Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software Hardware

Seeking a Decent Digital SLR Camera for Beginners? 118

Posted by Cliff from the pixels-for-digital-shutterbugs dept.
lancomandr asks: "I'm interested in getting into digital photography. I have looked at many tutorials and buying guides but there are so many digital SLRs I have no idea which ones to even start considering. I want to be able to make decently large prints, I'd like to get a decent amount of use out of it before upgrading, I want good battery life and durability is key. All of you photographers out there, any suggestions? What did you buy when you started?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Seeking a Decent Digital SLR Camera for Beginners? More

Seeking a Decent Digital SLR Camera for Beginners?

Comments Filter:
  • Start with the Digital Rebel. It's really the only camera in its class.

    • Re:Digital Rebel (Score:3, Informative)

      by Matchstick ( 94940 )
      And be sure to check out this previously posted /. article [slashdot.org].
    • There is no doubt of that, but I think you might want to also consider a DigiCam instead of a SLR. It is true that with a SLR you can use a variety of professional lenses and get the classic feel of a camera, but high end DigiCams are much more portable. If you intend to go places to get great pictures, a SLR is for you, but if you are going place and want to be able to take good pictures, I think a DigiCam is going to make you happier because you will be able to fit it into a fanny pack or big pocket and

      • Re:Digital Rebel (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lindsayt ( 210755 )
        There's a big difference between "I'm into cameras" and a serious photography enthusiast. Whereas a digicam may be great fun, it's not a serious tool, and the poster sounds like she or he is looking for a serious tool - a basic one, but a serious tool nonetheless.

        Just as any serious photographer would not consider getting a point-and-click film camera, serious photographers aren't interested in toy digital cameras either. I think it's safe to say this person needs an SLR.

        * that's not to say there's any
        • I beg to differ.

          Several of the non-SLR digital cameras are serious tools as you put it, and get close or even surpass the photo quality of an Canon Digital Rebel (especially the poorly maintained ones, with dust in the innards).

          While there are a large number of digital cameras which are not any better than the point and shoot, there are several ones, which are just as good as SLR for most cases.

          Think of high-end Nikon, Sony and Olympus, etc. Any of which is generally more portable than a SLR with 1-2 len
        • Grandparent says:

          My dad has been into photography for over 20 years and is pretty good at it.

          Poster says:

          I'm interested in getting into digital photography.

          So, "into" seems be the applicable word here, and the grandparent('s father) seems more "there" then the poster. I think you are reading into it more than is prudent.

      • Re:Digital Rebel (Score:5, Informative)

        by Gaijin42 ( 317411 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @04:20PM (#9338806)
        THe biggest difference I see between digicams and DSLRs is control.

        In addition to the plethora of lenses out there, the SLRs give you much more control over the actual photographic process. Shutter speed, Apeture, Whitebalance, ISO etc. Yes many of these options can be set on a higher end digicam (a cheaper one will not let you set apeture or shutter) However, the EASE of setting these options is much different.

        With my D70, I can control almost all camera settings, while my eye is still in the viewfinder. I can totally reconfigure the camera in a matter of seconds.

        In a digicam, you have to scroll through several menus to get the options shot.

        I recently took photographs at a local community theatre, during a live performance. (I was hired to be the photographer, I wasn't sneaking)

        They didn't want flash, so the lighting was VERY low.

        In order to get good shots, I had to use a slow shutterspeed, at a wide apeture, at very high ISO. This totally wrecked any of the faster scenes (especially dancing) due to blur.

        With the D70 masterwheel, I could VERY quickly switch my shutter speed to give me the right shot as the scene changed. Dialog, I would go slower, and get more detail and light. Dance, I would speed it up, and get the action. These shots would be impossible on digicam.

        One other big difference is lenses. Not just the interchangability (which is huge, but if you get a superzoom (28-300 or something like that) you wont be changing very much (at the cost of some quality). But also the size. Remember, photography is recording light. The bigger your lens, the more light, which means more detail, more color etc.

        A point and shoot has a tiny lens. A Tiny apeture, even wide open.
        • I have two digital cameras, an Olympus E-100RS and a Konica Minolta Dimage X20. Both of them work very well for what I want to do.

          The Olympus has an SLR-like feel and a very long zoom (10x optical) and an image stabilizer. It's great for general-purpose use and feels very nice, has a lot of customization options, and can shoot up to 15 frames per second. It's only a 1.5-megapixel camera, but that's been fine so far because I mostly have been posting images on my website.

          The Minolta is my "go anywhere" cam
    • Isn´t the only prosumer digital SLR.

      Nikon has another, maybe a bit more expensive, but in many aspects better

  • Digital SLRs (Score:3, Informative)

    by mknewman ( 557587 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:33PM (#9337466)
    Try http://dpreview.com, they are the best resource around. Marc

    • Reviews (Score:4, Informative)

      by Webmoth ( 75878 ) on Sunday June 06, 2004 @12:42AM (#9348494) Homepage
      When you are looking at "reviews," don't pay any attention to the ones that have nothing bad to say about the product. This is your first indication of a vendor-sponsored review. Even with the best product, everyone (except the mfgr's marketing dept.) will find something they don't like about it, due to individual tastes and experiences.

      What I like about Digital Photography Review [dpreview.com] is that their reviews are comprehensive, they do repeatable laboratory tests using industry standards (in addition to subjective field testing), and they don't accept payments or gifts from manufacturers.
  • 4 MP, RAW capture mode, Microdrive compatible, 3x optical and 3x digital zoom, very usable interface. My one complaint is some chromatic abberation, but most non-SLR cameras have pretty small lenses, so its hard to get around. 4MP RAW output is sweet, and with the 'dcraw' application, you don't need the Win32 crapware that comes with the camera.

    • Re:Canon Powershot S5 (Score:4, Funny)

      by Oz0ne ( 13272 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:39PM (#9337541) Homepage
      Hi. I'm Mr. Obvious.

      He asked about digital SLR's, not non-SLR.

      Thanks. You've been a great audience! I'll be here all week!
    • What's wrong with you? Capturing to RAW (at least on my camera) is pretty useless. Although JPEG does do a little distortion, I've found that most people can't see the difference between a compressed (about 1/2 the size) JPEG and raw on an 8x10 picture. You'd be far better off getting a camera with more megapixels and then getting flash media instead of expensive microdrives.

