Sylvain: Thanks so much for the link. This looks pretty impressive. From your link I found this link <http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond70/> where you can see a side-by-side comparrison of the Nikon D70, the Nikon D100, and the Canon EOS-300D. I’ve got a lump in my throat and my heart just skipped a beat. 🙂
The latest Shutterbug magazine stated that Nikon is going to come out with an 8 MP, 8x Prosumer model 8700 in the near future to compete with the Sony F828. It will probably be in the $1000 range as is the F828. I bought an F828 on Jan 2nd and have taken approx. 200 pix with it and i love it. I can crop out a small portion of the JPEG file and enlarge it to 8×10 without loss of detail – like having a 600mm telephoto lens. If Nikon is your favorite, be patient, it won’t be long.
I have shot more than 20k images with a Nikon D100 and find noise to be a minimal issue with properly lit shots. All digicams (with Nikon not being substantially better or worse than others), however, will suffer from noise to varying extents with grossly underlit and/or very slow exposure pix. Nikon does have a selectable noise filter for such pix, but I never select it. When I do have an underlit shot I fix it with duplicate screen layers and then spot out the noise using the clone tool, which is pretty easy.
You guys don’t know how to read in Manual it is 1/8000 to 1/30 and in several of the auto Modes it is 1/4000 to 8 Secs and in a couple of the Auto Modes it is 1/4000 to 30 Secs and these same modes have a Bulb/Time Setting of up to 10 minutes.
That’s true and I was very impressed with the quality. I love my own Nikon and I guess that’s why I want another one. But still, I am open to suggestions and will research all my options before making a purchase.
The SLRs in the current crop of Nikon/Canon/Fuji SLR digicams are indeed awesome. Which is "best" is very individual and based on needs, except that at the compete-with-medium-format end the Canon 1Ds rules – until Nikon comes out with the D2x…
The 1Ds plus Canon Tilt/Shift lenses are almost enough to make me switch to Canon. However, decades of abusing Nikons from the tropics to snow country have created almost total brand loyalty in me. I will wait to see how good the D2x is, and unless Nikon really screws up (not likely unless they overprice it) I will buy one.
OK I was just at the Fuji site you get a 12 megapixel image because you have 2 sets of sensors.
APS size 12 megapixel (S-pixel: 6.45 million, R-pixel: 6.45 million) Super CCD SR sensor technology for high image quality with wide dynamic range Produces 12.1 Million (4256 x 2848) recorded pixels or choice of (3024 x 2016), (2304 x 1536) and (1440x 960) pixels
The S3 will probably be a very good option for many users with great colours and a useful dynamic range. The only negative I can see in this upgrade is that while it is still effectively a 6MP camera the new Raw files are going to be really big from what I have heard reported, so flash cards are going to fill up after very few images when you shoot RAW. I was surprised to see all the bashing on the Fuji forum over at dpreview though because I have always thought that Fuji are producing great cameras for the money.
The new Canon 1D II will be all the camera that many pro photographers need, while being fast and tough as well. With a good 8MP sensor showing super low noise it will no doubt be successful, but I still think that unless speed is paramount and when quality is important the 1Ds is still the best all round solution on the market.
I am really happy that Kodak finally seems to have solved the quality issues with the 14n and its looking like being the camera that it should have been when it was first introduced 1 year ago. This will hopefully force Canon to be more reasonable on the price front and also means that Fuji won’t be able to charge too much for the S3 while pressure will mount for Nikon to introduce something spectacular.
The only problem is that from recent history, Canon always seems to be about 2 years ahead of the other makers with R & D and I suspect that when Nikon finally introduces something comparable to the 1Ds, Canon will immediately announce the update to the 1Ds which will be so good any improvements made thereafter will be purely academic.
Well even with the S2, Bringing it into PSCS camera RAW, the upsample in the render is mindbogling. I’m thrilled at the detail and sharpness that is held. So thanks Chris and the rest of the crew. photoshop combined with the new generation of digital cameras is truly awsome.
The statement "Canon always seems to be about 2 years ahead of the other makers with R & D" is IMO not exactly true. Yes Canon owns the high end at the moment with the 1Ds, but cameras like the D1, D100, D2h, D70 have all been basically state-of-the-art at their price points when introduced; not 2 years behind. Canon and Nikon are playing leapfrog at the high end of DSLR photography, with awesome products from both firms.
Some of the "forward R&D" items Canon has introduced are things I personally prefer not to complicate a camera system with. But that is just my 0.02 based on negligible Canon experience.
hmm it took Nikon 2 years to produce a camera that could compare to the Canon 1D. The D2h was introduced a couple of months back with basically comparable performance to the old 1D, however, Canon have immediately replied with the 1D mark II which is faster, has the option to shoot twice as many megapixels and none of the noise issues associated with Nikon’s LBCAST sensor. The fact that the 1D mark II is now an 8MP camera opens up numerous other markets to Canon that Nikon just cannot touch with the D2h or D1X.
Nikon still has nothing to compare to the 1Ds that has already been available for about 15 months and there was no mention of an update at the PMA either, so we can be fairly sure that there will be another 6 months at least to wait and there is already much talk about a new update to the 1Ds later this year.
What I think we are seeing in terms of market change is that Canon has the technological edge but at a higher price. When Nikon does introduce a competing camera it costs less as witnessed by the D2h and D70, however, its also true that until Nikon introduces competing products Canon has little motive to lower it prices in a market place where demand is exploding. The Canon 10D also must have made Nikon’s task a real headache when it was introduced 1 year ago because it cost a lot less than the Nikon D100 initially.
I have some experience with Nikon cameras having owned 3 in the past, but that was all pre-digital era. The real problem for the Nikon user as I see it is that while the cameras may be great to handle, ultimate image quality is definitely a long way behind Canon at the high end although they are now competing hard at the low end with the D70 that looks like a great camera. In a time when countless pros are making the switch to digital I hear of many Nikon owners making the move to Canon but rarely the other way around.
In 3 to 4 years I think quality differences will be purely academic, however, Canon has created an impression of momentum that is hard for Nikon or any other manufacturer to match, so while the quality of digital capture is still rising Canon look like the clear winners to me. Just for the record, I am not a Canon zealot and would be happy to shoot with anything that does the job. I would really like to see far more competition between the manufacturers at the high end because it would force all of them to produce better products at lower prices and with fewer defects.
The advantage that both Nikon and Canon have over Fuji at present is their prestigious legacy if you like as makers of 35mm SLR cameras.
Fuji’s problem as it moves from film to digital is its need to tap into a market of lens owners who will be willing to use their cameras and I suspect that if they were given a chance, the S3 would be marketed with either the Canon or Nikon mount, but Canon won’t play ball nowadays as its aim is total market domination. Nikon are happy to sell camera bodies to 3rd party manufacturers because this increases their revenue while giving consumers more reason to stay with the Nikon lens range, however, they won’t supply top quality bodies like the D1X to Fuji or Kodak because at that point it would seriously undermine their own brand sales especially as Fuji are clearly very good as far as sensor technology is concerned.
What will the situation be in 5 years time? your guess is as good as mine but I can foresee a sort of merger between Nikon and Fuji as a lifeline for both. For Fuji to start marketing its own bodies and lenses with a quality comparable to Nikon and then build up a loyal client base would take many years, while Nikon would clearly benefit from having the expertise and not to mention money from one of the worlds leading image makers.
Judging by everything I have read, the real battle here is not actually about selling digital cameras at all but in creating a base of future lens buyers because that is where the real money lies. Once you have a few lenses with any given system it becomes almost impossible to justify selling everything and switching to a competing product. Digital capture demands very good lenses to deliver the best results and future state of the art lenses capable of doing justice to future generations of sensors will be very expensive indeed.
As for Fuji in the short term, I think a great deal will depend on their price position within the market. They don’t have access to tough professional bodies like the new Canon 1D II with fast auto focus, so no matter how good their sensor technology is they will have difficulty in pricing their products too high if they want to remain attractive to consumers. Assuming that Fuji can enter the market at the right price point with the S3 and I am guessing that this may even be lower than the Canon 10D, I believe they can continue to carve out a useful cut of the market as a discerning choice for owners of Nikon lenses or new DSLR buyers that don’t need a tank like construction or super fast performance, but want all the advantages of excellent image quality at a reasonable price and this could include many advanced amateurs as well as pros.
Buko to ask how the Fuji S2 and S3 compare to Nikon and Canon will depend very much on your needs. My main reason for choosing Canon was that I already owned 5 lenses or I would have seriously considered going down the Fuji route.
We don’t yet really know enough about the Fuji S3 either from a price or quality standpoint. My bet is that it will produce very good colours and generally pleasing images that are more than usable for many applications. Perhaps not a complete revolution compared to the S2, but nevertheless a useful upgrade. With that said, it’s unlikely that it will be comparable to the 1Ds for resolution which will be a limitation for some and its obvious weak point is the body construction and slow operation compared to cameras from other makers offering comparable image quality, so it will have to remain reasonably priced.
If you really require tank like construction and a durable shutter etc the Fuji is probably not a great idea but I think the whole concept of only using camera bodies built like the old Nikon F for use in the tropics is overstated, so if you don’t intend on going to war they are simply unnecessary for may users including pros. Taking two amateur camera bodies on a shoot is probably a lot safer than one pro body.
I have the S2. I liked what I saw image wise over the Nikon D100 at the time. I also have Nikon lenses, an old F2 F3 F4 user. Other than the S2 being a bit slow, after 7 shots because it has to write to disk, I really like the S2 and it has served me well so far. I was hoping that the S3 would be some awsome upgrade from the S2.
Many users of the S2 have been disappointed by the announced changes in the S3 but I think it is premature to be so pessimistic before some sample images and a price have been released.
The main complaints were about maintaining the old body and not seeing an increase in megapixels, however, megapixels are far from being the only component in making a good image and the S3 may yet surprise us. I agree that the S2 produces better images than the D100, so with the S3 promising greater dynamic range with more detail in both the shadows and highlights it could set a standard in overall image quality for others to aspire to or at least high quality images at a price point other manufacturers cannot match. Let’s wait and see.
Well if the S3 images are the same quality as the S2 images with greater highlight detail, that’s pertty darn cool. I’ve be playing with enlarging the RAW files with camera RAW in CS. even at the largest setting the interpolation is impressive.
maybe the S2 price will drop and I can get one for cheap.
I’ve been doing a little research Buko and although its nothing official, the common consensus is that the S3 will cost just under $3000 in the US when released. Fuji obviously thinks that the new sensor technology is something pretty special if they intend to demand that sort of money and most people felt it should cost around half that price to remain attractive to potential buyers.
Besides photo-journalists do you really need a digital camera that’s build like a tank. In the old days you bought a camera that would last you for the rest of your live and would provide you with the same image quality as long as you owned the camera.
Now camera’s that are designed like the Canon D1 are "absolute" for most pro’s after one or two years, just because a better one comes out with a better quality sensor. So what’s the point of buying and paying a premium price for a camera that most likely is going to be replaced as soon as a better one comes out?! The only reasons I can come up with is tax deduction, a good show for the client and it feels better in your hands.
