but nothing takes the place of practice and knowing your camera. Laying out the cash for a good lens is an important step in my mind, but might be a little much for most hobbists. Join a club and borrow some lens from other members so that you can see the difference between an average and a quality lens.
- There is no sig.
Re:Digital Rebel vs 10D for Astrophotography (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:1, Informative)
spend your money in glass and "film..". (Score:4, Informative)
Since Feb. of this year I have taken 8k photos [cs.uvic.ca] with my D60, compared to around 400 film photos. here are my observations:
NOw, with respect to your question.
Unless you are a serious photographer, you will "waste" your money in a D60 instead of a 300D. The reasons are many:
But on the other hand, there is one reason why I would buy the 300D:
Photographers will always tell you that the camera does not make the photographer. Also, that you should invest your money not in the camera, but in the glass. That is why the EOS SLRs do such a good job. Mount a 85 1.8 on either one of these babies and see for yourself!
There is something funny about this. In the past, owning a Leica was a dream for many, because of its price. Now even a Leica looks cheap compared to some digital models. These days I am not affraid any mo
Lacks spot metering (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:3, Informative)
Digital versus Film (Score:3, Informative)
Firmware hack (Score:3, Informative)
They have the same chipset and sensor after all..
Re:Digital Photography Review (Score:1, Informative)
I moved up from a Canon G2 to a 10D. I can not believe the difference. Virtually no shutter lag, fast focus, 3 shots per second. Very low noise at even 800 or 1600 ISO. Long and fast lenses, allowing you to shoot every type of photography. Great for fast moving sports and low light photography. Just consider the size and price of top interchangeable lenses for Canon EOS family, typically priced from $300 to $2000, these are far better than what is typically provided on a pocket digicam.
Its more than the pixels, the large CMOS image sensor just captures a superior picture, tremendous detail and color. Even crops make dramatic 8x10s.
My G2 pics look so poor by comparison. As a result, the 10D is pretty much all I use and I take even more pictures. My friends are amazed at my pictures, can't believe they are digital.
I can't wait until a full frame (35mm camera size) image sensor is available in a low cost DSLR, that will be a tremendous breakthrough.
DSLRs do have disadvantages like price and fact that you just can't put in your pocket. But when you want the best results, you need the right tools and I am convinced the time is right for the DSLR.
Re:Printing? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, I'm planning to buy an Epson 2200 printer [epson.com] which will let you print up to an 8x10. I know pros who swear by them. However, it's probably about the same cost if not more expensive per print, given the high ink and paper costs, than having your images printed at a pro lab. I just want one for rush orders.
Big prints like 20x30 can certainly be made from a 10D JPEG, but we usually rasterize them first with Genuine Fractals [lizardtech.com]. So long as it's a full-frame image and well exposed, you really shouldn't have a problem printing a 20x30. For anything bigger, I'd switch to RAW and definitely rasterize.
Anyway, long story short, find a pro lab. Don't print at Wal-Mart. You can make big prints, too.
Re:Digital 35 mm? (Score:2, Informative)
The Kodak suffers from two problems...
The one area I'll give Kodak full kudos for is blowout recovery. This camera does an incredible job of recovering blown highlights - something no other camera maker offers right now.
Pro. vs. Consumer cameras (more than megapixels) (Score:3, Informative)
The D100 lets you shoot 4 frames and then you have to wait a minute for it to write the frames to the CF card.
The D1x lets you shoot about 8 frames before the buffer fills, and the D1h lets you shoot something like 40 frames. This matters to some people. These two cameras also have a much better & faster autofocus module, which I don't need but which can make a lot of difference for someone shooting a footballer through a 300mm lens.
Also, if you plan on shooting under physically rough conditions, you might want a rugged magnesium body that will survive dropping and getting water splashed on it. The D100 is fine for people like me or you, but if I were a professional journalist a plastic body might not take the beating a pro's camera is subjected to in the field. At the same time, if the picture's going to end up on newsprint you don't need 6 megapixels to get adequate resolution.
So you and I are better with something more like a D100, but for the pros there are good reasons to drop 3-5 grand on a rugged high-performance camera.
As to long-term valuation, in 5 years I expect my D100 to take as good pictures as it does now. I haven't sold any of my film cameras and probably will not sell the D100 when I eventually buy a new body, so what's the problem with valuation?
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:5, Informative)
Latitude is not so bad for digital. In principle a CCD digitized to 12 bits, as most cameras do, is capable of 12 zones. B&W film gets about 8-9 depending on the emulsion. Color print film is somewhat worse and slide film has almost no latitude (Velvia is about the worst on this, but its color saturation is so beautiful that sometimes it's worth all the hassle of lighting to get those colors!). When you actually go to print the image, you can't get better than 8 zones of latitude from any paper I know, so you have to dodge and burn if you're going to fit a 9-zone negative onto paper without losing shadows or highlights.
Of course you never really get 12 bits of latitude from a CCD, but it's pretty typical in my tests to get at least 8 zones, which means that your output device (printer, CRT, LCD) will be the limiting factor. This is much as it is in the darkroom, where you have a hard time finding printing paper that will match the range you get on your negatives.
What's really differnent about digital imaging from film is that the CCD's transfer function stays pretty linear all the way down to black. Towards the white end, it also stays quite linear until it gets very close to saturation. This is a lot different from the sigmoid film curves we've all known and loved since Ansel Adams published "The Negative." This means you have to think out your high- and low-ends more carefully.
About your 4x5, one big difference between view cameras and 35mm is that almost nobody shoots thousands of frames per year with a view camera. The whole point of the camera is to spend half an hour setting up your shot and getting it right in one or two exposures. With 35mm you pay for the digital sensor in a year or less with the savings on film and processing. With the 4x5 you'd be waiting a long time to pay back the film costs. Even more with an 8x10.
Re:Digital Rebel is not 35 mm SLR (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good deal! (Score:1, Informative)
Not quite true. Most use CMOS chips but their flagship EOS 1D uses a CCD.