      • Re:Canon Powershot S5 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Delsphynx ( 688372 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:55PM (#9337759)
        Actually, RAW is one of the biggest benefits to shooting digital. I think you will see where most people who want to have a digital SLR want to be a little more serious than just point and shoot, and will use tools like Photoshop CS. If you are shooting with a digital SLR, some post-processing is really needed (hence why it isn't considered a point-and-shoot). Post-processing with Photoshop and a RAW image file gives so much more flexibility in what you do with the image (exposure, white balance, and on and on) that you would be surprised...

  • Digital Rebel (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Oz0ne ( 13272 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:35PM (#9337495) Homepage
    This is the only "entry" level digital SLR. Plenty of features, low price point, excellent camera.

    You don't have all the professional features of a canon d10 or nikon d70 or higher, but you want an entry level right?

    I'd say go with canon because they've only changed their lens format once. Much better chance of being able to get good used equipment/sell your use equipment when you want to upgrade.

    I'm saving for a d10 myself.

    • Re:Digital Rebel (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:46PM (#9337627)
      Incorrect, and you even mention the competition which kills it - the Nikon D70. As much as I love Canon cameras, the D70 blows away the Digital Rebel and the D10 in many respects, and is priced similarly to the Rebel.

      I'd still prefer the Canon lenses, though, and when you buy an SLR 'system,' you're really buying into a lens line as much or more than the camera body itself. There's no way I'd choose Nikon's lens line over Canon's at this point, which is too bad, because of the D70. *shrug*

      • Re:Digital Rebel (Score:4, Informative)

        by Incongruity ( 70416 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @03:16PM (#9338070)
        FWIW, I've even talked to a couple of photographers that shoot for the Chicago Sun Times (or was it the Chicago Tribune?) and they swear by the Nikon D70, even over a D10 (and far and away above the Digital Rebel).

        Sure, the price is a bit high for an entry SLR, but not, in my opinon, for a entry *digital* SLR, at this point in time. If you want to be on the hot technology side of life, you do end up paying a bit of a premium...but to get what the poster wants, that is an SLR that is full-featured and won't need to be exchanged for a better model soon, the D70 is the clear choice.
        • I'm still surprised that Canon's D10 (and even the new Mark II version of it, I think), has no spot meter. Crazy. Even Canon's sub - $300 compact digital cameras, the Axx series, have spot meters! Totally insane, and why I'd never consider the Rebel or the D10. Considering their top of the line film camera, the EOS-1v only costs around $1400/1500, which is about the mail-order price of the 10D, is quite beyond me.

          • Re:Digital Rebel (Score:2, Informative)

            by Murrow ( 144634 )
            I'm still surprised that Canon's D10 (and even the new Mark II version of it, I think), has no spot meter.

            I think you're mistaken. My DR has a little "*" button on the back that is for spot metering. Now, you need to change the focus mode from it's 7-point mode to single (center) point mode to get what you're expecting, but it then acts "properly" (even when using the flash). My old film SLR was an EOS 650 circa '87 so I got very good at the center the camera on the subject, push the shutter down half wa
            • yeah, but a 3-month old daughter is a LOT more fun than a 7-month old son! :)

              while not an SLR, I've been happy with my SLR-style Fuji Finepix S5000 w/10x optical zoom I picked up several months ago for @ $400. Only my 2nd digital camera and I basically point and shoot; traded the Olmypus z4000 for it (which also wasn't bad, but...). no doubt I need to take camera classes for better shots, but I'm happy with it.

              I've been loading my stuff onto Shutterfly to share with family but am just about to bring my
          • <shrug> True, the EOS-10D doesn't have a true spot meter, but it does have a "Partial Metering" mode at the center of the lens which covers 9% of the viewfinder area. You can work around the problem by the following process: focus on and meter your target, half depress the shutter, recompose and shoot. It can be a pain at times, but it works well enough for most things, but I'd still like a true spot meter...
        • Great, I just got back from Wolf camera and now I'm going to have to go buy one of these D70's, because I freakin fell in love with it. The only reason I'd considered switching from Nikon to Canon while switching from a prosumer digicam to a digital SLR was the focus system that canon uses, which was incredibly more responsive than the Nikon AF series. However, after playing with the rather solid D70 I've realized that this newer system, AF-S (correct me if i'm wrong), is just as responsive... Not only di
      • The major advantage to the D70, in my opinion, is that the body is backwards compatible with old lenses. We have a Nikon F2 Film SLR, and our lenses fit and work perfectly with the D70. My wife's favorite lens - a 100mm macro - still takes great pictures with the D70. You're buying yourself into a line of cameras that have a lot of used lenses floating around.
        • True, but for a person just entering the market, those old-tech lenses aren't any advantage at all. Canon's line of USM lenses are far more sophisticated than Nikon's current lineup, which includes very few AF-S lenses, even now.
          • I suppose I agree; the poster doesn't seem to be someone already in the mix.

            Still, it's pretty nice to have such a wide array of lenses to work with. Arguably, someone just starting should start with the low tech lenses so he can get a sense of what he's doing before moving to the high tech ones. Honestly, the manual lenses end up taking far better photos for us, and we can do things exactly as we like with them.

            I suppose what I would actually recommend is some photography classes and a used Film SLR. :D
            • I mean, sure, there are effects you can get with it that are hard to duplicate with digital (although Photoshop can do just about *anything*), but when it comes right down to it, having to wait to take your film to be processed is a gigantic annoyance when you consider that digital gives you your photograph instantly.

              Unless, of course, you happen to work *IN* a photo lab (or a photo company).
    • I'd say go with canon because they've only changed their lens format once.

      In the software world, that means it's time for another change...

      -Adam

  • Rebel + Muvo (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mythosaz ( 572040 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:37PM (#9337522)
    You can get a Rebel for $900.
    You can hack it to be 10D for free.
    You can buy a $200 Muvo and swap out the 4G microdrive.
    • just a note. The microdrive in the Muvo2 4gb is the slowest microdrive you can get! About twice as slow as most high speed 1gb flash cards!

