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?"
Digital Photogs (Score:4, Interesting)
However, in the last 12 months he has converted his entire studio over to digital. His work still looks great... even blown out huge.
Anybody other pro/semi-pros out there made the switch?
Does everybody agree that digital is as good as film now?
Davak
Jumping out of film (Score:5, Interesting)
The advantage to one of the digital SLRs versus pro-sumer models is no shutter lag. My 10D is very quiet and takes the picture when I press the button, not several ms later like my Olympus 3040 used to do.
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:2, Interesting)
I have never seen digital photo quality that can match the color or vibrance of Kodachrome. For those truly special photos, Kodachrome 25 or 64 will always be #1.
Digital can replace ISO 100/200/400 color print (negative) film. However, I do not see digital replacing slower speed slide film (i.e. Kodachrome) or some of the slow speed B & W films, since those types of film give a certain recognizable quality that no Photoshop master could ever duplicate.
I have Fuji S2-Pro - DSLR is great (Score:4, Interesting)
I can honestly say that i went from taking 60 photos per month with my old 35mm SLR to taking 100+ per week, all without any processing costs.
The most important things to consider are:
1) battery life - Your photo shooting is usually limited by the battery life of your camera unless you shoot in super-high resolution or RAW modes.
2) memory size - Buy as big a memory card as youcan afford. Size does matter. I LOVE to take advantage of the RAW shooting modes, but the photos are dozens of MB each.
3) memory speed - when shooting bigger files, you will notice the speed of your writable media. You can fill up the buffer of modern DSLR cameras fairly quickly in rapid-shoot mode (unless you have a Nikon D2 with the 40-shot buffer).
But overall, I prefer Nikon lenses (Nikkor is really nice), but Cannon is quite nice too. And for the price you can't beat this new DSLR.
Stewey
Modding a non-SLR to an SLR (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically you replace the film plane for the lens with the CCD sensor.
The same applies for a normal non SLR camera. You have to *sacrifice* the digital lens and either get a mount from an old manual body, or get a sacrifice the manual body.
I haven't done it, but with 3-4 Megapixel cameras the norm, it should be cheap enough to have a good attempt at hacking it.
Yes, it's on slashdot! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Digital Rebel vs 10D for Astrophotography (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Two words (Score:1, Interesting)
blanket statements always get you into trouble..
---
Focus ring. Not all digital SLRs have them, but no digital consumers have them. It's one of the great features missing in my opinion.
digital film? (Score:3, Interesting)
Plus, people who are mildly interested in cameras develop a liking for a particular camera, and having to switch to a new one is an akward progression.
Re:Digital Rebel...delibratly cheaped out (Score:1, Interesting)
This is the kind of stuff I hear from the "pros"...I have a film Rebel and I have no problem with any of this.
The digital rebel however suffers from being inteonally cheapened.... 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).
It's not really that bad. You turn the knob with your index finger for shutter speed, and hold the button with your thumb and turn the knob to change aperture. It becomes second nature very quickly. All the controls are in natural places.
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.
Read this on dpreview too.. most folks don't care about the autofocus settings, and the exposure/shooting mode are only coupled on the NON-CREATIVE MODES!!! The "point and shoot" modes that is, the ones with the little icons on the controls. Exposure in the "creative" modes (P, Av, Tv, M) are completely overridable. For instance, turn the knob in P mode and the aperture changes and the shutter speed change in opposite directions to keep exposure constant. You can also lower/raise exposure by 1/3 stops via aperture or shutter speed. Combine with exposure lock and you have plenty of control for most work.
In fact the Digital Rebel's imager is better then most lenses.
Well, the sensor is smaller than film, so you avoid the edges of the lens and use the center portion of the lens which is usually sharper. So you get this benefit "for free" with any lens.
The only real disadvantage for the rebel, in my opinion, is that it feels light and flimsy. However, if you just want to take some snapshots with a cheap lens on vacation, etc., you'll appreciate the light weight. The pros (who aren't stuck up snobs) sometimes get Rebels as second cameras or for set-up shots, or whatever.
Otherwise the digital rebel is amazingly close to the D10 and I was pretty shocked with the fact they used the same sensor and software (with some features turned off basically). It looks like it will totally shake up the market.
