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

Phoenix32890 wrote:

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.

But only if the old lenses have a Minolta A bajonett; Minolta MC/MD don't work (without adapter [M42, I would think]).

This 'problem' with old lenses isn't new at all: even with the last 'normal' SLR-cameras you couldn't use all old lenses, at least not in all modi.

0 Replies

Travelling last 2 days so I just caught up. Im going to look at the Canon EOS. We have a really good camera shop back home and they let you mess around with a demo camera. They also have staff that are photography students at the U of Del.

Ill be home by Sat , but till then Ill keep looking in . Thanks for all yer advice. Im resigned to the fact that my Minolta lenses will be ancient history. (immgoing to see about selling them somehow)

0 Replies

Well, I bought a Canon Xsi. I love it. Its not overly heavy, it has all the features I can think of and allows me great flexibility . The shots it takes are great and crisp. I can stretch the camera into capturing scenes that I want. Ive been doing a lot of subdued color and black and white. The lenses are great and I even like the little remote thing that is used to trip the lens for tripod shots.

It only has a 3 fps as opposed to the 6 fps that the Nikon has. However, the flexibility and ease of use is superior to the Nikon. EVen the sales staff at the Camera shop(who are either photog majors or working photographers) mostly use Canons for the ease of use and flex reason. Good thing I was allowed to use a Nikon for a day so I could see what I was comparing.

0 Replies

@fishin,

Hi Fishin,
I found the thread using a search engine, so I'm not part of the usual list of posters.

Anyway, I'm starting to overcome the grief of my Nikon film cameras being relics of a bygone era, and in order to salvage some of my investment, would like to find a camera with a mount that lets me use my Nikon-mount lens.

Can I infer from your post that this is a possibility?

Cathy in Idaho

0 Replies

Instead of creating a new thread, I'll resuscitate this one.

I've given up on even considering buying a television for the next 6 months or so. I'm expecting a $1000 to 1200 for my Federal tax refund coming up this year.

I need an digital SLR to carry with me on my walks home from work. It will motivate me to get out of the house when on my days off as well.

Looking at a Canon Rebel T1i or a T2i or the Nikon D5000 because of their Consumer Reports approval ratings.

The couple of SLR's I have owned in my life came with the severely compromised bargain telephoto lens. Disappointing in their close up shots and not so great in their distant shots. Should I buy a slightly cheaper camera and put more money into a better lens? What would be the best type of lens for capturing New York City? Remember, this would be a starter lens until I can afford another one later on.

And what would be the best way to start reorienting myself with the complicated bells and whistles of a modern day SLR? Any suggestions for a book? A tutu rial website? Etc...? If I get the nerve, I also plan and walking into one of the major camera shops in the next couple of weeks to get some expert advice.

1 Reply

bookmark

I have a Sony - which seems fine...but willing to learn.

I also have a Minolta SLR from before the Ice Age. (roughly)

0 Replies

I loved my olympus but it had an unfortunate accident.... Crying or Very sad

I now use a Nikon D-90 and I love, love, love it. It has video capabilities but I've yet to figure that out.

0 Replies

While still using my Nikon D200, I'm thinking of updating it ... either to a D700 or maybe 'only' to a D700.
(But due to the price differences, that won't before before May, when we're doing our US-tour Wink

)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I started off with a Canon Rebel and then bought a Canon 60D. Its not the "Flagship" but has got more technology than anything out there. Ive gotten into macro photography and found that, besides the lenses, I need an ability to do compositioning from all angles . The multi positionable finder is great, and the "Photoshop in a can" that they have on the camera is great. Its still about 1000 cheaper than the 7D which has the bigger MOS and instead of 18 megapixels the 7D has 21. I say that, after about 10 megapixels, its almost a wash.
Im glad I bought into the CANON line because, (and I was allowed to take out a Nikon to try it out), The CANON is supwerior when it comes to being intuitive. (As they say, CANON celebrates the resulting picture, not the gizmology ).
When I bought my first Rebel , I asked all the people at Lancasters Photo center (most were art students at the Pa art Institute, and at CAmeras ETc in Newark Del , where most of the workers were also camera pros. )
A wide margin of the employees who were photographers , owned CANONs cause they like the ease of operation and the output.

0 Replies

@tsarstepan,

To get acclimated onto the modern SLR tech, be aware that most of todays lenses are "Steady cam" varieties and I highly endorse this because I do a lot of shooting from moving platforms.
Also, a good course at an ART SCHOOL (not a community college) will help. The Art SChool mentality will be teaching you the composure and creative stuff along with the workings of the camera.
A camera is just the tool of your craft of photography. A DSLR, because of its structure, allows you to just pile up photo after photo while giving you instantaneous results . You should then be spending time on the composure and the design and then shitcan the rest.

Good Luck.
PS, I would ask some professional photographers about their choices. I think that most police departments use NIKONS for evidentiary work. When I look at Nat Geo and Nature Photography, I see a huge amount of shots don on CANONs. Id ask some of those people , why do they use what they use.