    • Re:Rebel + Muvo (Score:3, Informative)

      by aparrish ( 36864 )
      Be careful with the Muvo drive swap. It looks like Creative is now using microdrives that only work in ATA mode. The owner of Digital Photography Review has just run into this problem recently. Here's the thread. [dpreview.com]
      • Dunno why Creative would do that. A sale is a sale. Once they've sold the device, they've gotten their money, and the user is free to smash it with a hammer if they want to.

        (I'm not debating the fact that some people haven't gotten it to work, whether through bad luck, bad karma, or an actual change. It just makes no sense.)

    • Re:Rebel + Muvo (Score:3, Insightful)

      by quake74 ( 466627 )
      You can get a Rebel for $900.
      You can hack it to be 10D for free.

      Since this guy seems interested in photography, I 'd like to point out that NO, you DON'T get a 10D for the price of a Rebel. They have different casing and hardware (the 10D shoots more pics per sec and it's not plastic). And if he is really a beginner, he is more worrid about learning aperture/shutter/focus, rather then the most obscure function in that secondary submenu.

    • The muvo drive is very slow as others have pointed out.

      The Rebel feels like a toy. It is very cheap plastic, and the lens wobbles.

      The D70 and 10D are a good comparison to eachother. But the D70 is almost as cheap as the Rebel.

      • Re:Rebel + Muvo (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bradee-oh! ( 459922 )
        The Rebel feels like a toy. It is very cheap plastic, and the lens wobbles.

        I recently purchased a Rebel two weeks ago. I've taken roughly 1,000 pictures over the last two weeks ranging from closeup portraits, to wide-lens nature shots, to action shots of my niece's soccer game. As someone who is COMPLETELY impressed and satisfied with this wonderful camera, I must peg the parent's post as a troll.

        Yes, the Rebel has a plastic body instead of the metal body on the 10D. But it is a SOLID body. It look

  • I just recently bought my first dSLR (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xutopia ( 469129 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:41PM (#9337566) Homepage
    mind you I had experience with a normal SLR before but I recommend the Canon Digital Rebel which I myself got.

    More importantly what you need to do is read a good book on photography. I found this online tutorial [jmu.edu] particularly interesting when I first started out. I spent a year making poor shots when it dawned on me what I was doing wrong. Depth of field is sooooo important.

  • the HP 945 digital camera is great... 5.3 mp 56X zoom and got all the aperture and Tv setting you want. It retails for about 499 CDN and has a great support deal.

    You can get the attachments for lenses and such, but digital SLR cameras dont need that stuff... anyone who says more lenses make a digital camera better is stupid. Light hits the CCD and the computer on the inside does the junk needed for those different shots. You gotta remember that these are just light capturing computers. Canon does not make

    • Re:HP 945 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:53PM (#9337736) Homepage Journal
      "You can get the attachments for lenses and such, but digital SLR cameras dont need that stuff... anyone who says more lenses make a digital camera better is stupid."

      Ummm wrong. It depends on what you want to do with the camera. If you want to just take snaps of your kids birthday party then you can get away with just a standard digital. Tell you what to out and try to take a picture of Saturn with your simple digital and tell me that it is as good as a telescope with a camera adapter? How about taking a picture of a bird sitting on a branch 100 yards away? Want to take a picture of an ant on a flower? There is a reason that proffesionals use SLRs or sometimes even medium format camera.
      The optics that the light passes through make a BIG difference in the quality of the picture.
      As to a digital camera being just as you put it "a light capturing computer". Cannon has been making light capturing computers for years and do a very good job. I am sure the HP 945 is a good point a shoot camera but it is not in as flexiable as an SLR.
      • From what I read of what this guy is looking for, is something a little less than a Saturn Capturing Digital camera. I agree that HP is new to digital photography, but Canon is new to computers. I also agree that things are not as simple as light entering a box. But, If someone is looking to take picutres of a bird on a branch from 100 yards or an ant on a flower, they will need something a little more than the 945, and franlky, a little more than a canon rebel.

        I am still though a firm believer in the trad
        • Actually a Digital Rebel can do all the things I mentioned and more. As far as experence Cannon has years on HP for things like auto focus. Cannon has been into electo optical systems for years. Take a look at the Cannon GL2 digital camcorder and tell my how HP has so much more experence than Cannon? Does As I said the HP will do fine for a lot of things but the statment that "anyone who says more lenses make a digital camera better is stupid." is just wrong.
          As far as you working for HP. I miss the old HP a
          • I agree... however, HP still does almost 40 billion in sales per annum...

            HP is trying to get to what Canon has. Market experience and a name people trust. Did you know that HP holds 80% of the market share in printers? And they are in the process of releasing the R707 camera. its a hand held point and shoot that is quite amazing. 2 more in the R series are comin in the fall, and they are developing more cameras to combat the Canon powerhouse in the SLR field.

            Are canon using CCD's now? they were using anot

            • Are canon using CCD's now? they were using another type of capture sensor and I thought they went towards the better brands of CCDs for the rebel.

              They went for a CMOS for the Rebel; something more often seen in ultra-cheap webcams and such. They're cheap to make, but even a good CMOS has significantly poorer sensitivity than a good CCD; hence you tend to get more noise.

              Comparing shots from the Nikon D70 (which uses a CCD) to the Digital Rebel, I must say that while the large size and decent quality of th

              • Re:HP 945 (Score:3, Informative)

                by mr3038 ( 121693 )

                They went for a CMOS for the Rebel;

                That's true. CMOS is also used in Canon EOS-1Ds, Canon EOS-1D which are the digital SLRs for pro users.

                They're cheap to make, but even a good CMOS has significantly poorer sensitivity than a good CCD; hence you tend to get more noise.

                I must get some of the stuff you're smoking! First, compare test shots between Canon EOS-300D ("Digital Rebel") and Nikon D70 [dpreview.com]. Also check the noise test results [dpreview.com]. I'm not saying that Nikon D70 is a bad camera, the other way around. It's j

            • Nothing personal but this is the type of marketing droid speak that really needs to be stomped out.

