Considering a new digicam...

[Sam Conder]

Howdy all...

I am considering a new digital camera. I am satisfied with my Nikon Coolpix 4300 for most things, but often find myself going back to my trusty Canon Elan IIe SLR when I really want to take those "special" pictures.

However, I hate "wasting" film and processing charges and want a digital SLR as a result. I am currently considering the Canon Digital Rebel XTi.

Anybody here have one? Is it the best thing since sliced bread that everyone is telling me?

[jseklund]

I don't have the canon, but I did a lot of research on DSLRs for a camera I got my gf for christmas. I wound up going with a Pentax K100D. It was really a question of being able to afford it and I really wanted to get her a DSLR (it made her happy). I narrowed it down to the Pentax and the Nikon D50- but the Pentax was more in the budget after sales. (I hate to sound cheap...but I had to stretch for even this camera).

I will say that we are both amazed by the quality of the K100D. You may be more advanced in photography than we are (beginners), but I would look at the Pentax seriously too. It may save you some $$ (if you care), and be just as good or better depending on the model you are going for....

Good luck!

[Sam Conder]

For me, it's a case of track record. I have been an OVERLY satisfied Canon user since my first AE1. I also have a Canon Elan IIe that can share lenses with the Digi Rebel.

But.. I have read fantastic things about the Pentax.

[maxparot]

Sam I've been wrestling with the same idea and the same 2 digital models.
I have a Olympus C-4040 digital it takes great shots for a 4.1 mp with a f2.4 built in.
But I stil have 2 Konica 35 SLRs with a set of lenses and external flash.
I miss the complete control over depth of field and exposure that playing with the shutter speed and appature gives in the creative process and I miss the precise focus that the correct lense for a particular shot allows.
The point and shoot is great and my Olympus allows for a lot of the creative input but not at the level that some of these consumer level DSLRs are now attaining. The only problem I see is unlike when I purchase my film cameras the progress of the DSLRs is still in the early stages and I can see a good DSLR being obsolete in less than 3 years. Will I need a 16 or 20mp in 2 years and will the lenses I buy today be the right format in that time?

[Alex Franke]

I have last year's version, the Canon Digital Rebel XT, and I can't say enough great things about it. The new XTi has some additional features like self cleaning and higher resolution, but the still same the same image processor -- same as on their high end cameras.

It is a FANTASTIC camera. THe kit lense isn't bad, either. Plus I think they're still running a rebate offer. Check out buydig.com for good prices -- that's where we bought ours a while back.

We also got the Speedlite 430EX -- again, a fantastic, powerful flash -- and the EF-S 60mm macro lense for portraits and close-ups. Highly, highly recommended.

Also the battery lasts forever -- check Amazon.com for generic replacements for <$10 -- much better deal than the $50 canon version, plus same performance for us.

I'll try to post some photo samples later. Everyone's right: It IS the best thing since sliced bread.

[LCHIEN]

One of the biggest drawbacks I see in buying a high end digital camera right now is the obsolesence factor. Unless I can make money with that camera, I don't feel I can justify 1000 bucks and up for a camera and more for lenses with the possibility that they'll be outdated in 2-3 years, maybe less.

And to some extent they haven't captured all of the good stuff from mechanical film cameras. Shutter delay and the like. Wonder what sports photographers are using these days?

I sure miss the feel of my Olympus OM system. Still have it but rarely pull it out of the storage box.

I sure do find the convenience and compactness of the digital cams a great thing, though. Instant pictures, send it by e-mail to someone across the world or give a copy to the son or daughter to take home with them in a few minutes. A thousand pictures on a CD,

[LCHIEN]

One of the biggest drawbacks I see in buying a high end digital camera right now is the obsolesence factor. Unless I can make moeny with that camera, I don't feel I can justify 1000 bucks and up for a camera and more for lenses with the possibility that they'll be outdated in 2-3 years, maybe less.

And to some extent they haven't captured all of the good stuff from mechanical film cameras. Shutter delay and the like. Wonder what sports photographers are using these days?

I sure miss the feel of my Olympus OM system. Still have it but rarely pull it out of the storage box.

I sure do find the convenience and compactness of the digital cams a great thing, though. Instant pictures, send it by e-mail to someone across the world or give a copy to the son or daughter to take home with them in a few minutes. A thousand pictures on a CD or memory card, readable on virtually any computer or DVD-player equipped TV in the world.