In the case of a camera like the new 1D, it has incredible auto focus and fast handling that most cheaper bodied cameras cannot match. The 10D offers a really nice compromise on build quality without having to spend too much and while the auto focus is acceptably fast for most people it isn’t nearly as precise as the 1D. In practice it means you are more likely to get a fast moving subject in critical focus at F2.8 and exactly where you want with a 1D, while with a 10D you may need to go to F4 and just hope the main subject is in focus.
As far as the question of body construction alone goes however I agree with you totally.
That’s a valid point, I guess for $3000 or more you can expect more then only a stronger body. I think the buffer and how fast you can shoot again are one of the most important things you have to look at when buying a pro digital camera.
Just as a matter of interest, how many of us really care about the 101 features in all these digital cameras? For years I did nearly 100% of my work with a Hasselblad 500CM and later a 501CM which were both totally mechanical with no inbuilt light-meter and manual focus, but the irony is that I was able to work remarkably quickly and precisely shooting models as they ran on a beach or moved around in the studio. On the few times I picked up the Eos 1, I found it so simple, it felt like I was flying.
From my perspective, all I am looking for from a digital camera is a reliable body with good ergonomics and reasonable speed coupled to an outstanding sensor. All the rest is just smoke getting in the way of taking good pictures and I am concerned at the tendency of manufacturers to put too many useless buttons on the modern digital cameras although Nikon are much better in this respect than Canon. It seems that with every update we are offered more features and options when all we really need in a professional or semi-professional camera is ease of use to avoid making mistakes or missing the shot while shuffling through menus.
It’s just like cell phones; I asked a sales clerk at Best Buy if It was possible to make phone calls with a particular cell phone I was looking at, they where advertising only the gadgets. He didn’t understand my joke……
And most menus are not really written with the creative mind in mind.
I printed a couple of the other shots after uprezzing to 20×30 inches at 300dpi and they looked pretty good and roughly equal to medium format film quality. the 1D is an improvement on the 10D in every sense but not enough in terms of resolution to make me want to buy one at that price. The 1Ds still seems to be the only camera out there with enough quality to do any job I could ever throw at it.
Its worth mentioning that Canon have said other sample images will be released in about a month or so using final production cameras and not a pre-release model as in this case, so we may see some further improvement. Rumours about the update to the 1Ds include a 15MP Fovean type sensor in which case any arguments for continuing to use film will be forgotten very quickly.
It was the inconsistancy between the left and right sides of the frame that concerned me most, it could have just been that particular zoom lens or sensor misalignment or something else completely. The lower right image quality of the night time shot (7) was poor.
I see what you are saying about image 7. It could be an issue with a pre-release camera in which case they would have been better not to have shown it or maybe it was a weakness in the quality of the lens. Perhaps the biggest current limitation in the quality of digital capture is not the sensors but the lenses which were originally designed for film and just don’t cut it anymore.
Wide angle lenses in particular seem to suffer badly at the edges where a good sensor shows up any weakness in resolving detail. With my own camera I have noticed that I can shoot at F2.8 using the super sharp 100mm macro and the image will show good detail straight out of the camera, whereas with the 28mm lens everything appears pretty soft unless I close down a couple of stops and its not just a question of depth of field. Many lenses have trouble providing sufficient resolution to allow digital capture to really shine.
Zeb: I guess I want just the basics that will help me determine which new digital is best. I get conflicting reports from my friends. The digital I currently own is the Nikon 990 and I pretty much use the automatic settings for most everything. I want to buy a newer digital with the best quality, highest resolution, and ease of use possible for around $1,000.00.
I like the Nikon and wanted to buy another one… but I’ve been getting advice against it. I’ve seen some of the Canon’s shots and am very impressed. I also have been told that the Canon is cheaper and the lenses are better.
Yet… I was impressed with Bonnie’s Nikon D100 when she brought it to PSWorld last summer.
It would help if I understood all the terminology, etc. but have a full plate for learning new stuff right now.
Linda, that camera is probably a very good camera if you want a fixed lens meaning you cannot buy lenses for this camera. It might not be a bad idea for you since you like automatic settings etc. Just be aware that if you ever want more of a zoom for this camera you cannot change it.
Please bear with me and what might appear to be foolishness.
How far would this lens reach in lay terms… Say I wanted to zoom in on the stork that visited our pond last week. I’d say he was 200 feet away. Would I be able to get a good closeup shot of him with this lens?
Linda I don’t think you will be happy without the ability to add a zoom lens. The one I used at the zoo was a 75-300mm. I would like more and have that option.
If I were you I would go to a camera store and have them set you up with a camera and a 75-300 mm zoom. Then go out of the store and have a look at some signs or something so you can see for yourself just how much of a zoom you get. You don’t have to buy it and I am sure they would be more than happy to help you out.
I do have a 28-135mm zoom which is what I keep on the camera most of the time so the lens that which that camera Zeb suggested is a really good range so it just depends on what you want. The built in lens is also equivalent to Canons "L" glass which is really good glass.
To be fair you didn’t include bird photography in your requirements. That camera is not really suited to long range bird photography, but you could set up a small ‘hide’ and use remote control. Amazingly it has a 3cm (just over one inch) close focus so if you could get close enough you should have a pretty detailed photo. Your 990 was a 38-115mm equivalent so the Canon is nearly twice that plus it has over twice the number of pixels so you should see a dramatic increase in picture quality.
"L" glass is Canons best. I personally cannot afford the "L" glass in this stage of the game and I get pretty fair photos. I wouldn’t get the "L" lenses until I started making serious money with my camera.
Zeb: I can generally get within 60 feet of most of the birds on our property. Whereas birds are not my primary interest I would love to be able to capture them.
Another subject I have shot before and may be asked to shoot again is horse shows. I wonder how this camera would do with jumping horses. Actually I did pretty good with my 990 but had to click in advance to finally catch the horse as it was going over the jump.
BTW, thanks for the glossary link. I’ll hang onto it.
Well even at 60′ you won’t get much detail on a small bird, a stork would be bigger but it’s not meant for that. As far as I’m aware the camera is not on sale yet and the shutter lag is not mentioned in the specifications but it will be much faster than the 990, and could be used for horse shows.
It does sound like a great camera. Like I said, it just depends on what you want. You may be very happy with a point and shoot but I personally want to be able to expand. That is why I got the cheaper body. I can invest in lenses and upgrade the body in a year or two and still get great photos.
Cindy: You are much more of a photograher than I am. I want to be able to "cheat" (for lack of a better word) enough to produce high quality images for my clients (and my own pleasure) in the most efficient and cost effective way possible.
I think the term professional is a marketing term. Both would both give exceptional image quality. Canon ‘L’ means they either have special glass or design in their lenses. Wait until they become available and try them, sometimes how they feel in your hands is a big deciding factor and how easy they are to use. A digital SLR is another option but a decent lens will take you beyond your stated budget.
That’s a good idea. I will wait and try them Zeb. I’m not quite ready financially but hope to be after I finish a job I’ve been working on.
I feel I can justify the $1,000.00 since I recently braced myself to pay around that much to have my printer repaired. After I fixed it myself I decided I would use the money I saved for a much anticipated new digital. 🙂
I just checked to see what my Nikon 990 Zoom is and I believe it is 8-24mm. If this Canon is 28-200 mm, that’s quite a difference. It might be all I really need.
Apples and oranges. The effective field of view and the resulting zoom effect vary according to the size of the sensor, just like an 85mm lens is by no means a telephoto on a medium format camera. Each digital camera has a certain "magnification" factor to let you know what the approximate equivalent is in terms of 35mm photography.
The lens of the Canon PowerShot Pro1, according to dpreview, is indeed the equivalent of a 28-200mm zoom lens in terms of 35mm photography.
Your Nikon Coolpix 990 is rated by dpreview as a 38mm to 115mm equivalent in terms of 35mm photography, even though its actual focal lengths go from 8mm to 24mm.
Therefore, the effective maximum focal length (again compared to 35mm) of the Canon PowerShot Pro1, would be less than twice the maximum focal length of your Nikon Coolpix 990. It is in fact, less than 75% more "powerful" (200 divided by 115 = 1.739130435).
As a matter of fact, all other things being equal, a 38-115 lens (3.03 zoom ratio) would tend to be better in quality (chromatic aberration, pincushion and/or barrel distortion, etc) than a 28-200 (7.14 zoom ratio).
As long time foe of zoom lenses in general, personally I wouldn’t touch a camera that had a non-interchangeable lens with a 7.14 zoom ratio (28-200) like that Canon with a ten-foot pole. That’s just my personal preference.
In light of this information the Nikon is weighing in a little heavier.
The COOLPIX 8700 comes loaded with all the essential accessories: a battery and charger, an A/V cable, a USB cable and the comprehensive Nikon View software package. The camera is also compatible with a host of optional accessories, including wideangle, telephoto and fisheye converters. It can also be fitted with a Lens Hood that uses lens filters. In addition, the COOLPIX 8700’s accessory shoe accommodates a number of Nikon’s external Speedlights.
On the other hand, look at dirt-cheap lenses like Samyang (a company that only sells noodles in its native Korea), or the Samyang lenses sold here also under the Phoenix brand: those cheapo lenses will have high zoom ratios.
Is there a reason you’re not considering the Digital Rebel (Canon EOS-300D)? It is well within your price range and it is a true digital SLR, with interchangeable lenses. Several of the reputable mail order stores (like B&H Photo) have an offer for the camera plus one lens for just under $1,000. Memory cards are a different matter, but you need those for any digital camera.
At least it’s a camera around which you can build a collection of lenses
you can use until you are ready to buy more lenses…
Just think about it, Linda, every time you fix your printer you’ll be able to afford a couple of very fine lenses! If that sucker breaks down every six months or so, in less than a couple of years you’ll have a fine array of lenses.
Thats what I did and couldnt be happier. I almost got the 10D but with that $500 I saved I was able to put that towards a lens. If a better camera comes out in a year or so I will have a few lenses to use.
I was under the impression that the Nikon is expandable by way of lenses…
Only by screwing adapters onto the filter thread of the non-interchangeable lens. Sort of like screwing in a magnifying glass instead of a filter (turning it into a pseudo telephoto) or a bubble lens to make it a fish-eye or wide-angle lens. Mickey Mouse comes to mind.
So there are better ways to attaching lenses than having to screw them on.
What that particular Nikon camera wants you to do is to screw and adapter on top of the non-interchangeable lens in order to change its apparent focal length. In this situation you are not changing lenses at all, you’re just using the filter thread on the camera lens to attach a "magnifying glass" (for a telephoto effect) or a bubble lens (for a wide-angle or fish eye effect).
Therefore, it’s not a question of attaching a lens to the camera, but a Mickey Mouse gadget to the front of your one and only lens.
With a true SLR (digital or film) you actually change the lenses, take one off, put another one on your camera body. Most SLRs, if not all, nowadays have bayonet mounts, although you can use a bayonet-to-thread adapter to attach an M-42 ("Universal") mount to the Pentax D*ist digital SLR in fully manual mode.
After having seen the results folks are obtaining from the Digital Rebel (Canon EOS 300-D), if I were looking for a digital camera in this price range, I would not hesitate to buy one myself, without waiting for another model with a couple of more megapixels.
At US$1000, consider SLR. Currently the the Nikon D70 is the best SLR digicam at that price range with the Canon Rebel second. You should read the reviews.
SLR cameras are a huge step up from non-SLR cameras: bigger and heavier with bigger and heavier lenses, meaning designers made less compromises in materials and design to make things small and light. And of course interchangeable lenses.