              " I agree... however, HP still does almost 40 billion in sales per annum..."
              So what?

              Then this little bit of marketing speak from your first post, "You gotta remember that these are just light capturing computers. Canon does not make computer... HP makes great computers."

              Now you say, "HP is trying to get to what Canon has. Market experience and a name people trust". Then you throw in "Did you know that HP ho
              • I am waiting for HPod music player.

                actually...

                http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/04 0 10 8a.html

                "HP is partnering with Apple Computer to provide an exceptional digital music experience to consumers as part of its larger digital entertainment system offering. Starting this spring, HP will deliver an HP-branded digital music player based on Apple's iPod, the No. 1 digital music player in the world, and Apple's award-winning iTunes digital music jukebox and pioneering online store to HP's customer
    • What the hell are you talking about?

      "You gotta remember that these are just light capturing computers. Canon does not make computer... HP makes great computers."

      Just because a camera is "digital" doesn't mean that suddenly, all of the other parts of the camera are unimportant. Before that light can even make it to that "computer", it first has to go through a lense, aperature, and shutter to make it to the CCD. If your camera has a shitty lense, artifacts and distortions will be apparent and obvious.

  • digital rebel (or nikon d70) (Score:4, Informative)

    by the_ambient_one ( 415217 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:43PM (#9337593)
    I have a rebel. Battery life is awesome, and im pretty sure its just as good as the nikon. Since the sensor is only used when actually taking a picture (no live preview), and the lcd is almost always off, and the battery is large, you get hundreds of shots off a single charge.

    large prints - its 6 megapixel. And its very noise free, since the sensor is physically very large. Beats the 8mp point & shoots by a ways.

    costs a bunch tho, because youll probably want a longer zoom fairly quickly, and a large CF card (1gb or 512mb), and possibly a flash and tripod. Id budget an extra 500 to 1000$ over a rebel or d70 kit. If you go for a canon 10D you need to budget more, because it doesnt come with a lens, and theres no cheap equiv to the rebel kit lens for canon. (to get the wideangle, after the sensor crop / multipplier).

    the sensor crop / multiplier is great if you want tele, but sucky for wide. Since you need extra wide lenses. its 1.6x for canon (18mm lens ~= 28mm lens). i think its similar for nikon.

  • I know you're asking for an SLR, but you might wish to look at the Minolta DiMAGE Z1/Z2.

    It's SLR-form-factor and has easily accessible manual controls (though manual focus is with the cursors, rather than a focus ring like the Sonys). The built-in lens is, iirc, 350mm-equivalent, but fast enough at wide-angle settings that I've gotten some good low-light work out of it.

    Personally, I'm rather frightened of digicams with removable lenses. Unlike a 35, where dust that enters winds up on the removable film,
    • If you prefer something a little less cheap and nasty than the Minolta Z series, I used an Olympus C-750 for a while (before it was stolen, grr!); got some great shots, including some nice macros and full telephoto ones. Not the fastest camera in the world, and it only goes down to ~38mm equivilent (not good for wide angle), but it's sturdy, takes addon lenses/filters and has good battery life with decent NiMH AA's. Compared with my Minolta F200, the shots were also sharper and less noisy.

      Minolta's A1/A2
    • If I'm not mistaken, Minolta DiMAGE Z1/Z2 are EVF cameras, which are no match for the optical viewfinders of SLRs. I have a G2, which isn't an SLR, but still occasionally use the optical 'tunnel' viewfinder for panning and continuous shooting. I don't think any EVF can be used for continuous shooting while knowing for sure where your subject is in the frame of each shot since they either black-out between shots or get choppy.

      If you're really into photography, a general rule for lenses is that the differe
    • I know you're asking for an SLR, but you might wish to look at the Minolta DiMAGE Z1/Z2.

      correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this camera actually an SLR anyways?

      SLR does not mean removeable lenses, it means the viewfinder looks through the camera lens. sure, most SLR's have removeable lenses but it is not a requirement of the title. my nikon 5700 is technically an SLR even though it would not normally be recognised as such.

      dave

  • Forget digital, your definition wants film (Score:3, Informative)

    by Mycroft_514 ( 701676 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:47PM (#9337648) Journal
    When digital gets to 10MP, then try experimenting with digital SLRs, in the meantime forget it.

    That's assuming that by decent size prints you mean 8x10 or larger.

    A good all manual SLR (yes there are some around, especially used ones, which will save you lots of money) will last for YEARS on one set of batteries (my Dad went 22 years on one battery a while back, my best is only 12 years on 1 battery).

    Plus, lenses can be had cheap by all the people bailing out of film who don't know any better. If you chose the right system to go with, you can take those lenses forward to digital later too. (Nikon and Canon come to mind, but I think Pentax as well). Or any T-mount lens can be brought forward.

    • Digital is at and beyond 10 MP. Mamiya has a 22 MP digital slr dubbed as a "medium format" digital.

      But truthfully you don't need 10 MP to make a good 8x10, If you have a good photo on a 3 megapixel you can get a _decent_ 8x10. 5 MP you can get a great one. It depends a lot more on the quality of the photgrapher than the MP of the camera.

      Also important to consider, most people just starting out in photography aren't going to want to print 8x10 often, if at all. This guy seems to want a learning medium
    • I agree. If cost is a concern then invest a little money in b/w bulk loading equipment. B/W processing is simple and inexpensive, for the most part you can all the film darkroom work in a changing bag. Invest in a film scanner, they start at around $250 US and a decent printer. Learn the basics, and do it the old fasioned way. It may seem like a longer road but you will be happier with the results in the end.
    • Utter nonsense!

      My Canon 1D is 4Mp and it will print to A3 very nicely thank you. The cheaper Canon 10D is 6Mp but not such high quality so you'll still get A3 out of it but not much higher.
    • When digital gets to 10MP, then try experimenting with digital SLRs, in the meantime forget it.

      That's assuming that by decent size prints you mean 8x10 or larger.

      I hate to be disrespectful, but what the hell are you talking about?