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:1, Interesting)
Buy a 4x5 press camera for around $400. They're old, but if you shop around you can get good lens/bellows/etc. It won't have all the functionality of a true large format, but it can provide a cheap entry point into large format photography.
Also, you can follow a do-it-yourself kit, but in that case you get what you build.
Of course good lenses are still rather pricey, but that's true for any camera format.
Longevity of the image is another matter.
Digital offers the potential of indefinite lifetime. All film degrades over time, and perfect copies onto newer media are impossible. Digital requires a rolling plan to copy the image onto newer media, but each copy is identical to the original, a very very important difference.
If you want to keep data forever, go digital, but go digital with a good plan that takes into account the need to transfer data onto newer media.
Re:It's a half-frame. Focal length issues. (Score:4, Interesting)
Overall, the notion of trying to make digital cameras use the 35mm lenses isn't such a great idea. Either you have to use an image sensor that's too small, and as a result have the focal length multiplier. This makes it much harder to have wide angle lenses, plus the camera body is filled with stray light - not good.
Or, you try really hard to make a huge, full-frame image sensor, at great expense, and in the end it doesn't work as well. Sensors work best if the light hits at a high angle of incidence, and with a big sensor the angle is too low at the edges.
Personally, I really like Olympus's "four thirds" system, which is a new "standard" for DSLR lenses based on a 4/3" image sensor. I don't know that this system is gaining much popularity, though. But it's a great system - all the benefits of interchangable lenses, but it's lighter and smaller than 35mm cameras, and you don't have to make all the compromises attendant in trying to kludge the old lens systems onto a digital camera.
Anyway, that's what I'm waiting for - an affordable, standardized, interchangable lens system made for digital photography. In the meantime, I can afford to buy a lot of film for my old Olympus OM-2 with the $7000 I'm not spending on a DSLR.
Re:So true... (Score:2, Interesting)
Beware the Sensor Dust... (Score:5, Interesting)
That being said, I've found one major drawback: sensor dust. On one trip, I shot an image at F/22 that had a lot of blue sky in it. When I got home, I discovered little black specks and what could only be a hair showing up in the image. Cleaned the lenses and the mirror, took another sky shot, same problem.
It turns out that the dust and dirt is on the sensor. I haven't had it cleaned yet (I hate to part with it for that long, and unless I'm shooting at high F stop settings it doesn't show up much), but rumor has it that doing it yourself is a big no-no, so I'm unwiling to try it. Plan to have this camera cleaned every few months if your'e in to serious photography.
In other words, you'll end up with higher maintenance in return for your phenomenal photos.
Personally, I'm happy with it -- but if you're picky and don't like having it cleaned a lot, you're in for a disappointment unless you're *really* *really* careful not to get dust in it.
--ZS
Re:35mm (Score:2, Interesting)
Nikkor (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been using a pair of Nikon SLR cameras since I took a photography class in college and got to use my parent's circa 1970 Nikkormat cameras. The "new" one was built at a point when auto-shutter speed was a novelty, but you still had to set the aperture yourself; the other one is fully manual. Learning photography on equipment like this really made me come to enjoy the balance among shutter speed, focal length, etc, and even if I'm just poking around I'd rather work with something like than any modern point & shoot.
On the other hand, I've got a little digital camera now, and the convenience of it does have a lot of appeal. I took this camera to take pictures of a Man or Astroman concert a few years ago, and it was very educational to be able to "shoot from the hip", get instant feedback on what was & wasn't working (hint: at a rock concert, there's plenty of light, so don't bother with the flash, and have fun with any camera shake you end up with). The picture quality might not be as great as film, but the flexibility is a gift in itself.
That has led me to start looking around for a new pair of SLRs, one film, one digital. Ideally, I'd like to be able to have the same set of lenses that could be mounted on both a film & a digital camera body, and since I've been happy with Nikon, I'd like to get their gear. But damn it's expensive -- the "low end" D100 [dpreview.com] lists from $1400 to 1700 [com.com], and the high end ones -- which in some areas seem to have lower specs than the D100 -- can be more than double that price. Yow!
I've been told that Nikon compatible kit is sold under a variety of labels, including Fuji [dpreview.com], but I don't know enough about the compatibles to have made any decisions yet -- and from what I've seen, they're just as expensive as Nikon anyway. Does it make sense to go with someone like Fuji, or is the quality any better with "genuine" Nikon? (I'm a few decades behind on this stuff....)