Both Nikon and Canon make **excellent** lenses in a wide range of quality and price; the best of either brand is beyond most folks needs. One of those two brands is not "better" than the other, even though individual lens comparisons will vary. I do recommend that you stick with the brand of camera body you buy (Nikon lenses for Nikon, Canon for Canon; avoid third party unless you are a *very* competent lens/camera quality researcher).
I am reading the D70 has a few features missing from the Digital Rebel but the image quality is not as good. That is the bottom line. The "features" it is missing will not be missed by most. I believe it is FEC which can easily be fixed with a good external flash. Something you should have anyway.
The Digital Rebel has exactly the same sensor as the Canon D10.
Shop around – as B&H has grown they have lost their low pricing in many instances. Actually the Nikon D70 body is available for US$999 as opposed to US$899 for the Canon Digital Rebel body. IMO the D70 looks to be more than US$100 better. However, the D70 is out just this month, so it makes sense to wait a month for prices to stabilize and for all the pro reviewers to get their $0.02 commentary made on production versions of the camera.
VERY IMPORTANT: always handle the camera you may buy. Different folks have different ergonomic preferences that can be HUGE.
I am almost tempted to hold out for a 10 megapixel model.
If you do decide that you need medium-format equivalency like the 1Ds, wait until Nikon comes out with its competition to the Canon 1Ds (probably the D2x) later this year and then decide. Prices will be lower as alternatives in the genre exist.
<< Then by all means go with the 11-megapixel Canon 1Ds, only $8,000. Nothing else can touch it. If the price is a little steep, just repair your printer yourself every month and you can afford the 1Ds by October. >> You’re funny Ramon! 🙂
At US$999 for the body you could buy a D70 now and have months of use before going the US$5000+ for medium format equivalency. By then you will be so enamored with SLR digicams you will want to keep the D70 as a backup…
Linda>John V: Are you looking to buy a new camera? If you are, which one would you be inclined to go with?
Didn’t realize I was invited back to the party!
I’m looking for a "35mm" digital camera system for myself and searching for a point and shoot camera for one of my clients who doesn’t want to carry around his 35mm Nikon or Fuji S2 all the time. Right now he has a Canon G2 – a 4 meg camera. The quality is really nice for such a small camera but he prints images too large – 11×14 – and the images fall apart – unfortunately he doesn’t see the image degrade until I point it out to him. When I ask why he doesn’t use the Fuji S2 – at times it’s in the same camera bag – he says "I felt like shooting with the G2"…not a very clear answer but I have to be a psychologist with him at times. He is a fine art photographer represented by a very well known gallery in NYC and the gallery is reluctantly willing to sell digital prints. I’m trying to keep the image and print quality top notch as not to scare the gallery. He’s been selling traditional silver prints at the gallery but he would like to move to a total digital workflow.
Anyway regarding point and shoot cameras, both the Nikon and Canon 8 Meg cameras are available – Nikon Coolpix 8700 and Canon Pro1. For me and my client the bottom line will be image quality first and features and ergonomics a close second. I’m basically going to wait to see reviews for both cameras. But it seems from the mini reviews around the web both are comparable – handling wise at least. In general Canon has shown they have the better imaging chip but will keep an open mind about this general statement – who knows Nikon might surprise us. Both will be in the $1000. range. I have the Nikon 995 and it’s a real nice camera and was THE prosumer camera to get at one time but times change quickly. I have all the additional lenses from Fisheye to Tele and it’s a comprise to screw the lenses on and set camera to use the specific lenses and image quality suffers also. So basically going with a point and shoot camera even with screw-on lenses is not a setup that you can grow with over the long term and once again image quality is degraded with the screw-on lenses – even if the lenses are Nikon.
So Linda…since you fixed your laser printer and saved $1000. Which way should you go? If I only had a $1000. to spend on a camera system I’d go with the Canon 300 with the zoom to get started. Don’t worry about losing the extra two megs of image data with the new point shoot cameras as in a couple of years their will be 10+ meg cameras for $1000 and you’ll have interchangeable lens ready to place on the new camera. My Apple Store in NJ has the Canon 300 to play with. Yours might carry it also…play with it you’ll love the superfast and quite auto focus…also the camera is light. Also check out the NAPP price at PC/MacMall.
Nikon has the D70 so you could wait for the reviews. In general it seems Nikon’s flash system is better than Canon’s. As mentioned handling is important also so play once the camera is out. But I still feel the Canon 300 will have better image quality…just an educated guess!
I’ve been a Nikon user for 25 years but have no problem switching over to Canon as I’ve worked with both Nikon D100 and Canon 300/10D images and the Canon images are noise free and sharper when compared to the Nikon D100. Fuji’s S2 Images are very close in quality to the Canon 300/10D. I was hoping Fuji would surprise us with the S3 but was very underwhelmed with their announcement.
Also the following people use Canon: Chris Cox, Thomas Knoll (right there that should tell us something!) and if not…Andre Rodney, Bruce Fraser and Jeff Shewe also shoot with Canons.
I’ve been a Nikon user for 25 years but have no problem switching over to Canon as I’ve worked with both Nikon D100 and Canon 300/10D images and the Canon images are noise free and sharper when compared to the Nikon D100.
Here’s what you do. You buy a Flash card (you will use it later anyway) and a card reader (you can get them for $20). Walk into a camera store, ask the sales person if you could take some test shots. They generally will be more than happy to help you. If not, go to another camera store.
Plug in your flash in camera 1, go outside, take some shots. Plug in your flash to camera 2, take the same shots. Be sure you have the ISO and other settings as close to the same as you can get them.
Go home and look at your shots in Photoshop. Buy the one you like.
When making camera comparisons, compare the Rebel against the D70 and the Canon D10 against the Nikon D100.
The Rebel and the D10 take identical pictures. There are a few features missing in the Rebel and the construction is not quite as good but the D10 is heavy compared.
What a wealth of information you added (I knew you would)… thanks very much! I am swinging toward the Canon. It looks like the Canon 300 has come down in price about $600… still I can’t help but think there will be a replacement soon.
Unless I really jump forward with photography and I start making enough money to warrant another upgrade, I will be hanging onto the same camera for a few years… so replacing it in a year or two might not work in my decision making process.
I have some pictures I downloaded a while back that were taken with a Canon Rebel. They were unbelievable! Maybe I can get a link or permission to post so I can show you.
Taking my own flash cards to a dealer is a wonderful idea! I have three flash cards for my Nikon 990. I assume they still work with the newer setups.
This is another one of those keeper threads. Very Exciting!
Cindy’s m.o. makes sense IF you also test some shots with the latest add-on strobes from Nikon/Canon on their respective digital bodies (shoot the Nikon with and without the flash softening hood on the strobe).
The difference in modern strobe/lens/camera combinations is HUGE, hard to believe unless you use the hardware. Nikon’s SB-800 (and presumably the even newer 600) strobe is much, much better than anything I have previously used, and previously I used just one generation back. My preconceptions regarding strobes and how they behave has changed with the SB-800 used on a modern Nikon.
Note that the modern digital camera/lens/strobe all work in synch to a degree that older setups can not do; these are very much strobe/camera/lens systems. If you will ever use the strobe (and you should use one often for fill) you should consider the modern strobe/lens/camera combination when you make purchase decisions.
Personally IMO the D100 is not really a good choice at this point. It is actually old technology to the D70.
Also check out the issue of wireless etc. images uploading choices, as well as wireless strobe synching. Nikon’s latest is pretty slick.
I’ve appreciated all the advice you’ve offered here and other places… I plan to sort through this thread at some point, start a Word document, organize it, print it and go with the best choice that works for me. I usually shop this way.
If I’m not mistaken I believe you were part of the thread I started for my scanner two or three years ago. 🙂
It wasn’t directed at you, the person involved has long since passed away. It’s interesting how people choose what they buy especially when there is so much to choose from. Last week I had this discussion with someone else about choosing a new computer and he said always ask before you give advice whether the other person will take it. Four years ago, I thought I would never buy another Mac but then the Cube came out and I couldn’t resist.
You may not want to waste time on a photo class unless it is taught as a digital SLR class. There are many things – even the teaching techniques themselves – that are way more modern with SLR digicams than with film. Most of the film-only teachers do NOT get the fact that it really is a new photo world. Instead, buy an SLR digicam and start taking photos – unlike with film, pix are free!
Buy a few photo texts and read about depth of field and the like, find a photog or two to discuss photography with, and… take lots of pix! THOUSANDS! FREE! Shoot, review in camera/laptop, reshoot, think outside the box, shoot-shoot-shoot. Fool with all the camera control alternatives, and shoot-shoot-shoot.
The ability to shoot thousands of images and review every one instantly is a totally new learning process. Go for it – don’t wait! Waiting three months equates to 5000 photos/learning you missed out on.
I would go along with that suggestion. I think that shooting digital speeds up the learning process simply because of the amount of photos you can experiment with and delete if you want. The same rules apply.
I have taken close to 7000 photos since last October and I know those who have taken many more than that. I would be out more often if weather and time permitted. I just love it.
I too am really enjoying this thread. But it is so painful…I have to wait 2-3 weeks to get my new camera and in the meantime have to make do with my old bomber. I was trying not to look TOO much at new cameras online, but Linda had to get this started! 🙂
Do NOT believe the "it’s no contest" BS from some unknown individual in a chat room. Wait until you get multiple real reviews by competent reviewers of production versions; anything else is nonsense. And even then, touch it, work the camera. The small details one person finds offensive work great for someone else.
A small technical difference in image quality often is, in real world usage, way overshadowed by an ergonomic difference that lets that one individual photog "get the shot." If you don’t "get the shot," 97 megapixels and perfect color are MEANINGLESS. Otherwise one brand would own the space, which definitely is not the case, despite some of the comments on this thread.
Note too that prototype preproduction cameras normally test less well than production versions. Preproduction reviews are of interest regarding features and technology, but for image quality evaluation only cameras well into the production cycle are reviewable in any meaningful way. And of course the lenses used in testing are hugely relevant: is it X brand’s cheapest lens, or its best?
P.S. "Get the shot" refers to the fact that almost every photo environment is time based one way or another. Light changes, models sweat and change expression, subjects move, etc. Even totally static studio product photography requires time based production. The camera/lens/strobe that works best in *your* hands to facilitate releasing the shutter with good composition, proper exposure and minimal camera movement at the correct instant is the one to have.
Linda, I really wouldn’t worry too much about which camera you get in the short term. It is an absolute certainty that both Nikon and Canon will come out with newer better cameras and it will be sooner rather than later in the current climate. The problem with procrastinating forever is that you will end up always waiting for a better camera just like I find myself doing with the computer as I continue to crawl along with my old G4.
At this stage, I would say its of greater importance to look at which system you feel happiest about investing in with a view to what it will do for you over the next ten years and then buy a camera from that range because you will then end up buying another one in just a year or two at most.
Within 3 years I think any practical differences between the Nikon and Canon range will be down to personal taste just like before the digital revolution began. With digital technology the lenses are much more important than they were with film, so go for the best lenses you can afford and concentrate on developing a good technique. For the first few months of shooting digital I think my film experience almost held me back, because there are real differences in the way of working and you have to put away ideas of better or worse and just work at learning how to get the best out of the digital medium.