      My wife is a professional photographer who shoots weddings using the 5.5MP Nikon D1x, and her customers have been thrilled with the quality of 20x30 prints -- which, if you do the math, are 7.5 times larger than 8x10s, using a camera with only half the resolution you say is ne
      • I've done that, and I have a truely bueatiful 20x30 hanging over my fireplace - shot with film. Detail is in it that you can't capture with digital. The reflections in the water of the railing, for example.

        For example: I have an 8x10 on the wall next to me. (Film based print). I scanned that image at about 5MP a while back and it is a great shot. However, I noticed some small blobs on the one edge. Since it is an underwater shot, I assumed backscatter. Later, I had the film 8x10 printed. Not backs
      • I agree, a good digital now beats 35mm quite easily. Film advocates produce amazing lpi figures for (usually) Velvia then argue that they're somehow getting the equivalent of 20 megapixels or whatever. Film lpi figres are usually for a 20% contrast ratio and are just not at all comparable to digital (where the contrast ratio is obviously 100%).

        This is a bit old now, but here's a piece comparing the 1Ds to drum scanned medium format film. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootou t .shtml. If an [luminous-landscape.com]

    • Re:Forget digital, your definition wants film (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I shoot mostly copy work (paintings), using EPY film (the Kodak tungsten whatever it's called). Medium format and 35mm.

      I have mostly switched to the Canon dSLRs because pictures the Canon dRebel/10D (6MP) are generally much better than 35mm. Color is similar, sharpness is a bit worst, but the lack of GRAIN blows me away. You can see it the slide with a loupe, ugly GRAIN all over the place. 6MP was the magic number for me.

      People who say film is better than 5-8MP complete confound me. When I open a magazine

    • Re:Forget digital, your definition wants film (Score:4, Insightful)

      by daviddennis ( 10926 ) * <david@amazing.com> on Friday June 04, 2004 @04:33PM (#9339008) Homepage
      I think it depends on the kind of photography you do. If you're shooting images such as landscapes with huge amounts of detail, then go ahead and buy a film camera and pay through the nose for film, developing and printing.

      But if you're like me and enjoy the sheer act of taking a lot of pictures, that kind of approach would bankrupt you. I love my Canon EOS D30 3.5mp digital SLR because I can take as many pictures as I want without worrying about the cost. In my first year of ownership, I took over 7,500 shots - which would have probably cost more than my digital SLR to make and print - and I paid $3,300 for it.

      I didn't print many of my images until I bought a HP Color LaserJet 3500, which made it inexpensive to do so. Now I've made maybe 100 prints, all of which look beautiful, even 8x10s from my 3.5mp camera. You're going to say that you'd get better detail and finer resolution and glossier prints with an photo inkjet, and you're right -- but how many photos will you print out at $2 per page?

      In other words, there's a quantity versus quality question. The more pictures you can take, the more you'll learn and the better you'll get. If you're restricted by budgetary limitations, you'll wish you got your digital SLR.

      D

  • I Second the Rebel... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Delsphynx ( 688372 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @02:47PM (#9337655)
    I own a Rebel myself and it really is a great camera. DPreview is a good place to read the reviews and check out the forums. You might see a lot of people complaining and such about not having some advanced features and the like. For me personally, I bought this to learn with and understand more about photography, and so far some of those advanced features I have not really required. There may be a point where I do, however, for now, this camera has everything that I want. Plus, with firmware hacks, that can even be changed. The thing to remember is that after you start getting in to lenses, which Canon has a great reputation for, then switching the body becomes somewhat more trivial since you will not have to have switching costs as you will be able to utilize those lenses again and again (unless you completely jump ship and switch everything). I myself will be very unlikely to do that because the camera is great, lenses are great, and you know that Canon is going to continue to put out high-quality stuff (not saying Nikon or anyone else isn't...) Just my .02

  • There are no entry level digital SLRs. (Score:3, Informative)

    by gmiller123456 ( 240000 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @03:00PM (#9337849) Homepage
    If you want an entry level digital camera, you're going to have to stick with point and shoot type camera.

    As everyone else has pointed out, the Digital Rebel is the cheapest digital SLR, but at $900 it's not exactly what you'd call entry level. I have the 10D, and I know several people that have the Rebel, and for the money, the Rebel wins hands down. So, if you're going to get one, get the Rebel, and put some money into some really nice lenses. Don't plan on upgrading any time soon, the Rebel hasn't dropped in price since it's been out, and the 10D has actually gone up in price. For a while the 10D couldn't be found anywhere, every place was out of stock.

    Also note, with the Rebel, it's a very popular camera. So when you have trouble figuring something out, there's a lot of people available to help. And then there's the firmware hacks, whi ch you should already know about.
  • You might find some useful info at Digital Camera HQ [digitalcamera-hq.com], which lets you find the camera you're interested in and then aggregates a bunch of reviews and other content in one place for you. Front page even says "Canon Digital Rebel, Most Popular Digital SLR". :)

    Disclaimer: I don't work for them but I do run into them in the kitchen.

  • D70 all the way (Score:4, Informative)

    by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Friday June 04, 2004 @03:11PM (#9337996)
    The Nikon D70 and the Canon EOS-300D ("digital rebel"; whatever, Canon) are pretty comparable camera bodies, but the kicker is the lens. You can buy either one with a bundled lens; the 300D comes with a crappy lens, while the D70 comes with a very respectable lens.

    Definitely get the D70. If you get the 300D and find you enjoy photography, you'll want to replace it in a year or two. If you get the D70 and find you enjoy photography, you'll be happy with it for much longer.

    And because the D70 is newer, the resale price will be better if you decide to bail out.
    • I have a DR and love it.

      The kit lens adds $100 to the retail price of the camera (body alone lists for $900) and you can't come anywhere near as wide a lens as the 18mm-55mm (times 1.6 crop factor = 28-88 effective field of view) for anywhere near that price for either system. It's not available outside of the kit except from scalpers on EBay.