[Alex Franke]

A good SLR digicam should last as long as a good film SLR, and regardless of digital or film, the technology progresses and the older camera get out dated. Sure I can use my old AE-1, and it'll still take good pictures, but it has a number of limitations goverened by the technology of the mid 80's, and if I still shot film, I'd be upgrading to a newer film camera (and lenses, flashes as a result).

The Canon digital SLR's will accept any lens or flash built for a Canon film camera, plus a few others that are optimized for digicams (the "EF-S" lenses, in which the lens can be mounted closer because to the sensor and mirror are smaller).

Shutter delay used to be an issue with sub-$1000 cameras, but it really isn't any more. I can turn the camera on and fire a shot off as fast as my fingers can move, then lean on the shutter and fire off 30 more top-quality pics in the next ten seconds. If it were a film camera I'd be stopping to change film a couple seconds later. I think the actual shutter lag in these cameras is less than 1/100 of a second.

The pros use untra high-end digicams -- like the EOS-1Ds at around $8,000 for the body alone.

Here's where digicams pay off the most: Every time you press the trigger on a film camera, you're spending close to a dollar (film, processing, prints), so you tend to be a little more careful about pressing that little button. None of that matters with a digicam. Just lean on the trigger as much as you want. You'll take 10 times the shots, which means more to choose from, and a better end result.

We got our first "real" digicam just before y2k. Before that time we took maybe 1,000 pictures a year (and maybe $750 to buy, process, and print all that film). Since we went digital, we've taken 48,741 pictures and counting -- and printed only what we want (far less than $750!). Plus with my "last year's model" Canon Digital Rebel XT, nobody can tell the difference.

All this is well worth the $800 or so we paid for the camera body. Well worth it. In fact, if this camera broke today (highly unlikely) I'm buy another one tomorrow without giving it another thought.

[Alex Franke]

Here are a couple of pics with that camera (the XT), obviously scaled down considerably. In the first one (my girl), the flash is bounced off the ceiling and just a couple of black t-shirts as the backdrop. The lense blurs so nicely (bokeh) that you'd never even know.

The second one is a self portrait of me "through my son's eyes." The third image is same photo as #2, but cropped so you can see it better. It's still scaled down, though. You can see that the flash if pointing off to the side and bouncing off a sheet of white foam-core board.

By the way, we recently got a print blown up to 16x20 and it looks beautiful -- again you'd never know it's not film -- and it's at about ~8 megapixels. I think anything thing higher than that is fine if it's free, but not really necessary for most -- unless you want to crop and enlarge just a small part of the frame.

Get the XTi -- you won't regret it.

[sacherjj]

If you are going for a DSLR system, spend most of you money on the glass (lenses). Look at what system will have the lenses that you will want now and in the future. Lenses will not go obsolete in 10 years, if you get a popular system. Most cameras are now good enough that the photographer makes more of a difference than the camera. I prefer the common sensor size of the Nikon DSLRs over the varying Canons. However, you can get a better wide angle picture from the larger full frame Canon sensors (if you have the money). Both the Rebel and the D50 or D40 will give really nice pictures.

For really nice indoor pictures, spend some money on a good flash (even though some cameras come with one) and a good diffuser. I've been using Gary Fong's Lightsphere and it works great for fast on the move photography at events.

[gabedad]

Back in the day I was a working News Videographer for about 15 years in New york . I also took Lots of stills. I had all canon equipment (f1's). Later on When I decided I wanted a digital to takes snaps with - i too went for a Nikon 4300 - takes great pictures but I wanted more versatility.

I read a lot of info and decided on a Nikon d200 - granted it was big bucks but I liked that fact that it could use most of nikon's old glass - which is top quality and I love the new 18-200 lens. If you have the bucks to spend d200 is an awesome camera. I am still trying to figure out all it is capable of.

Canon does not convert as easily
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=57023

From what I hear the nikon d40/50/80 are all great cameras as well

here's a really good nikon board.
http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi

Good Luck

[430752]

get the rebel

Sam-

I'm also from the old Canon FD series, having usedmy father's old F1, new F1, and then an At1 and AE1. I switched to the Elan 7e to get into the eos system and never looked back. My brother got the original digiRebel, and I can say I was satisfied using his, but when I got the 2nd gen Rebel XT, I considered it markedly better with the higher res (6 v 8?) and add'l features. With that said, I don't see a whole lot the XTi offers over the XT, but I'm sure that's what my brother said.