Another point is not to go too crazy over the megapixel issue. Just because a camera has more megapixels does not mean it will produce better quality images. Its all about getting a balance between the number of pixels and the size of the sensor. If you cram 8MP onto a small sensor you get noisy images, whereas some of the old leaf digital backs which were only 6MP backs, but had a large sensor were capable of some pretty amazing results. Basically you should look at the way the files print and not the size of the files.
I would also be a little sceptical about manufacturers sample images since you have no idea of what tricks may have been used to create a particular effect. Many years ago I struggled to understand why my Pentax ME Super just wouldn’t give me results like the images in the brochure. A couple of years later I discovered the shots had been taken with a Hasselblad. When I was a photo assistant, the photographer I worked for shot some Fuji film advertising campaigns with Kodak film. Fuji complained so he shot it on both Fuji and Kodak film. When Fuji were presented with the two samples they published the Kodak results as their own. Try to get some samples that you know are reliable!
I just got through pasting the past two days of this thread into a Word document, reading it over again while highlighting the main points. You all are so helpful!!!
Responses to some of the threads since I last posted:
No fair…that’s shot with a Hassy!
Youre right John. I saw that too after I posted. Oh well 🙂
I was trying not to look TOO much at new cameras online, but Linda had to get this started!
Whoops, sorry! 🙂
I just want to clear up some of the terminology for Linda (aka LRK) first of all the round thing is the lens!
Wade: I knew you were going to say something but expected much worse. Im actually relieved. :\
Another point is not to go too crazy over the megapixel issue. Just because a camera has more megapixels does not mean it will produce better quality images. Its all about getting a balance between the number of pixels and the size of the sensor. If you cram 8MP onto a small sensor you get noisy images, whereas some of the old leaf digital backs which were only 6MP backs, but had a large sensor were capable of some pretty amazing results. Basically you should look at the way the files print and not the size of the files.
They will probably have something for you this year in the way of a replacement for your camera.
I don’t know it they have it in the libraries but there is a book put out by Lieca called appropriate enough the Lieca Manual or at least I know it as the Lieca Manual.
If you can get a hold of the book it will explain the history of the 35mm camera and many things about photography that still hold true even in this digital age. You migt want to read it. You get it when you buy a Lieca or at least you use to.
I wish Lieca would consider making a serious entry in the professional digital market, but I guess like me they have serious reservations about the technology as well and only have a amateur model.
Oh yes Linda Lieca invented the 35mm camera and make incredibly sharp lenses or at least the use to. Canon and Nikon lenses don’t come close.
[Post #123] Shop around – as B&H has grown they have lost their low pricing in many instances.
I just thoroughly researched the price of the Canon Digital Rebel, and no one among the reputable sellers has a materially better price than B&H. Really sleazy outfits like Gazma Inc. and RoyalCamera.com do post a price that is $100 less, but they will more than make up for the difference with outrageous shipping and handling charges, mandatory accessories and gray-market merchandise.
I’m still amazed at the quality of pictures I squeeze out of my Leica IIc rangefinder camera, which by now is something like 64 years old. I use it about three times a year, just to keep it in good working condition.
The Leica Manual is a classic. I have several of the original German editions (as I’m much more comfortable with German than with English) and one in English, but I’m afraid Linda would just be overwhelmed by them. Actually, Kodak puts out some excellent basic books along these lines. I got their latest edition of "35mm photography" as a stocking stuffer for one of my daughters last Xmas and I was very impressed by its quality. All my three children are independent adults by now and so far they haven’t been bitten by the photography bug as badly as I have since I was about nine. My two-year old grandson may be doomed, though; his other (maternal) grandfather is a pro. Between both our genes, the kid is prime material to get addicted to our vice.
Canon EOS-1Ds, 11.1 Megapixel, Interchangeable Lens, Professional, SLR, Digital Camera
Yes, that looks sweet for sure. The price tag is another story.
Cindy: You are so bad, lol! 🙂
I’ll look for the book. I remember trying to learn from a book when I bought my Nikon. I gave up for different reasons. I’ll check the library first and then Barnes & Noble.
I also have a journalist friend works out of the country. When she returns again I might see if she will help me learn more about cameras in general. I allow her to use my scanner when she’s here so I don’t think she would mind helping me a little with some photography.
The Lieca is very interesting but it does limit the use of the PC lens which I don’t think they make any more. They use to have a 24mm but with a focal length factor of 1.37 that makes the lens a 33mm which is not acceptable if the make it full frame or better then they really have something.
My dis of B&H was as regards your observation (post #118) of a US$1600 price for a D70, which is far above market price. I always check them when I buy things, but internet pricing and buyer ratings have now given them lots of quality competition in the mail order selling space. I still only buy film from B&H, however, because film is such a fragile/perishable product and B&H has proven for decades that they add minimal deterioration to that self-destructing product.
Fortunately I buy very little film now that quality SLR digicams exist. Note that for the cost of film & processing of the 7000 shots Cindy has taken since October a person could buy THREE great quality SLR digicams like the Nikon D70!
Also note that my Nikon D100, one of the early ones, cost me more than US$3000 for the body only from B&H and I was (and still am) THRILLED – because it promptly paid for itself in two months. And it brought me into a new level of learning about photography now that I had instant feedback to what happens as each variable changes in SLR photography; way cool! I had 30 years of Nikon film SLRs and 4 generations of Nikon Coolpix digicams (900, 950, 990, 5000) prior to owning the D100, but the digicam SLR was a major new learning tool.
That’s why I appear to be such an SLR digicam evangelist. I love to see learning facilitated, whether it is in myself or someone else. I actually got hooked on digicams with the first (awful) webcam I bought before under US$10000 digicams existed. For the first time any newbie could see, in real time, the huge color changes to the digital image that resulted from small lighting variations. I was hooked.
Actually evaluating the fully equipped price makes sense. That lens & the GB card are very appropriate, but I would prefer one or better still two cheaper 512 MB CF cards if the package price would allow it. I use two 512 MB cards and it works just fine. One card can be uploading to the computer while you keep shooting with the other. Of course if someone can afford the fastest and largest capacity CF cards they could always buy multiple 4 GB cards…
I always use the 512MB CF cards because that way you can fit the entire contents from a series of Raw files onto 1 CD without having to split the contents as you would with a 1 gig card. As soon as the files have been copied to the computer, I make a CD back up which can be done while I am shooting and then I feel safe to wipe the contents from the CF card so that it can be used again.
Depending on what kind of a relationship you have with your favorite local camera store, you may be able to get them to lend or rent you different demo models to try one after the other before you buy. This will be a lot more fun and productive than researching stuff on the net and/or magazines and books.
In case anyone is unfamiliar with the jargon, digicam is just jargon for any digital camera. SLR means Single Lens Reflex, basically like all those full size 35 mm cameras you have always seen. A modern SLR has [A] readily and fully interchangeable true lenses (not just screw on additions to some built-in standard lens) and [B] a through-the-lens viewfinder, meaning that you see exactly what the film or digital sensor sees.
The engineering to effect SLR functionality makes for heavier and larger sized cameras than almost all non-SLR cameras. However, they are much, much more technologically capable of "getting the shot" (see post #168). Many extremely useful technical features typically only exist in SLRs, partially because the size and weight of an SLR allows such features to be engineered in at reasonable cost.
The sellers of cameras have moved the high end of non-SLR cameras (often called "point-and-shoot") up to where pricewise and megapixel wise they overlap with SLRs. However, they are NOT similar. SLRs intrinsically are 3x as competent (if I can use that word to describe cameras) as point-and-shoot cameras. Note that I said more competent, I did not say better. A lighter, smaller Nikon Coolpix 5700 could well be "better" for some folks’ purposes than a full size Nikon D70 or Canon 10d.
That’s true, but 5 gigs is far too much data to lose if you have a system crash or your hard disk dies. At least while I am on a shoot, I would prefer to cut that risk into smaller amounts and be backing up more often. Then at a later date the total data can be burned to a DVD and the CD’s can be trashed if you like. All of this is only relevant to work obviously and if your just out taking pictures for fun at the weekend I guess you can do as you like.
Modern Nikon/Canon zoom lenses allow optimizing compositon and image data, and can produce very good image quality. The 18-70 mm Nikon digicam wide angle to telephoto lens you referenced in post #194, for instance, is ideal for the new owner of an SLR digicam.
Fixed focus lenses today are best for fairly specialized usage, meaning those times when you have time to be changing lenses and/or you have the luxury of knowing what the precise shot will be well ahead of time (e.g. a landscape). And of course when one can afford the luxury of multiple lenses.
Wide angle 20 mm and 60 mm macro lenses are my favorites, but 24-85 zoom is what lives on the camera and gets most of the work. Of course since I am mostly shooting digitally now, 24-85 is 36-127.
Just to elaborate a little, I got my early start with box view cameras and TLRs, those with the upside down image in the viewfinder. That taught me about patience, about making every shot count and about visualizing composition ahead of time. The add-on turret viewfinder slipped into the accessory shoe of the Leica and the Contax was also a fantastic teacher.
Sure, I carry a bunch of gear around, but then I adhere to the school that believes that if it’s not within 300 feet of the car, it ain’t photogenic :), so I don’t mind. Yes, I’ve accumulated a bunch of lenses over the decades. Lenses are the least burdensome of my gear; my favorite tripod is a Manfrotto/Bogen 3258 that weighs well over 17 lbs without a head. What difference can a couple of extra lenses possibly make?
I suppose if I was photographing team sports I would most likely appreciate having a zoom lens, but I’ve only been inside a baseball stadium once (when I went to see the inside of the Houston Astrodome in the 1960’s), once inside a basketball arena (to see a rodeo at the ARCO arena, actually) and never in a football stadium. Last time I was in a soccer stadium was in the 1950’s. Sports photography means zilch to me.
"…box view cameras and TLRs, those with the upside down image in the viewfinder. That taught me about patience, about making every shot count…"
Digicam photography is exactly the opposite! Instead of patience, it is shoot ’em all, try not to miss any opportunity: shoot review reshoot review reshoot, all in real time. No need to make every shot count, instead just experiment, think outside the box. But most of all, shoot!
Obviously it is still necessary to be there for the best light, the best expression, etc., but now you shoot while you wait, tweaking exposure, composition, etc. And shooting many (free!) shots as the light/expression changes, then picking the best later.
P.S. In wildlife photography patience is still most essential. I do a lot of underwater photography (film, because u/w housings are camera-specific and quite expensive) and I believe that even using a digicam patience would be of the utmost importance.
P.P.S. To me the really cool thing about upside-down images is how quickly our brains adapt.
Ramón, Relax! Change doesn’t have to be painful. I don’t care much about the work of the Impressionists, but love Turner’s paintings. Compare that to the work of the photo-realists and you’ll get the idea : )
Change for the sake of change itself is not thrilling, necessary or wise. A great deal of excitement, pleasure and enrichment can be had by growing instead of changing.
I’ve been doing a lot of experimenting with digital with a variety of very good and even excellent digital cameras lately, actually since the Nikon D100 first came out. Most likely, I will continue to do so; but even working digitally I don’t see myself mindlessly shooting picture after picture just because it’s possible.