I think the thing that scares me off so far is the durability, not just in terms of how rugged or useful the equipment will be in the future, but in the value. For example, the Nikon D1 [dpreview.com], from 1999, could do roughly 2.6 megapixels, as does the current D1H [dpreview.com] -- but that's barely a third of what the D100 can do, and the price is double the D100. Why that is isn't entirely clear to me, but it is clear that 2.6 mpix isn't a particularly big number anymore, where 5 mpix or 6 mpix point & shoot cameras are available for just a few hundred bucks.
++++
So there's the thing, in a nutshell: should it be assumed that the long term valuation of digital cameras, including digital SLRs, will have a trend like computers, in that you can always get a lot more capability for a lot less money than was available a year before? Or will these digital SLRs retain their value & utility better, the way the 30 year old traditional SLRs I'm using are still useful instruments today? I'm ready to get some of this new equipment, but the depreciation seems like it's going to be so steep that it still seems worth it to wait for at least a couple more years.
++++
At this point my hunch is that whenever Nikon upgrades the D100, I'll end up getting either the replacement model, or I'll try to find a closeout or second hand D100 hoping for a decent discount on it.
</rambling>
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:3, Interesting)
I would agree that you can't get an affordable digicam that beats slow film for studio shots, or get quite as good results in low light, but those are pretty unusual cases. For most people shooting in most situations, a digicam is better than film. And (IMO more importantly) since there's no cost to shooting, a digicam encourages you to shoot tons of photo's which is the best way to become a better photographer.
That being said, the technology keeps improving in quality and dropping in price, so you can always justify waiting if you want to. But if you wait a year, that's another year of photo's on film that are _way_ less useful than digital files.
Re:Digital Photography Review (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference was that I really love the look and feel of the digital SLR as opposed to the consumer electronics style point and shoot. I've read almost all the answers to this question, and so far none of them have really considered the superior tactile feel of seeing directly through the lens, having manual focus and zoom rings, and having a precise view of focus and image framing, far superior to the puny LCDs lesser cameras provide.
I got a Microdrive with my D30, which can store about 700 photos. (The D30 is a 3.5 megapixel camera, unlike the more recent 6 megapixel models.) Then I put on Canon's 28-135 lens, which is just about perfect for the digital SLR (except for less wide angle coverage than I'd like). After those two accessories, I've enjoyed two years of cost-free photography. (Well, almost; it got stolen last year and I had to buy a new one on eBay, but that's not Canon's fault).
With my style of photography, interchangeable lenses are more a burden than a joy; I'd probably drop or lose any lenses I took with me. So I'm pretty much stuck with the one lens I have, and it's worked great for me in all kinds of conditions.
With my setup, there really is no practical limit to the number of pictures I can take, and that's fantastic. I think it's fair to say that my digital SLR has revived my interest in photography and gave me unprecedented freedom to experiment.
Hope that helps.
D
well here's my two cents on this (Score:2, Interesting)
I haven't gotten into digital photography as an art form (yet) because I guess I'm too much of a purest. There is something about the light particles/waves hitting the silver hallide emusion that takes me back. Watching the film come out of the developer was always fun. The best part, however, was watching the prints come out of the printer still hot.
When most people drop off their film, they do not know how each photo can be tweaked slightly to make it look a lot better. Most people drop their film off at a walmart 1 hour and get some inept pseudo technician to run them through the machines. So I can see how people get this empowerment of editing their photos in photoshop.
There are several things I have not seen digital cameras handle. One of which is my favorite, reciprosity failure. This allows incredible color shifts that occur when you leave the shutter open for a long time while still properly exposing the film. Few digital cameras have the bulb feature, exept for very expensive ones. Bulb allows you to capture star trails and make water falls look like ghosts sliding down rocks. These are emotions and experiences that people who make the switch to digital would probably not encounter.
If you want to take snapshots and the occasional wanna be photographer of some flower in your garden, then by all means try digital. You may save yourself a few bucks. But if you want to get completely engorged in real photography, keep taking pictures on real film. And I still think there is a lot more technology and innovation in kodak film than kodak cameras (I own both).