As far as other bodies go, I would say that if you have good glass already, stick with Canon. what I mean is that here you have a chance to jump to Nikon or even the burgeoning 4:3 systems being pushed by Olympus, et al. However, since you're already happy with the canon system, and know its nomenclature (although not so impt. with digis), you should probably stick. Plus, as an added bonus, you'll alredy have some lenses to use. Of course, unless they're good glass, I wouldn't make that the only basis of the decision.

There is also the Eos 30d or 20d, which are supposed to be very good by most afficianados. Yeah they're more, but it gets to the old conundrum of do you pay less to get yer foot in the door and complain later that you spent 2/3 the cost and now not worth it to upgrade versus spend the higher money now and get what you'll want in one year's time anyway.

As far as glass, I really can't stress getting good lenses. If you're serious about photog the 1.6x crop will kill you. It kills in the sense that it magnifies any deficiencies in the lens, but it also kills in the magnitude of the optical magnification. I mean, it was a blast when I got my XT and went to Sebring, Fla. to shoot the 12 hours of Sebrng race. Used my 100-300 lens and it became magically a 160-480mm lens! Of course, without a mono/tripod it was hard to get a clean shot, but it was a blast. Still, once that novelty wore off I realized I had to replace many of my lenses. And the wide angles in particular. I dunno about you, but the old adage about a new photog using his teles for six months and then generally letting them rot on the shelf as you discover and use wideangles exclusively certainly fit me with the old FD system. With my Elan 7e film body I saveed enough to get my first truly nice lens - a 17-40 f4L series lens. Cost a good bit. Well, on the digi body, its now only 22mm to 64mm. Which is nice for general, routine photog, but nothign truly wide angle. So, I spent again to get the EF-s wide angle for another spendy amount. Still, to me it was worth it.

Regarding canon lenses, if you don't know already, the "L" series are their best, and some of the best in the industry. Especially their tele zoom "L" series, which you can see all the sport photog usings (the giant, white lenses), but they'll set you back $1,500-$4,000. Some of the lesser "L's" can be had for around $500-$750. "L" lenses ususally have a red ring at the lens barrel, near the filter screws. Next, you have the "prosumer" lenses which are generally denoted by a gold circle around the front of the lens barrel where the filter screws on. These are generally a good compromise b/w cost and quality, although some are closer to "l' series while others are closer to the silver line. Which is their cheaper, "consumer" series usually bundled with kits. You'll know them by the silver ring around the lens barrell at the filter screws. This is not to say all silver lines are crap, but many are. Some, however, are well regarded. Finally, there exist a few with no markings, just black, and they should be avoided at all costs.

So, what would be my recommendation? Get the XT or XTi, instead of the 20d or 30d, and use the extra money on the 430x speedlight (the 550ex is overkill at our levels, usually). This assumes you use the camera for much indorr photog or personal shots. Then upgrade your lenses. the Ef-s 10-22 (16-35 equiv.) $675 at B&H, is the one I got and it is very nice. An alternate is the Sigma 10-22 DC lens at $400 at B&H (I didn't mention it, but Sigma and to certain extent tamron, are making VERY nice alternate lenses for canon/nikon mounts). My bro has the Sigma so I've compared and I gotta say they're very close, btu in my opinion the sigma, at best, is only equiv. and more likely just below in performance. Next, is an all-purpose zoom. The canon 17-85 (f4-5.6, Image Stablized) is very nice, $500 at B&H, but I actually bought the Sigma on this one, the 17-70 f2.8-4.5 macro (but not IS) $390 at b&H . I made that choice on several recommends of the photo sites and must say it is very, very nice. Whereas the 10-20 sigma is close-to-or-maybe-equal, this 17-70 is considered equal-to-or-better than the canon. This was the first non-canon lens I ever bought and am very, very pleased.

Usually, you buy the canon "L" or "gold" line for optics and its impeccable ring-mount USM (ultrasonic motor), which is different than its micro-drive USM motors, as the ring USM is considered better than anything out there, bar none. The micro drive is simply equivilent to nikors, etc. (I know nikon fanboys will flame me for this). Anyway, the Sigma did not have the ring USM, but it works just great and pretty silent too.

As far as the rest of lenses go (teles, primes), I simply used my prior film body lenses with the aforementioned 17-40L being seldom used, beleive it or not.

Okay, maybe too much info and too much time, but its one way I can give back to you and the site.

good luck.

Curt J.