As I said, I’m to old to change the way I do things because, right or wrong, this is what I perceive to be the best of what I’ve distilled after over half a century of making photographs just the way I want them. I have no particular talent, nor do I make a living off photography (I’d certainly starve to death), but at least I get away from the things I don’t care for, like oversaturated colors (Velvia look), running water that looks like milk or cotton candy (long exposure shots of waterfalls and brooks), orange-skinned people (film or digital), radish-skinned people (very common with a lot of uncorrected digital images).
I was gone most of the day yesterday and last night. When I finally began reading this thread I couldn’t post a response… So during the few short minutes I have this morning I’ll try to squeeze in a quick review of what I’m learning.
First of all thank you for explaining more fully about the SLR, Single Lens Reflex. I understand better now that they are 1) Like a 35mm, 2) Have fully interchangeable lens, & 3) You see what you get while shooting. They are also usually bigger and heavier because of the mechanical engineering but worth it because of the trade off. Oh, I think you also said they are faster.
I also appreciated your comments on the zoom lens and the what you prefer to use most of the time. I’ll go back and review your specs again when I have more time.
Thanks for all this education (everyone)… and in a way that even I can understand. 🙂
Maybe we got sidetracked here. I am actively experimenting with digital. My rants, if you can call them such, were against zoom lenses (on film or digital cameras) in general, and against the notion that I would change the way I’ve been approaching my shots for over half a century and turn into a mindless one-after-the-other, delete, delete, shoot, shoot type of digital photographer.
Oh…I thought you were on a budget and didn’t want to spend more than $1000. That’s why I recommended the 300D. Actually I’m waiting for the 10D’s replacement – I’m guessing an 8 meg camera. I’m still shooting film mostly and can borrow a Fuji S2 when needed – so I can wait a little longer. I just got an email from Calumet that mentioned they are getting in a truck load of 10D cameras and order soon as the cameras go quickly. My guess is that it either means Canon is still producing them or this is the last of the 10Ds!
After interacting with you all I realize how important this purchase is to me. I want something I will be happy with for the next 3-5 years at least. It would be nice to learn enough about photography to take it to another level. I might be willing to spend a little more. 🙂
I never really cared about photography until I bought my Nikon 990. If and when I buy a new digicam I might have to make friends with others who enjoy photography, lest I drive my current friends crazy. Also it would be nice to spend the summer out doors taking pictures instead of sitting behind a monitor so much. What I’d really like to do is plan all day outings with my bicycle and camera.
My recommendation to "shoot review reshoot review reshoot, all in real time" does not entail "mindless" as you state. Rather I meant to suggest learning as you go, but in seconds instead of days like with film.
Whether your image is focused on to film or on to a digital sensor, you make all the same decisions, same settings, same thought processes to set up a shot. The digicam difference is that you can take more pix and get immediate feedback. There is nothing intrinsically good about a photo workflow that requires days of time to elapse before you see the results of your pic setup choices; quite the contrary.
And "…excitement, pleasure and enrichment can be had by growing instead of changing" does not make sense to me, because IMO growth is change, by definition. I suspect we are thinking similarly, separated only by semantics (an expertise of yours, I believe 🙂 ).
It so happens that I also believe we’re on the same page. The misunderstanding may stem from two misinterpretations: 1) your construing my remarks to be anti digital, when in truth and in fact I was only expressing a very strong dislike for zoom lenses in general, regardless of whether they are used on film or digital cameras.
In the past I had commented in a reply to a post of yours in another thread that I also see a huge advantage in the immediate feedback you get when shooting digitally.
2) my misconstruing Todie’s remark to the effect that "change doesn’t have to be painful" as suggesting that I would find it easy to abandon my way of making pictures in favor of a shoot-delete-shoot-delete technique. When I wrote that "Change doesn’t have to happen either" and you retorted by saying that sounds boring we were clearly talking past each other.
I continue to experiment with digital cameras, including a project to shoot a series of digital images in all-manual mode by using a dozen or so prime lenses on the Pentax *ist-D, which can accommodate all my Universal (M-42) lenses albeit by foregoing all metering and auto focusing capabilities. Strictly for the fun of it.
Even though they are a major digicam manufacturer at the consumer level, Sony is not on my personal list of recommended brands of digital still camera. Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, and others are all IMO preferable.
Allen I understand that the SONY uses a four color sensor and not a three color CCD and though it is not what one considers a camera company the company that makes the lenses is considered tops, that is Carl Ziess.
Just keep in mind that Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Olympus make fine lenses they are not Carl Ziess quality.
Hey lots of people including myself would never use a Minolta as they are expressly designed for the amateur market but they use Lietz technology to create and manufacturer their lenses and they are sharper than the pro lenses of Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Olympus like it or not.
This is what I find wrong with these discussions, it is filled with prejudices and reaction rather than real objective discussions and it makes it difficult for someone like Linda to make a rational decision as to what to buy.
You should know Linda that although I am not recommending you buy a SONY and you like the Nikon brand, I do myself, that SONY is the leader in Digital Capture Technology although it is in the field of Video and Digital Cinema. SONY is the company developing the cameras, unless this has changed, for George Lucas.
So if I were you I would not go by what is written in these threads by anyone, including myself, as to what you should buy you should read enter other forums talk to several camera dealers and of course the most important factor of all is to hold the model in your hand to see how it feels.
If it does not feel right to you then all this discussion it won’t mean a thing.
Thanks Wade. I will do everything I can (within reason & budget) to make a wise purchase. I have already learned a lot from this thread and I’m very grateful for all who’ve taken the time to share their knowledge.
Wade I do not agree (surprise) with the statement "Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Olympus make fine lenses they are not Carl Ziess [sic] quality." This is 2004, and Zeiss and other firms each produce lenses in a range of quality. To suggest that all Zeiss glass is better than all Nikon glass does not make sense.
Even if Zeiss is the world’s premier lens maker, a relatively inexpensive consumer grade Sony point-and-shoot with Zeiss’s cheapest lens on it is still just that: an inexpensive point-and-shoot. Many of the lenses Nikon (or Canon, or whomever) makes costs more than the whole Sony camera, with lens!
Also in my experience directing a buyer to "talk to several camera dealers" rather than peruse threads like this one is bad advice. Camera dealers are very often motivated to "make a sale" rather than necessarily to provide the best advice. If they make more markup on brand z or get better support from the brand z rep they are likely to lead you there rather than to brand x. Professionals on this forum, yourself included, are giving freely of their experience with no financial motive. Linda can choose the commentary that makes sense.
Allan are you sure of that you could I guess say that about Minolta but their lenses are consistent the same for Lietz. I haven’t used a SONY still camera myself but as I understand it the optics will rival anything market professional or otherwise.
This is from amateur and professionals alike who have compared. Now you may in fact be correct in this case as I have not tried either. But if I go by the way you have come to conclusions about things and they way these individuals have told me of their experience and also from some results that I have seen I would have to go with their opinions and observations before I could trust what you say!
For instance your observation above is based on an assumptions that could or could not have meaning. I based what I wrote on what I know about the company and it’s history and my experience using their lenses with professional and amateur cameras.
They have been supplying lenses for both professional and amateur cameras since day one and have always been consistent I have not heard anything different to date have you?
Linda, way back in the early part of this thread I told you I had a Sony F828 and i love it. Now both Nikon and Canon have come out with 8 MP Prosumer cameras and i will bet both of them are fantastic. The F828 is my 6th digicam. I prefer the prosumer models over the SLRs because they are light and handy and you do not need to buy or carry a lot of extra equipment and lenses. Ramon is right about zoom lenses, but they are not really all that bad, unless you are a pro and need to enlarge to poster sizes. I have been taking pictures since 1947; started with a TLR, went to SLR, but am enjoying my digicams immensely. With a good computer, a good printer, and PS you have control of the picture from start to finish and you will surprise yourself with some of the wondrous pix you will take and process to your and others satisfaction. All of these new good cameras are $1000 or less and with the prosumer models you do not have to buy extra lenses, just filters and an auxiliary flash unit, which you will need anyway.
I prefer the prosumer models over the SLRs because they are light and handy and you do not need to buy or carry a lot of extra equipment and lenses.
The light and handy part does appeal to me, especially since I like to take outings to pretty places on my bike.
Ramon is right about zoom lenses, but they are not really all that bad, unless you are a pro and need to enlarge to poster sizes.
Good point. One client’s wife has often mentioned to me that she would like to see me use my photos to create posters to sell through their Web site. This was a year ago though and not sure she still feels that way. If so it points me back to the SLR.
All of these new good cameras are $1000 or less and with the prosumer models you do not have to buy extra lenses, just filters and an auxiliary flash unit, which you will need anyway.
BTW, I did research some Sony’s over the weekend and the model I was looking at did not get the highest ratings from all users. Many complained of a purple halo in the shadows as well as noise… if I remember right. Not sure where I found that review but I think this is the model I was looking at.
Don’t do it Linda DON"T don’t go over to the darkside film is the true art form of photography don’t go to the Darkside I beg you stay well actually what do I care go ahead buy another digital camera the SLR might professional might be more fun!
I’ve just tried the Nikon D70 and was pretty good for the price. It handled better than the Kodak Pro SLR/n which is incidently priced much lower than the model it replaced. There was a show deal with over £1000 ($1800) off the Canon 1Ds, (still £4450 ~ouch!) so I wonder if that is getting updated soon.
When in doubt, shoot a bit wide, at a lower f-stop
Hope Linda doesn’t misconstrue that. Smaller aperture (and the resulting greater depth of field) is not to be confused with a lower f-stop number, which would mean a larger aperture and less depth of field.
As for wide, Todie probably means at a shorter focal length (zoom out rather than in if using a zoom lens).
The Nikon CP 990 is a fine point and shoot and macro digicam for up to 5×7 prints. The 990’s major limitations are speed of operation, maximum image size and the tiny little built-in lens. An SLR digicam as the next step is particularly logical for you, because you can continue to use the 990 for those times when an SLR is too large to carry. I use the CP5000 for that purpose.
Linda, you’re brave. I can’t imagine loaning out one of my cameras. I’m pretty easy with most other stuff, but I’d just die of anxiety if I lent out any camera equipment, horses or my children and grandson.
The 990 is a tough little digicam, plus today its value is pretty low. I used mine all the time with kids learning camera skills, minimally supervised. Then sold it to a friend for her (very responsible) kids, and it is still working fine.
Ramon: You’re right, it was brave of me. This is the first time I’ve loaned it to anyone other than my own husband… even then I asked him to treat it with TLC. I was supposed to get it back the day after I loaned it… but it obviously didn’t happen. I guess I’m a little more daring since I have my sights on a new one. I bought one of the first 990s to come out and paid around $850 I think. Things have changed a lot since then.
I can see it now Linda, affectionately nickname "The Lens" pedaling along on her supped up Lindamobile fully stocked and equipped with digital cameras of all sizes and descriptions memory sticks with mind boggling capacities motorized tripods with micro adjustments and remote capabilities built-in dashboard console controls for satellite transmission sun angle calculation color depth controls remote firing and focus satellite dish and of course a min ipod.
LOL… That’s funny Wade… and sounds a little like me… I probably would if I could! 🙂
You should see my new bike. I’ve already installed a flexible mirror, compass, bell, and speedometer on the handlebars. Attached to the seat is a pouch that holds my Nikon 990, but I guess I’ll need something bigger for the new one.
