Digital SLR Camera

[Toolhound]

If you haven't seen it already, KenRockwell.com offers a great deal of useful info on all things photographic. His Spring 2008 camera recomendations can be seen at this page: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm

[poolhound]

You ask a question that could have pages and pages written on it (and I have). I have owned lots of digital cameras and now in addition to my day job and woodworking I shoot semi proffesionally.

The starting point in the decsion process is what do you want to shoot and how much do you want or are willing to spend. Not just now but as time goes on with "extras." just like WW photography can burn a hole in your pocket. e.g. good quality flash $350, Macro lens $500 or high end zoom $1000+

If you just want to take "regular" everyday holiday/family photos then your options are wider and cheaper and unless you particularly like the idea of an SLR its not absolutley necessary. I wont go into each option but if you provide some feedback to this post I can go into more detail either here or by email or phone if you like. So do you want to shoot........

Landscapes
Architecture/cities
Indoors inc museums etc
Nature
Concerts
At night
Sports
People
Closeups (macro)
Studio

And then there is output, do you want to.....

Only leave the photos on the computer
Print regular 4x6 or 5x7
will blow up to poster size


All of the above examples will highlight different attributes in your camera selection and be available at differing price points and quality.

Let me know where your interest lies and we can go from there. You can either post back here, PM or email me (assuming you want to I should not presuppose).

[JimD]

This is not what was asked but I took a bunch of pictures we really like with my Wife's little Fuji point and shoot with a 3X lens. I like my Kodak with a 12X lens better but I did not have it when we took that vacation. The Kodak can be apature or shutter priority or, I think, full manual but I just use one of the automatic modes. I find it much easier to use than the Fuji because the Kodak does some thing with multi-position switches where the Fuji is all menus. The Kodak also has image stabilization. I know there are better cameras but I do not think I am a good enough photographer to appreciate them.

Jim

[Tom Slick]

I have a Canon rebel XT. I would consider it to be the minimum of features/size/MP that you should look at. I already had a Canon SLR and some gear so I stuck with Canon. If I were starting out fresh I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Nikon or Canon. Everything in the SLR world is built with Nikon/Canon in mind. Pentax and sony/minolta has some nice stuff out now but I am not familiar with their systems.

you will also have to invest in photo editing software, and a computer that will keep up with it. The #1 complaint of people that switch from a film slr to digital slr is that their pictures are not "ready to go" right out of the camera. you will have to fiddle with the pics a bit to adjust them "just right". that is a benefit!
I own one Canon L (professional) series lens, it is significantly better in every way then my regular lenses. I do still get great pictures out of the other lenses because, contrary to popular belief, it is the photographer, not the gear, that makes a great picture.

[tuttlejr]

All those brands mention are good choices. If you have the time, pick up and examine all the models that might interest you. I like the Pentax SLR's for the main reason that they can use any Pentax lens ever made ... even those for manual cameras. Another plus are the dedicated Pentax forums that are far better than the Nikon or Canon forums.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1036

[drumpriest]

I bought both the Nikon D40x and Canon XTI, and did comparisons between them in several lighting situations. In the end I returned the Nikon, and bought a sigma f2.8 macro after market lens. I'm very happy with my setup. I was considering waiting for the XSI, but Harrison Leonard decided to arrive a bit early, so I kept the XTI. The XSI includes a better image processor, and it slightly higher res. At the 10mp and up range, that only matters if you are going to blow up big, or if you want to crop a lot.

I have also found it nice if something is just slightly blurry or noisy, I can resample using bicubic smoothing, or point sampling to sharpen up or noise reduce those types of images, and shots that would typically get deleted are saved.

Unless you are getting a great deal, you'd be best off to buy a body and a good after market lens. Canon makes some great ones with image stabilization, but they were above my price range. I have no complaints about my sigma, if there's sufficient light, it takes great shots, and it does very well in low light as well.

Photoshop helps a lot, the Canon software is pretty good, for free stuff, but Photoshop is quite a bit better in my opinion.

Here's the lens I bought and use for walk around...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/06...gma18-50dc.asp

[poolhound]

Richard,

I got your PM and sent a quick response before having to head out on travel ( am now in Orlando for a conference). I hope you dont mind I quoted one of your questions below and thought I would answer here.

"Of course I will be taking pictures of my family, but there are other things such as scenery, nature, special events, etc. I would also like the option of running the equivilant of a faster film speed( like asa400 )."

Re: film speed, digital cameras obviously dont have film but they do have a system that emulates the effects by turning up the sensitivity of the sensor .i.e. they are able to capture more light. There are good and bad points here. The good is that being digital they can perform much better than film and you can change the ISO from shot to shot without having to put a new "roll" in. The bad (in some cameras) is that as they up the sensitivity there can be lots of digital noise produced that can ruin a shot. You do however get a shot which would not be possible if you could not up the ISO. If this is important to you then make sure you get a camera with a CMOS sensor. they are much better and less noise suseptable. There is lots of debate but many folks believe the Canon sensor and processor is the best for high ISO low light capability. Thats why I am a Canon shooter. You can easily get great shots at 800 iso and if you have a steady hand or a tripod it will go all the way up to ISO 3200.

The other aspect of helping to get good low light shots is Image Stablization or IS. depending on the system you can gain up to 3 stops. with the correct ISO setting this could mean the difference of shooting at 1/60 instead of 1/8. Likewize the lens dynamics are the same as film so lens choice is a big factor a nice wide open f2.8 or better will yield better low light performance than a stock f4 or 5.6 albeit with less DOF.

You didnt yet answer what your budget was but I would highly reccomend the Canon 40D its a great body and would do everything you could ever want unless you want to go fully pro (lots more money). Lenses are what will get you wallet hurting. For a general walkabout lens its hard to beat the 17-85IS. You will probably want to get a longertelephoto but unless you are taking wide archetectural city shots you can get by with the 17mm as your wide angle (~26mm in 35mm film terms). You can get single lenses that will go from wide to decent telephoto but you usually dont quite get the quality.

If you chose to go with Cannon there is one lens you should look at. Its know as the "nifty fifty." on the down side it is a 50mm fixed lens and plastic BUT its f1.8 and you can generally pick one up for around $70 - a real bargin.

[Richard in Smithville]

Ok, so next question. I'll be looking at prints that are 8x10 at the largest( that's all my photo printer will handle). How many mega pixels should I be looking at?

[jziegler]

Ok, so next question. I'll be looking at prints that are 8x10 at the largest( that's all my photo printer will handle). How many mega pixels should I be looking at?

6 is enough for a good 8x10 print if you don't crop. So, any DSLR currently on the market will be enough. More pixels will let you crop more, but usually means more noise. Most options right now are either 10 or 12, both more than you need.

Jim

[poolhound]

Ok, so next question. I'll be looking at prints that are 8x10 at the largest( that's all my photo printer will handle). How many mega pixels should I be looking at?

Any of the good quality DSLRs on the market will handle your need for 8x10. You dont have to limit yourself to this size though. There are many online services where you can get larger prints upto poster size. At Costco you can get an 11x14 for about $3 and a poster for around $10. Even so a good DSLR will handle this also.

I wrote a short article on this last year I will try and dig out a reprint and post here.

[poolhound]

I couldnt find the re-print on my laptop, must be in my office and I'm not there.

Here is a link to the text version. It gives an overview of the relationship between MegaPixels and print size.

http://www.jrdrmarketing.com/docs/Me...s-TechnoQA.pdf

There is also a couple of little Q&As on the third page that briefly (very) discuss lens size and low light shooting.