One thing the CAnons allow , is to adapt your old lenses via special Xto Y adapters.(You can adapt even NIKON lenses to shoot on CANON camera bodies) I dont know if opther brands do that. Of course the newer steady lenses are a huge breakthrough in tech.
In summary, I think you will find all of us "loyal" to our brand. Over all, theres probably not any differences in the final photo product, maybe how you get there is what you should be asking about.
I like CANONs because they are so intuitive and all the buttons are right there.

0 Replies

I came across this today in an article about technology myths and thought it might be useful:

Quote:

Size matters (in megapixels)
If you've listened to any camera marketing, you've probably had it pounded into your head that with megapixels, more is better. And of course, the more megapixels you want, the more you have to spend. What a coincidence.
Do megapixels matter?

Do megapixels matter?

But the reality may not back the camera companies' marketing.

As photographer and self-described photography expert Ken Rockwell puts it, "sharpness depends more on your photographic skill than the number of megapixels, because most people's sloppy technique or subject motion blurs the image more than the width of a microscopic pixel.

"Even when megapixels mattered, there was little visible difference between cameras with seemingly different ratings. For instance, a 3-megapixel [photo] pretty much looks the same as a 6-megapixel [photo], even when blown up to" 12 inches by 18 inches.

The Geek Squad's Matos would seem to agree. While he says that megapixels might matter if you're trying to put together a mural--or its cousin, a billboard--the average camera user would almost never see the difference between photos taken with most lower-megapixel and higher-megapixel cameras.

"You really start noticing the differences when you blow the picture up," Matos said. But "it really depends on the size of the image, and how much you plan on blowing it up...If you blow it up to 16 by 20 [inches], you'll still maintain the quality, and you won't notice any difference in quality" with fewer megapixels.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20026047-52.html

1 Reply

@boomerang,

Additionally, they're keeping the size of the sensor the same while increasing the density of the receptors. On lower-end cameras (with high megapixels), this actually results in pictures that are worse than they would be with fewer pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_density

Quote:

In digital photography, pixel density is the number of pixels divided by the area of the sensor. A typical DSLR circa 2008 will have 1-4 MP/cm2; a typical compact will have 20-35 MP/cm2. Interestingly, as can be seen here, the professional camera has a lower PPI than does a compact, because it has larger photodiodes due to having far larger sensors.

0 Replies

And for the reasonably serious amateur, I'd suggest this: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_sx30_is

It's powerful enough to do what you want, but not so bulky and heavy that you'll leave it behind.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

I'll second that. I have the Canon SX20-IS (image stabalization) and for someone who wants to take great pictures, have some serious flexibility and has use for a ridiculous zoom lens, it's a great package. In sunlight, I can shoot soccer games with the 20x zoom like I am standing on the field. I've shot pictures of my daughter's dance recital from the balcony in dim light and got great results (very much to my surprise.) The video mode produces quality equal to my digital camcorder. It has all the full manual modes for those more creative shots and is reasonably light weight. It is also around half the cost of the good DSLR's. On the down side, no lens flexibility

1 Reply

@engineer,

Well, I've got a couple of good (and expensive) lenses, which a like to use (Only the 70-200 Nikkor has a stabilisator, though)

The D700 has a larger sensor ("full" film format). Unfortunately by that, my 200 will just be 200 and not 400 ... if I get that,I mean. (Okay, with my converter, I still would get 400 .... which are 800 now on my D200)

(I'm using Nikon since ages. Thus no other camera has a chance Wink

)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

well, I got my 60D Canon and I love it, especially with the macro lenses (business use). I discover that Im a "prosumer".
Another thing, Canons can use just about anyone elses lenses, (including Nikon) but Nikon cannot say the same.

I have some rock specimens to photo and Im pleased with the mount on the tripod. I was never a fan of how tripod mounts worked with the exception of the great big High mag lenses with the big balance beam on the bottom.

1 Reply

I dunno if Tsar bought his camera already, but.... I went with the Nikon d3100 when I bought my DSLR. It hadn't been reviewed in consumer reports, though - it was too new. Online reviews list the d3100 on a par with the Canon rebel eos Ti2, with the Canon slightly out edging the d3100 in many thing accept pricing.

It is not great for macro. But, keep in mind that just because you can't get a 1/2 inch to a subject for a macro shot, the quality of the photos are so go that you can blow up a shot and get the same effect. That being said, my first lens purchase will likely be a macro lens.

1 Reply

@littlek,

get a varible macro. I do a lot of pix of rock laminae and mineral layering, (along with pictures of my cat)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'll come back when I'm ready to cross that bridge (may not be until June).

1 Reply

@littlek,

littlek wrote:

I'll come back when I'm ready to cross that bridge (may not be until June).

We could go shopping together then Very Happy

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know