Well, I do think of the tripod as the most valuable piece of external hardware (external to the eye and the brain, that is), but photography with just a pinhole camera would be pretty confining, especially at my age.
Really Ramon? That’s okay. You’ve been busy taking beautiful pictures.
I must say, I have truly enjoyed the Nikon 990 and it was worth the money ten times over, even though I used it primarily as a point and shoot. I hope to make a great deal of progress with my next setup though.
The best way to learn photography is to buy an old twin lens Rolleiflex or Yashica and a separate light meter. You will understand the craft better and most important you will learn to see. The flimsy view finders in most digital cameras are not sufficient to make a good composition, they are designed for snap shots!
The new Lindamobile is perfectly designed for tripod transportation. That’s what the cross-bar is for of course. I am just a little surprised that the necessary Velcro straps were omitted from the package when you bought the bike.
I always wanted a Nikon and they just came out with the F2. I had to have one. Built in light meter and all. I bought the Yashica used, the F2 was new. my first new camera. and none of the parallax problems.
you could use that one as a hammer to bang a nail in the wall.
that brings back memories.
I wasn’t pounding nails in walls but while in the mosh pit trying to photograph I have used my F3 and F4 to clobber idoits in the back of the head. The Fuji S2 just doesn’t have the bulk of the Nikon F series. To clobber Idiots with the S2 you need to have a pointy tripod mount attached to the camera.
My plan is to get a D70 and shoot with it for a while until such time as I can save up for an SLR/n (or the vapor-camera known as D2X, should it ever materialize).
Regarding the "MP isn’t everything" comments Ramon was making, I agree in principle, but the SLR/n is really a different breed of camera from other DSLRs. For starters it’s full frame, for another no interpolation is required to reach 13.5 MP images, and most importantly, this camera is really designed around the RAW workflow. It’s not designed (like other DSLRs) to "massage" the images by default. So comparing SLR/n images "right out of the camera" to other DSLRs is sort of missing the point (unless you plan to enforce a "zero photoshop retouching" policy to your workflows.
You will have to make sure to run SLR/n shots through ACR to correct for moire (since it has no anti-alias filter like all the other DSLRs) and you may have to watch for noise on the 13MP shots but with a little bit of effort I don’t think it’s very difficult to produce images that definitely stand apart from most other DSLRs. From what I can see it is clearly a better camera than the 14/n. The Dynamic Range is superb….
Also, someone was talking about the Sony 828… I cannot speak first-hand but it has received quite a lot of negative commentary from users and testers regarding color casts and the like. The Nikon 8700 also uses the 828 sensor if I am not mistaken. I might consider the 5700 if I were in the market for an all-in-one, especially if the prices might drop a bit. I seriously doubt any PAS zoom lens will have enough resolving power to make good on a true 8MP sensor anyway.
Thanks to Polaroid’s back, you can now instantly enjoy the serendipity of oh. hell to the chase It is the Holga’s inherent "problems," its lack of sharp focus, lens distortion and light leaks that make it such a unique camera. there are two aperture settings One for full sun, f11, and another for over overcast cloudy situations. F8. with built in flash.
And all for $109.00 shipping and tax not included.
All DSLRs can shoot in RAW, but what I’m saying is, the RAW output from an SLR/n is going to be of a higher quality in many cases than that from existing cameras (again, save the 1Ds Mk II maybe). This has both to do with the dynamic range and lack of anti-aliasing filtration on the sensor, and the fact that you do not have to "invent" color data in order to achieve very large print sizes.
Not saying the SLR/n is perfect or for everyone, just that until something unseats it, it appears to have taken the lead in the DLSR performance category (that’s not just "great specs" but "great output"). I agree MP for MP’s sake is kind of silly if you don’t have the other necessary performance components of a professional camera.
Work is picking up again so I will have to store up some of this info to study in my spare moments. I’m learning… and my thinking keeps changing. My latest mindset is to stick with the $1K range, or maybe a little more… but go with something expandable, learn as much as I can and see where it takes me. If it goes somewhere and I feel the need, I can then upgrade again.
Ramon: yes, there were definitely some issues with the 14n’s sensor and subsequently its output quality in certain shooting conditions. Hence the upgrade program where you can send your 14n in, and for $1500, have the sensor and firmware replaced, effectively bringing you up to SLR/n standards. This is another thing Kodak has done right that other manufacturers are loathe to do… give people a true upgrade path without having to buy a new camera.
It is not IMO particularly appropriate to compare last generation high end digicams against newer versions unless you are actually considering purchase of the old version for some reason. Kodak was on the bleeding edge of technology with the 14n, and they no doubt learned a LOT developing that camera. Today’s cameras are what get purchased and those new today cameras are what buyers should specifically evaluate. Firms like Kodak, Nikon, and Canon get extra points for having "been there" in the development process.
there were definitely some issues with the 14n’s sensor and subsequently its output quality in certain shooting conditions.
That’s the understatement of the week.
I was given free use of the 14n for a week. After three days it was replaced by a new specimen, which was just as bad. I would rate the image quality as either miserable or lousy; taking into account its price, I’d say it fell into the unconscionable category.
Just as a criminal gets punished for the first offense he committed and not for his prior exemplary conduct, a camera doesn’t get evaluated because of its manufacturer’s pioneering role in bringing it to market. The Kodak 14n, in my estimation, was an unmitigated piece of garbage because of its performance and because of its price/value ratio. It wasn’t that long ago that it came out either, at a time when there were already some pretty decent digital cameras out there.
When a company, even a former giant in the history of photography, makes a blunder like this, it is inevitable that its subsequent products in the same line are going to be viewed with a healthy and large dose of skepticism and subjected to greater scrutiny.
As I said, I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt for the time being, but I’m not about to waste my time with the new model until I hear a loot of nice things being said about it by people whose judgment I can trust implicitly.
Don’t get me started on "upgrades". The sensor fix, as Buko points out, should be absolutely free, maybe with a free flash card thrown in as a way of apology and compensation for the inconvenience. I’m fortunate to have a good relationship with a retail photographic equipment store that rents or lends me cameras for brief periods of time. I would have been mighty upset if I had paid good money for the Kodak 14n. There’s no doubt in my mind that under the doctrine of implied merchantability I would have been entitled to a full refund if I had bought it.
Have had my Sony F828 since Jan 2nd and have taken approx 300 pix with it. No problems with chromatic aberrations (purple fringe) even though some of my sunrise shots had flares in them. I take quite a few bird pix, so it is important to have enough resolution so that the original can be cropped – a golden crowned sparrow is not very big in the original, no matter how close you got! A tripod or a monopod is ESSENTIAL and if i take my camera I take my tripod or monopod and i take my camera almost everywhere I go. That is why I have the prosumer model digicam – it is a lot less cumbersome than the SLR. The main thing is: HAVE FUN!!!!
I won’t start the "sensor for free" argument. Suffice it to say, Kodak’s marketing department made some pretty stupid comments when the 14n was released, but in general they should in no way feel compelled to give away brand new sensors (and the labor required to install them) for free. If you want to start a class action law suit claiming "false advertising", then those people upset should do that… they might even win (much stranger things have happend). But to say "it should be free" is ridiculous IMO.
Like people saying every new version of OS X "should be free". Because Kodak and Apple are charities I guess.
$1500 is NOT cheap (I don’t know what the unit cost of the sensors and labor is, but that’s what they should charge IMO). Either way it’s MUCH better than spending $5000 on a new SLR/n, right? At least the option is there. Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Sigma give no options.
I don’t think that’s true strictly speaking. There are plenty of people who shoot the 14n and who will continue to do so based on my readings. It’s not the most popular camera out there, but it’s not "totally defective" by any means either. It’s just not very flexible / has a limited range of shooting scenarios where it performs well.
Switching gears I will be interested to see the quality of the S3’s 12 MP images, despite some pessimistic commentary in this thread earlier on. Their means of interpolating these images is clearly not the same as with other cameras and in this case, even less similar because now you have two 6MP data streams of real color and luminosity data to work with… I will be curious to see how large non-macro / non-close-ups can be printed with this puppy.
Professional quality prints I’m talking, not "pretty nice". Something that could hang on an art store wall or museum wall. 20×24 maybe?
You see this is an excellent thread with real honest opinions from real world users of the equipment such Ashley, Buko, Ramón, Dan-0, Allen (all though he doesn’t know his elbow from his elbow) Wicks, Todie, Linda, Cindy and Jelle execleent discussion.
This is probably one of the most informative and helpful threads on this subject that has ever appeared on the Photoshop forum.
Without all of that corruption and ego nonsense.
Good to know your experiences and your feelings, oh my even Allen’s!
I’ve made some blowups with the S2 that just blow my mind and when you enlage the image using the photoshops Camera RAW the results are just astounding. The fact that S3 holds the highlight detail is really fantastic. When I shoot Rock’n Roll, if the exposure is not perfect, with all those bright lights the first thing to go is the highlights. So I’m really excited about this. I spoke to my camera store guy the other day about the S3 and it won’t be in the stores till at least August, maybe longer.
Want a Canon 1Ds for cheap(er)? Just received a Calumet flyer with a pretty good offer. Buy a Phase One H20 back and get an EOS 1Ds for FREE! ‘Course, the H20 is $19,990 but selling it for $17 to $18k shouldn’t be much of a problem.
Or, maybe Linda would want to use the H20 and sell the Canon? 😉
I’ve been busy with several small jobs. Now I need to remember where I was and what it was I was leaning towards. Still wondering what’s around the corner with Canon. Nikon is still a consideration but Canon seems to be tipping the scales a little more for me. I guess if there was anything new we’d see it here first…
Just to warn you: DPReview Forums are not the greatest place in the world for getting "good information" on new cameras IMO.
For every good "upcoming product tip", there are literally dozens of bad ones (that means blatantly inaccurate / misleading). Most people in there are spec-junkies. They just sit around and argue about what they want / what should be available vs. what is available, while having absolutely no knowledge of operations at companies like Nikon or Canon.
In general, the forums there are a lot more "noise" than "signal". Far worse than this forum on its worst day… mostly because they are unmoderated (for all intents and purposes).
The DP Review News Page and Reviews though, are very useful. Bookmark those instead.
One thing that helped me by reading those forums is I realized that if I wait until they actually start selling the units and users actually start using them, not only will there be more accurate reports, but the price is expected to drop to around $750 or so.
One word of caution Linda. The reviews are fine (though not scientific) however, the forums at DPR can be horribly addictive for their shear weirdness at times. I’d liken it to a bad car accident where you know you shouldn’t stare, but somehow you can’t help it.
The problem is that for every one useful bit of information there are 50 totally absurd statements made by self proclaimed experts with absolute certainty and yet the highlight of their photographic experience was once successfully photographing a focussed image of their cat in the garden. While you are still learning, so much conflicting information may be counterproductive. To be fair, the Fuji forum is quite civilised and the Nikon ones are not bad, but if you find yourself reading the 10D threads you may soon lose your faith in humanity just reading all the insults being thrown at each other plus the banality of so many posts.
Although its slower, the Rob Galbraith forum tends to be a little more serious and attract more knowledgeable people who could help you more.
"One word of caution Linda. The reviews are fine (though not scientific) however, the forums at DPR can be horribly addictive for their shear weirdness at times. I’d liken it to a bad car accident where you know you shouldn’t stare, but somehow you can’t help it."