      The thing I love most about the DR is that it takes a picture immediately when I press the shutter button. Every other digicam I've used has had a second or longer d
  • I know you said DSLR, but the Sony F828 is probably the "most crossover" of the digicam's. I've tried most of the five 8MP digicams currently on the market (not the A2 yet which HAS some interesting aspect ... one in particular is their super-high-res viewfinder), and (despite being the biggest), the Sony F828 is my favorite. Manual zoom ring on the lens feels just like an SLR (plus you can use it while shooting 640X480 movies), and 28-200mm effective should cover most photo-ops. I could go on about pros an
    • The tiny CCD's on these cameras make me somewhat nervous; at 8MP I've seen a *lot* of very noisy/grainy shots from them, which as far as I'm concerned defeats the object of the higher resolution. Really, for a compact 4MP seems to be far more sensible -- it's high enough to be usable for printing, but not so high that noise starts ruining shots. I'd buy a Minolta A series in an instant if they did a less noisy 4MP version :/
      • Your concerns about the tiny CCD's are well-founded - note that I said above "in non-noisy situations" ... one of the first things I do with digicams is turn OFF the auto-ISO and force to the lowest settings, insuring the least amount of noise. Every digicam (versus DSLR) I've looked at is pretty noise at ISO 400 and a joke at ISO 800. On the other hand, the DSLR's (with the larger pixels) can be pushed a bit, which is really nice to do in low light situations.

        BTW, I did some testing of a Canon G3 (4MP) a

  • SLR (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frantzdb ( 22281 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @03:13PM (#9338019) Homepage
    You may not need an SLR. You can get fully-manual digital cameras for less than half the price that take great pictures. I've been very happy with my Canon G3 (4MP). I haven't touched my analog SLR since. I will get a DSLR eventually, but as an amature, it just doesn't make sense at the moment.

  • Why digital? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Txiasaeia ( 581598 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @03:14PM (#9338032)
    I may be wrong, but it sounds like you don't have a lot of experience with photography. That's okay, but before leaping into the $1000+ world that is DSLR, may I suggest trying out a film SLR first? You can get a Nikon N75 or Canon EOS Rebel for 1/4 of the price, and if you decide to stick to the brand (YMMV, my experience is with Nikon) you can take the lenses you buy for your film SLR and use them on your digital one. Then, if you really want to get these prints in digital, develop your film at Walmart (or wherever) and pay the extra $2 to get the prints on CD.

    The digital market is still relatively new, and big camera companies have DSLR prices pretty high in order to recoup R&D costs. Film cameras have been around for the better part of the 20th century and are tried and true.

    Also, when you upgrade to a digital SLR in a few years, you can keep the film one around just in case. One more thing to keep in mind: some old school cameras (Nikon FM3A, older models) can be used without a battery, so battery life is not an issue. Good luck!

    • "Why digital?"
      Film development costs.

      I've taken 5000 pictures with my digital camera.
      Development costs: $0
      Experience: priceless

      What if I had a film camera?
      5000 pictures / 24 pictures per roll ~ 208 rolls.
      208 rolls at $8 for developement = $1666
      Experience: Chapter 11 bankruptcy

      I've only had my digital camera for a year. I agree, however, that if the poster is new to photography, a digital SLR is overkill. However, a simple digital camera with manual settings in the sub-$300 range will suffice. But, fo
      • Kodak is NOT getting out of the film industry. The review you mention says they are dropping about 4 or 5 specific films. Well so what? They are replacing them with new ones that are better. It's called progress.

        As for you cost comparisions. Whoops, you messed up there.

        >I've taken 5000 pictures with my digital camera.
        >Development costs: $0
        >Experience: priceless

        >What if I had a film camera?
        >5000 pictures / 24 pictures per roll ~ 208 rolls.
        >208 rolls at $8 for developement = $1666
        • Wouldn't you only print the absolute best pictures if you have them as digital?

          As all of us are posting on slashdot, isn't it safe to assume we have computers?

          $2 a CD? Why are you paying that much? I've gotten plenty of name-brand CDs for $0.20 each. Also, I recently picked up some 2.4X Memorex DVD+Rs for less than a buck each. That brings down costs for media to what, about $5? And that's assuming you don't keep the pictures on unused hard drive space.

          Also, you could buy a printer and ink, or you c
        • "You forgot that in order to get print from your digital camera, you need a printer."
          Ahh...see there's another big difference. To this date, I have yet to actually print out a photo. They go up on my website, or into a digital picture frame. I don't *have* to print them out. However, with a regular film camera, you *have* to print them out in some form.

          "25 CD @ 2$ per = $50"
          Where are you getting gouged for CD's? $15 for 50 CD's at Wal-Mart [walmart.com].

          Storage cost is minimal and takes up little space. First o
          • and the price has come down.

            As for printing shots, you can bulk load film too. A roll of 100 foot slide film is about $30. That will make ~850 frames of slide film. Processing it yourself you can get chemicals for much cheaper than the above. Also, with slides (and even prints) you only print the shots you want (get a loupe for god's sake - an expensive one is $8.)

            Finally, if you shoot film, you will learn quickly, which shots are going to be crap - and not shoot them. So you will only shoot 2000 say
            • "Digital lends itself much to easily to what we call "machine gun photography" Shoot 50 shots in a burst to get one good one. The film shooter will shoot 3, and get it."

              Just one point on this and I'm done: machine gun photography does not build any skill. Heck, if you want to do this you might as well buy a video camera and select the frames that you want to keep. If somebody wants to *learn* photography, then they need to take their time with each and every shot, then examine the results once they're d

    • Re:Why digital? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 04, 2004 @03:50PM (#9338470)
      Ah, but digital makes the learning process so much faster. Take a shot - look at it. Don't like? Take another. Want to play with Depth of Field or shutter speed? Take 10 shots, 10 different ways. Review results.

      Yes, you can print your results at Costco in an hour, but what if you are sitting in your hotel room on vacation and want to see what you did today? "Did that waterfall shot come out?" If not, I can take another one tomorrow - while I'm still on vacation. Once I get home, I'm not getting back to Hawaii for at least 6 months.

      While digitals have a (much) higher up front cost, most people don't think about the sunk cost. With film they think, "Jeez, I only have 36 shots on this roll. Then I have to pay for developing them." With digital, you get unlimited shots with no incremental cost. This encourages people to take lots of experimental and iffy shots, because the have nothing to lose.