As for an answer to the parent, try it out. Go to a local camera store that carries that camera and check it out hands on. See how it feels and works. I've sold a lot of film Canon Rebels and I always thought they were chincy and too plasitiky. So in that respect, I'd stay away from them. If you want to get into photography and don't think that you must go digital, invest a couple hundred dollars in a nice used canon ae1, nikon f1, or minolta x-700. It will take a little more effort to make a good picture, but it's so worth it. And make sure you take your film to a good place, trust me. I've worked at these places and it makes a HUGE difference. You have no idea how a place like walmart or cvs can save on time and money that local shops won't
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:3, Interesting)
I have two cameras. A 35mm and an APS. The APS is for what I call snaps and I will replace that with a digital camera in the near future. The current snap camera I have is a Canon Ixus because I can have it my pocket most of the time and when I see some moment that I want, I can capture it. Downside is crap negative size so a 4 Mpix digital would now be better. I know there are better digitals but I want small, fits in the pocket digital.
My other camera is an Olympus. This is for creations. You cannot get recipricousy failure with digital. I am not sure what would happen if you had a CCD open for 2 hours at night? With film, the colours develop at different rates and you get a sureal scene. I have yet to find a digital camera that works fast enough to use with fast movement. So if I am at the F1 track I have the Olympus (and regret apeture priority). These are just 2 examples of what I do with film but their are millions of others.
I think digital will replace the point and shoot, snap camera and I think it should. I do not think it is anywhere near the proffesional or creative photography level yet.
Good quality digital costs so much that if I did have the money I would spend it on a Hassleblad.
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a meaningful point of contention. I have a 4 x 5 inch transparency of the Athabasca glacier in the Canadian Rockies. If you look at the image though a 10x loop, you can find a bus in the parking lot below the access to the glacier. If you look through a microscope at about 100x you can make out by color that the bus has Alberta license plates. At about 500x you can read the license plate. Film really is that good.
That said... digital is going to win over the long hall.
1. The new Foveon chip (found in the Sigma SD-9), produces moire free images with huge color fidelity and shocking clarity (the original gallery images had black and whites blown up on prints 8 feet high without grain or digital artifacts... you could see the threads in clothes, and the fine detail on the pores and small hairs in the skin of the models.)
2. There is currently a digital camera on the market that has two imaging chips, one for high light levels and one for low, The chips both record the image weighted to their specific sensitivity, so that the images have the same or even better exposure latitude than film.
3. There are now 8 x 10 digital backs in use (a famous photograher did a series on the National Parks using one a couple years back and his name escapes me...) The resolution and quality of those images was, is, and will be mind numbing.
The quality is improving, and not slowly... the cost is falling, and quickly... the freedom of producing an image, telling if you got the shot instantly (and reshooting if you missed it... this is especially important to large and medium format photographers), archiving them in a place that takes virtually no space, organizing and filing them quickly and easily, not having to process anything (film or print paper), and being able to show them and send them instantly to family or business partners... all these things make digital mighty attractive.
Add being able to use the same camera to do still and video shooting. Add digital image processing. Add being able to burn, dodge, color correct, contrast balance, and correct for printing characteristics in computer... and digital just takes it for even the most religious film shooter. Don't get me wrong... I wouldn't trade my Cibachrome prints for all the tea in China... I just believe we are looking at a technology with such operational and economic advantages in the long hall, that film's day are prolly numbered for everybody, but the fine art photographer.
I'll still shoot film for fun or for something remarkable that demands the greater depth, but soon, digital is going to be my bread and butter.
Genda Bendte
Re:Digital Photogs (Score:1, Interesting)
Since I do large prints (24x16) from film, but use digital printing already (I get high-resolution 100MB drum scans made from my slides), the change in workflow would be easy.
The math works out like this for me. The digital Rebel won't take pictures good enough to blow up to that 24x16 as well as film, but the 1Ds will. The 1Ds is about $8K, but it'd save me about $2K/year in film, developing costs, and drum scans. I'm already a Canon user so there'd be no cost for switching systems.
I'm betting that the 1Ds or equiv. will be more than $2K cheaper by the Summer of next year, so I'm still using film. But you can see where, depennding on how you think about the analysis, it might be the time.
From a resolution point of view only, there's little point to the 1Ds unless you're making prints above 10x15 or so.
How much do you shoot? (Score:2, Interesting)