LOL! Best Description of DR Review Forums I have *ever* heard.
They on the other hand *can* be helpful. You have to know how to separate it and not take the idiots too seriously. And don’t get addicted! They have a saying "take what you can use and leave the rest".
Same can be said for any forum. The bickering around here is just on a different level but it is still bickering…or, it can be helpful. I’ve seen it get pretty silly.
Post a picture there and you will get hundreds of viewers. Out of that you might get some pretty decent feedback. It has helped me with exposure issues, lens issues etc. Questions I would be reluctant to post here.
The 10D forum is seriously bad and the 1Ds forum is getting even worse because its the same people but with more money. There are threads from people asking if they should buy a spare 10D or a pistol? Then there are those sad individuals who just feel compelled to post anything no matter how ridiculous. One guy was recently banned for continually trashing Canon and he had posted an average of 167 messages per week totalling almost 30,000 in the end.
From what I saw the 300D forum wasn’t quite so bad, but I’d suggest that you’ll actually get more general knowledge out of the Fuji forum. Very few web forums are actually useful once you get to a certain level but this one always seems to attract a good number of skilled Photoshop users who are willing to help out.
Wasn’t focus the PMA one in Las Vegas? I am in the UK, but I never seem to go to any of these events. A friend who just went to a show held in Birmingham (UK) said the 1Ds was on sale with a £1000 discount.
PMA was in Las Vegas, Focus on Imaging was in Brum, that’s the one I meant and yes Jessops had some 1Ds’s for £4450 inc VAT. Makes me wonder if a replacement is coming. There was also an Adobe demo changing a yellow car white, I’ve seen that before somewhere, anybody know a link?
I am pretty sure that Canon either has the replacement for the 1Ds ready or 90% there and is just waiting for Nikon to announce an update to the 1DX. One thing that amazes me is the way Canon can just drop £1000 in price on their cameras at the drop of a hat and that’s why I never believe those sob stories about how they aren’t making any money on digital cameras because of the expensive sensors.
A few months back I spoke to somebody pretty high up at Canon in Europe and he wouldn’t give me any details about future development but he seemed absolutely certain that no other manufacturer had the technology available to compete with Canon at the higher end with DSLR cameras today. I had been expecting Fuji to come out with something with more MP at a low price and Nikon to announce a 1Ds beating camera at PMA, but neither happened and I think that Canon knew this all along. That’s why the prices are still relatively high.
The 14n has to be cheap to gain interest because the old one had such a bad reputation. The new one seems to have solved the noise issues but skin tones still look rubbery and of course the body is not that great. With those issues placed on one side though many people would see great merit in being able to spend a couple of thousand pounds less on the 14n compared to the 1Ds and gain in resolution at the same time. The new 14n finally looks like the camera it always should have been.
I think we will soon see £4500 become the new standard price on the 1Ds. Nikon will eventually come in with something good at a similar or lower price and Canon will launch the new all conquering 1Ds replacement but as usual market demand will decide the final price. I have no reliable predictions to make there. I am certain though that we will continue to pay much more in the UK than in the States.
ashley: The 1Ds’ replacement is already announced right… the 1D Mk II? Or are they calling the 1Ds a "different line" than the 1D? I don’t follow Canon that closely but if this is the case, they need to get some new people in their marketing department. Someone forgot what product differentiation and product branding are, apparently. Not that Nikon or Kodak’s labels are "ultra-intuitive"….
They are two very different machines, but I agree this whole use of the "D" everywhere does make life confusing especially with Nikon doing the same trick.
The old 1D was the original professional bodied digital camera. It was fast but produced small files that were only of use to a limited number of photographers. Then they produced the 1Ds which has much higher resolution and can be seriously considered as an alternative to medium format film for many applications.
The new 1D II takes everything that was best about the old 1D such as its speed and improves it while adding to the MP resolution considerably, so that many more people would find it acceptable to be used instead of film. Depending on your wallet and quality needs will determine which is the best camera for you. In the future, I think we may see one professional camera that is capable of doing it all.
I still don’t see much differentiation. What will be different about the 1D Mk II and the 1Ds Mk II? Different target markets? If so, which? Seems to me that the 1Ds Mk II is certainly competition for just about any good DSLR out there… whether you need MP, FPS or whatever. These cameras are starting to be like midsize cars from the same manufacturer. Slightly different look, same internals for the most part, but marketed as "something different".
A lot of photographers feel that the new 1D II is the first ever no compromises camera and I think it may well steal some market share from the 1Ds because it costs a lot less and does many things better, while its 8MP will be deemed good enough for many purposes. This is probably a sign that the 1Ds is on the way out fairly soon and that whatever replaces it will have to be something very special indeed.
Wade is right about the VAT, but there is no import duty in the UK on digital cameras. I know this because I seriously considered getting a camera shipped over from B&H. What we do have are exceptionally greedy dealers who are used to marking up prices to an excessively high degree and even after reclaiming the VAT as a business, our cameras are still typically around 40-50% more than in the US. At current exchange rates a 1Ds is over $10,000 at the cheapest places in the UK and no matter how much stronger the pound becomes which should in theory make our imports cheaper, the price never goes down.
As for the labs here, they’ve lived well for years and I think they were quite shocked at how enthusiastic pro photographers were to jump over to digital when they saw how big the savings could be. The price of scanning has come tumbling down but its not really changing the overall situation that much. BTW Wade a magazine for digital photographers in the UK is running a story on my work soon. Should I give them your number?
I just checked a few labs and the shocking thing was that some are no longer even processing E6. Metro are charging £3.35 + VAT for processing one sheet of 5×4. That’s about $7.50. If you look at some of their other prices that actually starts to look cheap.
I figured I could give that mag your number so you could express some opinions on digital photography 😎
Thank you Ashley. I’m enjoying the article. Helps bring a little more perspective. If the prices had dropped a little more on the Canon EOS-300D I might be interested now, but not enough so far for the trade off of seeing what’s next. Also it looks like I still would have to buy a lens right off the bat, since it doesn’t come with one.
The Canon EOS-300D is sold without a lens (body only) or as a kit (body + lens + (sometimes) other goodies like flash cards, tripod, etc). Check every kit to see if it includes the lens you want. Some dealers (Ritz, for instance) will offer it with their own brand of lens (Quantaray in the case of Ritz). Stay away from the latter.
Thanks John! I hear that, but then I hear how much money people put into lenses and accessories. As much as I would love to learn and grow and get really good, I am aware of my limitations. Still, I do plan to try them both out at a local store if possible.
I’ve been reading up on the good stuff at the Canon site. Does the Canon EOS Rebel have the L lens?
You mount any of Canon’s L-series lenses on the camera, but it doesn’t ship with one.
Is the EF lens the same or different?
EF refers to the lens mount; all Canon’s current autofocus lenses are EF-mount. Before that, Canon’s best were FD-mount, manual focus, open-aperture metering, introduced in 1971.
Before that (late ’60s and before) were FL-mount, stop-down metering, introduced in 1964, preceded by R-mount, manual stop down lenses introduced in 1959.
L-series lenses first appeared on the FD mount, and they were and are Canon’s top lenses. An L-series lens may have aspheric, UD (ultra-low dispersion) glass, fluorite or SLD (super low dispersion) lens elements, or combinations of any or all of them.
It’s all magic (spelled optical physics); they’re good, and not cheap.
The easiest way to tell if a lens is an L, is a thin red ring on the body of the lens.
Your statement "The old [Canon] 1D was the original professional bodied digital camera" is false. The Nikon D1 (approx. late 1999) came out approx. two years ahead of the Canon 1D (approx. late 2001). And I seem to recall that Kodak had a digital SLR using a Nikon camera body before that.
If you do prefer a compact non-SLR digicam, also test handle the US$150 cheaper 8 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 8700. See how each camera FEELS operating in YOUR hands. Take some shots, and pay particular attention to how easily you can frame a shot, focus, and achieve shutter release. Most but not all non-SLR digicams are either clumsy and/or *slow*; a very few are not. Such slowness/clumsiness can be excruciating in practice.
Note that a few non-SLR cameras [including the Pro 1 and the Coolpix 8700] have "swivel" capability. Such swivel capability is a huge benefit for creative photography: candids, low angle (e.g. ground level flowers from below), high angle (e.g. in crowds), etc. Swivel lens or LCD capability is very useful in any situation where lining up a direct shot is difficult or impossible.
[Whoops – I guess you already know about the joys of swivel lenses from using the CP 990! IMO the swivel LCDs are even better.]
Yes I do enjoy the swivel part of the 990. Good points again about the problem of slowness with non SLR cameras though. I remember having to guess when to push the button so I could catch a horse just as he was at the top of the jump. It was hit or miss for sure.
I guess I’m back where I was again… waiting for the opportunity to try out what comes available next month. I just hope that I can get plugged into a local group that has as much patience as you all. 🙂
"Your statement "The old [Canon] 1D was the original professional bodied digital camera" is false. The Nikon D1 (approx. late 1999) came out approx. two years ahead of the Canon 1D (approx. late 2001). And I seem to recall that Kodak had a digital SLR using a Nikon camera body before that."
Allen, I meant that the (Canon) 1D was the original digital bodied camera from within the Canon range . Sorry if that wasn’t clear but I was talking about the Canon range only in that particular message.
We went down and picked up the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n just a few minutes ago. 14 MP, ISO 6-1600, 4536×3024-pixel 12-bit CMOS covers rull 24 x 36mm, exposure up to 60 seconds, F-mount lens compatible. It’s a beauty. Will need some time to get it set up and see how it does in our work flow.
Linda, those are Kodak’s samples… apparently some are having trouble reproducing that quality with shipping units but who knows.
Ken, congrats. Let us know how it goes. I would be interested to hear how it performs with fast zoom lenses like the 17-35 AFS or 28-70 AFS, since there are many conflicting reports on this. Also I’ve heard claims of bad noise at 400 ISO and above, but I don’t necessarily believe it. I wonder though, if Kodak is having manufacturing QA issues where some batches are producing good results and others frankly pretty bad ones.
That’s actually the old firmware I think. Kodak is supposedly working on some CA problems with certain lenses among other things, so I think "the new version" of the SLR/n firmware is a ways off yet. Although Kodak is also writing new versions of Photodesk and the other software components too. Might be worth inquiring about / keeping you eye out for, Ken.
Just got through reading up on the D70 again, this time a little more thoroughly. On the one hand it sounds very nice, but on the other hand might be a little complex and confusing to set up… along with the view finder negatives. Lately I feel more dorky than usual when it comes to having to learn something too complex. I will probably keep waiting around for an easy to use, high quality, hopefully 8 mp camera… that will produce shots nice enough to use for my clients… but with a relatively small learning curve.
Linda>Just got through reading up on the D70 again, this time a little more thoroughly. On the one hand it sounds very nice, but on the other hand might be a little complex and confusing to set up… along with the view finder negatives. Lately I feel more dorky than usual when it comes to having to learn something too complex. I will probably keep waiting around for an easy to use, high quality, hopefully 8 mp camera… that will produce shots nice enough to use for my clients… but with a relatively small learning curve.
What! I don’t understand…you are one smart cookie and once you figure it out it will be smooth sailing.
Also using a point and shoot or a 35mm digital you can make it as easy or as complex as you like.