      • What happens in thirty years when your kids want to look at the baby pictures you took of them, and the digital phots are unreadable on any devices then available? As an example, if you have anything stored on 5-1/4" floppies, good luck trying to read them now.
        Prints I made thirty years ago are still fine. I worry about the future of the thousands of digital pictures I have taken and will take.
      • "...I'm not getting back to Hawaii for at least 6 months..."

        You have to go to Hawaii twice a year??? Oh man, I feel sorry for you. The drudgery of it all!
      • Even though I think that film still has a lot of potential, a good manual (not necessarily SLR) digital camera gives a newbie a lot of flexibility to experiment without taking a lot of time for processing and lot of money for supplies. I think that SLRs have been associated with learning photography because in the film world there are very few non-SLR 35mm cameras that give you all the aperture/shutter flexibility. A lot of point-and-shoot Digital cameras have these options at a comparable price point.

        Dere

  • Because the non-SLR digitals fit a much larger segment of the market, the SLR digitals have been really slow to come down in price. The Nikon D-70 has tempted me, but I think I'm still willing to wait another round, since we're talking $2K once you add in a couple/three lenses. Lenses is where the 'real' investment tends to be in the high-end camera space. I've got a couple of Nikon (type) lenses (both manual focus) which isn't a big investment, but unless you're willing to dump all your gear in a few y

  • A few options... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ezraekman ( 650090 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @03:18PM (#9338085) Homepage

    "SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.

    In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 [nikonusa.com] and D100 [nikonusa.com], the Canon Digital Rebel [canoneos.com], and a few cameras by Sigma [sigmaphoto.com] and Fuji [fujifilm.com]. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.

    First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)

    Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 [nikonusa.com] and 8700 [nikonusa.com] are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1 [powershot.com], G5, and [powershot.com] S1 [powershot.com] are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.

    As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview [dpreview.com]. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.

    Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that

    • Re:A few options... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera.

      It's also worth noting that most digital cameras avoid the paralax problem without being SLR. The LCD display shows you the same image that the CCD is r

      • Re:A few options... (Score:3, Informative)

        by ffsnjb ( 238634 )
        Of course, not all digital cameras have LCD displays, and there are times when you really don't want to use one. If you are looking through a viewfinder, then an SLR is the only way to avoid paralax issues.

        The Kodak DX6490 uses both a large LCD for normal DigiCam use and a much smaller LCD in the viewfinder instead of an optical viewfinder to eliminate parallax issues while still maintaining a viewfinder and an LCD.
  • I just got a Fuji S5000. 10x optical zoom, and has all of the manual controls available if you want 'em. $400, Best Buy had 'em for 10% off with no shipping.

  • Read a little bit. (Score:3, Informative)

    by davidbro ( 13842 ) * on Friday June 04, 2004 @03:50PM (#9338463)
    Go to this page:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm [kenrockwell.com]

    He does a good job of telling you what really matters. If he has a bias, it's towards Nikon. BUt that's beside the point. His focus is photography, digital or film.

    And I'm pretty sure that if you asked him, he'd point you towards the Nikon D70.

    Of course, the hackability of the Canon 300 is pretty tempting, but it's not really the point. You can take fantastic pictures with an SLR or a point and shoot. Those extra features aren't going to make your pictures better. Shooting a lot of pictures and honestly evaluating them is what makes your pictures better.

  • Forget the LSR - not exactly a beginner camera. I researched extensively and finally decided on a Canon Powershot A80 and I couldn't be happier. Easy to point and shoot or go creative if you feel like it. The quality of the pictures is also amazing. Camera goes for around $300.

  • From somone who just went through this, advice (Score:4, Informative)

    by Alan ( 347 ) <arcterex@NOspAm.ufies.org> on Friday June 04, 2004 @04:25PM (#9338884) Homepage
    First of all, do you have any experience in photography? If so, have you ever had a film SLR, or point and shoot?

    I'm a big one for learning things the hard way first. You can pick up a used 35mm SLR for next to nothing and you can learn how to be a good photographer far easier than you can (IMHO) with a digital camera. A lot of times people forget that photography is about taking good pictures, NOT playing with cool toys on the computer.

    It's pretty cool to be able to instantly see how the image will turn out, pop it into the gimp or photoshop, adjust the color/balance/shadows/levels, etc, but having to wait a week to finish up a roll of film, get it back from processing, and having to imagine what the image will look like when you take it will make you a much better photographer. The key to taking pictures that aren't 'snapshots' is to be able to know what it will look like before you take the picture. Digital takes this away from the end user a bit and you end up just taking pictures of everything and ending up with 99.9% crap.

    end rant :)

    Regarding the purchase of the d-slr, if you have any existing lenses the choice is pretty clear. The D-Rebel takes any canon EOS lense, and you have a wide variety of choices for lenses (including image stabalized lenses). The nikon D70 takes any nikon lenses. The *ist-d will take any pentax K/KA mount lense.

    If you have no lenses then it's a matter of what system you like (remember the body is a throwaway, you'll be investing in lenses if you get into it and will upgrade to a better model eventually and you will keep on using your lenses. If you're budget minded you probably will be looking at the d-rebel and you can eventually upgrade to the next step up. If your budget is a bit bigger you can look at the nikon or the pentax.

    When I went through this I ended up buying the pentax *ist-d, at about twice the cost of the d-rebel. It's the smallest d-slr out there, and is light and fits in my hands nicely. It's more comparable with the canon 10d from what I understand, and having several pentax lenses already made the choice a bit easier. Of course, now I'm looking at buying more lenses to replace my older manual lenses, but that's the nature of expensive hobbies like photography and computers :)

    One of the best pieces of advice I got about choosing a d-slr was to find something you're comfortable with. If it's too big or too small, or the menu or controls aren't intuitive or easy to use, you won't use it as much, it won't be taken with you everywhere, and will end up collecting dust. If you can spend more *with reason*, do. Don't (IMHO) settle for say, the d-rebel if it feels too big in your hands, or if you're going to do sports photography and need the bigger buffer in the d-70.

    Remember, you'll be saving your money for lenses :)

  • Nikon D70 vs. Canon EOS 300D (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dixie_Flatline ( 5077 ) * <vincent.jan.gohNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday June 04, 2004 @04:35PM (#9339048) Homepage
    Here's a great review/comparison of the two cameras.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page20. as p

    The 300D is more commonly known as the rebel.

