DIGITAL SLR's which one would you choose and why?

Send a PM to Boom (Boomerang), she's probably got as much expertise as anyone here.

done, thanks.

By digital standards my Olympus e-10 is an antique. I've had it for about 10 years and I will use it until it completely falls apart. I doubt it ever will fall apart though -- it's held together with duct tape now and still going strong.

And really, that's one of the things I like about the older models -- they're still more camera than computer; I don't want to have to think about my camera and I don't know anything about computers so this works for me.

To me the most important thing about chosing a camera, the one thing that determines if I'll actually use it or not, is how it feels in my hands.

Are the dials in the right place? Can you change the settings without pulling the camera away from your face? (That's my biggest beef with digital cameras -- all the damn buttons and dials.) I usually shoot on automatic (again, I don't want to think about the camera) but when I'm not I don't want to futz around trying to find what I want.

For me, an on camera flash is nice (I think all DSLRs come with this) but I want to be able to use my own lighting equipment too so a "hot shoe" is essential (I think they all come with this too). If you have any old SLR lighting equipment around you'll want to make sure you can use it with a new camera -- especially if you want to do close up/macro work since a direct flash doesn't always work well for this.

Really, for me, the simplier the better. If I have to think about the camera I'm not thinking about what I'm shooting. I have a Pentax Optio that does 1000x more than my Olympus and I hardly ever use it.

So that's how I chose my camera. (I chose the Optio because it can go underwater and it's pretty cheap.) If it ever does break and I can't find another one just like it used somewhere I'll mostly likely look at Canon Rebel cameras as a replacement.

That's my two cents. I hope it helps.

(And I appreciate the vote of confidence!)

(bookmark)

I went from using a Nikon N-70 film SLR to a Nikon D-80 digital. This is Nikon's "not quite a "professional's camera" but pretty darn close" model. Thusfar it's done everything I've asked of it and more. It has more features than anyone should be expected to remember how to use. Ms. Quinn who is a quasi-professional photographer prefers the Canon 30D (which I think has now been discontinued and replaced by the 40D) but she's always been a fan of the Canon's anyway.

Since I already had a collection of Nikon lenses and she has a collection of Canon lenses those choices made sense for us.

Consumer's Reports just did a review of Digital SLRs in their June '08 issue and they picked the Nikon D80 as their top pick. The Canon D40 was their 2nd pick.

Hey Hey FM

I have a FinePix S7000 - and ... I wouldn't recommend it. I bought it a while back (probably a year or so ago) and have used it maybe a dozen times. It's a good camera in all that it can do - BUT - it doesn't have an anti-shake. Which for me doesn't work, because I pretty much carry my digital Lumix around with me everywhere I go, and get it out quick smart to snap away.

I'm sure with tripod use it is a fantastic camera and if you have a very, very steady hand. I did get some good macro shots, but for me, practically, it's a no go as I don't have the time to set all the shots up.


(bookmark)

I choose the Nikon D-200 due to .... I had lenses for Nikon already.

The D 200 isn't a professional camera neither - but I'm no professional (and the D 300 wasn't out when I got my 200).

A really good professional camera would be the Nikon D3, as a semi-professional I would choose either the Canon EOS 5D or the Nikon D300.


(Is the FinePix S7000 a SLR? I would have doubted that. )

if you need a camera for just simple, point and shoot ability that allows you to get good, detailed close up shots, try a nikon d50, or d70

the types of options that are available on the bigger nikons may not be what you need. And there is no need to by more then what you will use.

A good , used, cheap nikon coupled with a lense that gives you the macro ability that you want should more then suffice.

With a d 70, you can control your ISO sensativity, flash speed/brightness, size of image, aperture , and film speed. Frankly.. that is all you need.
If you need a bigger flash, the d70 is made so that it can use many cheaper model flashes, or Nikon only .

Light weight, tough as nails and will cost you under 800 bucks at most.

If you are not looking for 'photoshop' style abilities with your camera, the d80, 200 and up are not what you need. A bigger camera does not equal better photos. Basic controls + simple knowledge will get you the clear, up close, high definition pictures you need. And it also isnt strictly about megapixels either. Cheap cameras with 10megapixels more then likely dont produce the kinds of photos you need. You have to have a lot of camera behind that number for your photos to come out clear, detailed and precise.


But i could be way off the mark. Im just going from your original post with my rambling ideas.

( I have a d80 an love it if that counts for anything as well.. It has a great point and shoot ability.. but I use mostly manual and programmed auto for split second needs . )

I have a question for those of you using you old SLR lenses on DSLRs --

when shooting in apperature priority can you set it from the lens or do you have to set it through the camera?

both

Actually, there's not a big difference between using the lenses on my Nikon 601 or the D200 - the digital gives more possibilities, though (because the 601 really was a basic model that is).

Thanks! Good to know!

I once had a platoon of Minolta cameras(Minolta was once a camera manufacturer from the Pleiocene and disappeared in the Flood). Minolta had some of the best lenses out there, macro work was flawless and they were light robbers from all spectra. Nobody made lenses like them, too bad.

Thus saying, I obviously still have a large selection of Minolta lenses, all the way from the older to the newer automatic ones. They had a unique bayonet mount and were not interchangeable with other cameras. SO, I guess , with either a Nikon or Canon, Im stuck with buying a whole passle of new lenses.
I was already playing with those CAnon "steady cam" lenses, theyre cool.
AS I said in a previous post, our company had a bunch of Nikon Cool-Pix and we found them to be terribly flimsy.

SO, nobody has come out for any of the less expensive cameras, iits all between Canon and Nikon eh?

The Consumer Reports article I mentioned earlier also had good things to say about the Olympus Evolt 410/420. I'm not familar with the Olympus so I can't speak of it myself... but at $500 it is comparable in price to the Nikon D40x or D50.

Im gonna have to run out to my closest porn mag store and buy a Consumer Reports. They always have good advice. Damn whoda thunk that theyd do an article just when I needs it.

find a used minolta on ebay

no SLR's . The Dimage wasnt too well received

Like I said, I love my Olympus. I think they make a good camera.

The Canon Rebels aren't that expensive. The bodies start at about $400. and most lenses have a close focus feature.

My old Canon lenses are bayonette mount. They're compatable with Vivitar but I don't know about Minolta. (Are either Vivitar or Minolta still around? Both were excellent choices.)

I'm a Canon lover. I still shoot with my 30 year old Canons. Canons are indestructable. I murder cameras so I know this. I haven't used their digitals so I don't know if they are as tough but I'll wager that they can take a licking and keep on ticking.

I really think you ought to look at the Rebels.

Farmerman- For those who have old Minolta lenses, the Sony A700 might be a good option. Sony bought out Konica Minolta, and their lenses fit the camera.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA700/