    Pick the D70 if you want
    1) A wide array of old lenses to choose from. (And I've heard that it's often more important to pick your lens than pick the body)
    2) To take a lot of consecutive photographs. With our D70, we can take pictures at 1fps until the card fills - we aren't bound by the buffer like the Canons are. This is true for both compressed and RAW photos. (You need to make sure your memory card is fast, though.)
    3) A lot of other things that I'm not going to list off the top of my head. :)

    Either of those cameras is good, though. At my skill level (and possibly at your skill level, given the way you asked your question) it's hard to go wrong with either of these cameras.
  • DSLRs tend to have really long battery lives - like more pictures than you can fit on a microdrive. Since they CAN'T use the LCD as a viewfinder, they don't, and that's what eats most of the battery on 'normal' (non-SLR) digital cameras.

  • Spend more money now, less later (Score:4, Informative)

    by Andy Smith ( 55346 ) on Friday June 04, 2004 @06:10PM (#9340149)
    I'm a Canon user so I'll talk Canon, one point at a time...

    "I'm interested in getting into digital photography."

    Getting into DSLR at the bottom of the ladder will prove expensive because you'll spend $1000 on a camera/lenses and then a few months later you'll be buying more, more, more.

    It's better to spend more to start with and get some good, non-beginner equipment that will last you for many years.

    "I have looked at many tutorials and buying guides but there are so many digital SLRs I have no idea which ones to even start considering."

    Remember that I'm only talking Canon, in which case your choice is between the Rebel/300D and the 10D.

    "I want to be able to make decently large prints"

    The 300D and 10D are both 6Mpx and will both print nicely up to A3. The 300D sensor is essentially the same as the 10D but it is produced more cheaply and there is some feeling that the image quality is slightly inferior.

    "I'd like to get a decent amount of use out of it before upgrading"

    I've used the Rebel/300D and I upgraded to the 10D within a month. I then upgraded to the 1D. I'd recommend the 10D to anyone. I wouldn't recommend the 300D. It's essentially a crippled 10D.

    "I want good battery life"

    Both the 300D and 10D will give you hundreds of shots on a single battery charge which takes a couple of hours. You can also buy a battery grip which attaches to the bottom of the camera and allows you to use two batteries.

    "durability is key"

    The 300D is fairly tough but it's plastic. The 10D is metal and tougher. The 1D is designed to survive a warzone, literally.

    "All of you photographers out there, any suggestions? What did you buy when you started?"

    In six months I've gone from a 300D with a couple of cheap lenses to a 1D with approx $8,000 of lenses.

    My recommendation, assuming you don't want to go for the 1D which is the best camera ever made, is to get a 10D with a 28-135 Image Stabilizer lens. That will cost you less than $2,000. You will almost certainly want to buy more lenses over time but you'll be happy with the 10D for several years.

    There is talk of a 10D replacement within the year but considering the mess Canon has made of the 1D Mk II my advice would be to buy what's right for you now rather than wait for "the next big thing" that may or may not be any good.

    Now you need someone to give you the same run-down on Nikon gear. Don't let anyone tell you that Canon or Nikon is considerably better than the other. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

    Briefly...

    Canon's strengths: Better telephone lenses, slightly better image quality, good resale value, usually brings next-gen tech out a good six months before other manufacturers, good support, lenses are slightly cheaper.

    Nikon's strengths: Reputedly better wide lenses, better flash system, high-end cameras are cheaper than Canon's high-end offerings.

    Canon cameras are generally used by fashion and sports photographers and more of these are switching to Canon every day.

    Nikon cameras are generally used by photojournalists but Canon is becoming much more prevalent in this area nowadays.

    If you have any specific questions on Canon gear then feel free to post them in a reply to this comment and I'll answer if I can.
  • I mostly shoot B&W film with an Canon EOS 3, but when I do shoot digital I use a second-hand EOS D30. They're pretty cheap now. Only 3MP, but ignore that; these are 3 clean megapixels with low noise in the shadows, low aberation in the highlights and faithful colour reproduction. It prints great at 12x8 inches, and will blow away any consumer-level 5 or 6MP point-and-shoot. It's usable fully automatic, or fully manual, or anywhere in between. It takes all EF-mount lenses, which is way better than Nikon'

  • I bought a Canon 10D when it first came out (I got the first one a local camera store received) last year. Since then, I've taken over 12,000 photos.

    The 10D is by far the best camera I've ever owned, and well worth what I spent on it. However, when a replacement comes out for the 1Ds (full frame DSLR), I will most likely upgrade as there are a few deficiencies in the 10D:

    • Autofocus isn't great, especially with slow (Max aperture smaller than 2.8) lenses.
    • The focus screen is not interchangeable. The f
  • As others have mentioned, if you really want to go with an SLR camera, go for the Canon Digital Rebel. I don't own one, but a friend of mine does, and it kicks ass.

    What I do own, however, is a Canon Powershot G5. It's not an SLR camera per say, but comes very close. Full control of aperture, etc... and you can get extra lenses for it (telescopic lens, fish-eye lens, macro lenses, etc...). It's a fair bit cheaper than the Digital Rebel, is 5.1 megapixels vs 6 of the DR, but in terms of options and settings
  • See here [popsci.com] for a comparison of several cameras from this month's Popular Science.

  • 300D/D70 fallacies (Score:2, Informative)

    by loupgarou24 ( 663705 )

    A comparison by of a hacked 300D/Rebel with D70 dpreview link [dpreview.com]

    --

    some fallacies from the above threads:

    noise performance : 300D/Rebel wins :it has ISO 100, D70 has a minimum ISO 200 . (also; at comparative 300DISO 200 vs D70ISO 200, the 300D is rated more like ISO160 )

    the only major advantage of the D70 is its CF write speed/buffer, ie: in raw mode, it can shoot at 1fps continuous until your cf card fills up. so is this advantage worth the extra money?

    flaw: D70 NEF/RAW mode is NOT lossless, it is v

Slashdot Top Deals

"Ninety percent of baseball is half mental." -- Yogi Berra

Close