The Ring was a horror movie that came out a couple years ago. The main "villain" was a little girl who, although she didn’t have the same general features as the girl pictured here, did have "the same look" with the piercing / haunted eyes, pale skin, standing behind the window, B&W, etc. Not a big horror movie fan but that one was the kind that creeps you out with the story (not gore). The picture reminded me of the movie, obviously.
I strongly recommend that you don’t let any particular detail from any particular review drive you to inaction. Reviewers look to report as much detail as possible for a HUGE range of users. IMPORTANT: most users will find a very large portion of every review irrelevant in practice. Touch one, do some test shots yourself.
E.g. regarding "…might be a little complex and confusing to set up… along with the view finder negatives."
 You can pick such a camera up, set it to "P," push the shutter release and get great 10×12 or larger quality pix immediately. It is NOT initially substantially harder to use than your CP990. With a well designed (evolved a generation from the D100) camera like a D70 advanced features are something you grow into, not prerequsites for basic use.
 Like I said earlier, a pro photog comparison of a low priced digicam SLR’a viewfinder against Nikon’s best SLR viewfinders may mean nothing to you. When YOU look through the D70 viewfinder you are most likely to think "wow this is cool" rather than think "oh darn my US$4000 D2h viewfinder is better."
Thanks Allen. Yes, those articles are very wordy… and half of it goes right past me.
Looks like I just got more work to do tonight… but I’ll keep an eye out for more conversation on this topic.
I must say, I’m leaning toward the Canon more and more. The main reason being the images I’ve seen from the Rebel and other Canons seem to evoke something deeper inside of me than those from other cameras. After all it was a photo from the Canon Rebel that gave me this new fever. 🙂
Somehow the images are creamier and the colors more vibrant with the others I’ve seen.
For the most part, I would consider the act of "not going to the movies" a wise thing these days. Each year, for every movie that is worth seeing twice [great acting, good cinematography, good storyline, etc.], there are a dozen that are horrible. Hollywood needs better QA methods.
"I must say, I’m leaning toward the Canon more and more. The main reason being the images I’ve seen from the Rebel and other Canons seem to evoke something deeper inside of me than those from other cameras."
Does that mean that you have actually shot and printed some identically comparable pix on multiple cameras? Anything else is pretty meaningless.
From an earlier post: ——————— Learn features (e.g., in camera sharpening, etc.) before you test shoot so that you know to take test shots both with and without such features enabled. Otherwise you may be comparing one camera’s pic with [default] sharpening on against another camera’s pic with [default] sharpening off. The same applies to many other features like white balance, etc. Cameras being compared should have the same shot taken many different ways with identical lighting to allow righteous comparison.
Allen: No, I admit it’s not from pictures that I have taken or printed. It’s all from pictures I’ve seen on the monitor, mainly from people I know from the forums. The first picture was this one by John Burnett <http://www.pbase.com/image/24687570>. Actually I did download this image and printed it on my Phaser 790. It looked pretty good, even with plain old regular paper stock.
Now I do understand that John used a special lens for this shot, which is something I might have to consider as well.
I am also impressed with some of Cindy’s images taken with the Canon. Cindy also mentioned the creaminess of the Canon shots.
There have been several other images I’ve seen but don’t have time to find them right now.
By the way, please pardon my unprofessional demeanor when discussing photography… but the fact is, I am still taking baby steps with this stuff. Not sure when and where I will graduate to Kindergarten but I’m working on it. 🙂
Just be aware that when you look at photos in that way you are *NOT* comparing the ability of individual cameras to facilitate the creation of the photos you like. You are simply liking someone’s work that was coincidentally shot on a particular camera.
Linda, One thing about Sony (I’m not just advocating for the company to annoy Allen:) is that they have a good initiative about color. It’s called RGBE (with E standing for "emerald green"). It’s a long shot still, but I see some good things in the future.
As Allen is wisely pointing pout you are not going to achieve what John Burnett did in the image you posted as one that was done in a studio type environment as the lighting appears to be strobe lighting which would certainly take a bit of a curve to learn, And a season professional has developed techniques of optics and photography which is often independent of the equipment for achieving a certain results.
The best thing is to rent a camera or two that you think you would like or at the very least put one in your hands to see how it feels.
That particular image which is the high res image needs a lot to be desired though excellently captured.
Allen: That is true… but with my knowledge I’m not sure I could make the perfect decision at this point. I may be developing a different mentality about this purchase than at first. This purchase may indeed end up being just a stepping stone. If I go with a reasonably priced Canon ($1,000) and start with one or two good lenses, I can practice and learn to my heart’s content… then if there is reason to move up as new models come out, I can… then use my lenses for the next model.
Todie: That’s cool about the extra channel. I assume Photoshop would see this channel? … or at least there would be a plug-in for it?
Wade: Renting a camera would not be practical for someone like me, especially with my recent workload. Not much spare time and have yet to plug into some local support.
I use the Artisan. I’ve acknowledged the excellence of Sony’s monitors and CCD sensors.
Sony’s contribution to the CD is an abominable example of marketing hype. I was working for Philips in The Netherlands at the time, the 1960’s and early 70’s (I started out my productive life as a chemist). Sony’s involvement came very late in the game, when the CD was practically finished and ripe. All Sony contributed other than financial encouragement was minor work on the software error correction, all of which was later superseded by more advanced development. In my eyes, anyone who tries to say otherwise is either a shameless liar or badly misinformed by the marketing hype from Japan. Don’t get me started on this, this subject almost makes me want to get rid of my Artisan.
Producer/director Lucas recounted, "We tested the camera in pre-production, and in a previous standard def show, and loved the look of it. HD allows us to keep costs under control and maintain high standards, and 24p only increases those options. And what we can get with the Panasonic Varicam camera is increased mobility and off-speed shooting."
They look very sharp, but I don’t like the look of that noise in the shadows at 200 ISO. Frankly its not that difficult to create sharp looking digital files with close ups, so I should look at some images done much further back to get a better indication of the real quality.
I agree with Ashley. I wouldn’t base any decision on those images. There are some awfully blown highlights on some of them, so it’s not entirely clear whether that’s operator error (lighting, exposure) or a camera problem.
By all means try the camera first yourself, Linda.
Here’s another one I found by googling. It’s farther away. Mind you, these are probably not taken by professionals but I find them kind of nice. This one does have a little halo effect but may be caued by jpg.
Whenever I do something like that, I need to sneak it past my wife. She’d never notice one or two new camera bodies being added to the arsenal, but I wouldn’t have the nerve to announce it publicly until a few months have gone by.
Linda: You are not upsetting this thread in any way.
By sharing information and ideas, we all learn — and benefit each other.
Looking at other people’s images encourages experimentation and discovery. If you see an image that impresses you, try to see if you can do better — and test different equipment to see how it works and feels in your hands.
The images that you admire MAY owe their quality to the camera which was used to capture them — but it is much more likely that they result from the competence of the photographer who was driving it.
Good point. Any image does show a minimum competence of which a given camera is capable. I did not mean to belittle, but rather to encourage folks to handle cameras and shoot their own shots. Just like cars, not every camera is right for every individual. It is mandatory to test drive and go beyond simply trying to interpret what everyone else says.
I would like to simultaneously echo Ann’s and Allen’s sentiments here. You are by no means disturbing or upsetting anyone or anything, quite the contrary.
I believe that what Allen and I are trying to say is that one can’t use someone else’s pictures to base a decision over another camera.
To illustrate this, allow me to point you to a site with some astonishing images of celestial bodies taken with a Pentax *ist-D. If I someone were to look just at those images, without reading the text and without the benefit of perspective, they may very well conclude this is the best camera in the world, for sure.
However, how likely are you personally to spend hours taking pictures of the night sky? Sure, images like the one of the Andromeda Galaxy or the Flame Nebula/Horsehead Nebula will knock your socks off.
More importantly, once you read the text and realize the tremendous amount of postprocessing performed here in terms of putting together a composite of a dozen or so 90sec exposures, you’ll realize that the skills of the person doing the postprocessing of any images are of extreme significance. The grasshoppers didn’t need as much work, I’m sure, but I’m pretty certain the jpeg you saw on the web site is but a faint reflection of all the data that would have been contained in a RAW image.
Thanks for the encouragement and reassurance that I’m okay here. 🙂
I don’t know whether to wish for more time at the risk of less work or continuing work at the risk of less time, but the way things are going my only research is through the Web… and that’s been pretty weak. At least by previewing the different photos people post, it keeps my interest peaked.
Here’s a link you might enjoy. It contains a bunch of photographs taken by the same photographer with a variety of digital cameras, some of which you have been considering lately. Each series of images are presented separately, by camera, with some brief pros and cons the photographer found in each camera.
It’s still no substitute for handling the cameras yourself and making your own test shots, but at least there’s the consistency of having all photographs taken by the same photographer, so the level of skill remains constant.
Thanks for the link. This kind of stuff keeps me pumped on photography. I have a strange learning style with some of this stuff. It seems I read and read and read… and feel like I’m not getting certain things… but persevere over time… then one day it’s like I wake up and bingo, I’ve got it… at least whatever part I’m trying to get. There’s always more of course. 🙂
Articles and examples and interaction all keep me moving toward my goals. I consider myself blessed to be able to interact with each one of you. Each person here seems to have something unique and significant to contribute, whether a seasoned professional or an enthusiastic hobbiest. Each one adds to this thead.
Buko: This thread just keeps getting better and better. You done good! 🙂
I’ve started going through the site you linked me to previously, <http://www.terrylane.net/> and I want to say thank you for leading me there. This is a wonderful place to get a simple breakdown of each camera and I’m enjoying the samples. I would kind of like to comment on some of them but don’t want to push this topic in the wrong direction. I wonder if another new thread would be better.
You mean camera manufacturers have tech support? Since when? I certainly have never found any decent camera tech support except for the occasional retailer with an in-house guru.
[Edit] Actually that is not true. A few years ago Nikon recalled their SB-103 underwater strobes (mine had hundreds of dives on it with no problems) and replaced them with the more powerful SB-105 at no charge. The process was very smooth.
Linda, I sympathize with you… Im in almost the same boat youre in.
Unlike you, however, I already know which brand Im after… Canon. That way I can swap lenses with my 35mm.
Over the years Ive owned about a dozen 35mm film cameras, and the 3 Canons I used were my favorite. My beloved (EOS 650) is still going strong after 20 years and still looks as good as it did the day I bought it. Not one single problem with it… the only costs associated with it were film and batteries. Also, by far the best camera Ive owned in relation to battery consumption.
To be fair, I never used Nikons, so cant comment on them. Im sure that theyre just as good, otherwise Pros wouldnt use or recommend them.
My nephew bought the D60 about two years ago, and Im blown away by the images from that camera. I borrowed it on a couple of occasions to test it out and was really, really impressed. The pictures were simply gorgeous. Far better then I ever envisioned digital prints capable of achieving. I was hard-pressed to tell the difference from the printed shots of it then from commercial ones. And, that wasnt even done on a high-end printer.
Right now, Im debating whether to go with the EOS Rebel (300D) or the 10D. Either one would be a giant step up from my current Sony DCS S85. Although, I cant really complain about the quality of the pics Ive taken with the Sony over the last two years. Its performed admirablyno real issues to date. Its just the fact that I sincerely miss the lens interchangeability Ive come accustomed to over the years. Sure, its got a Zeiss 3X Zoom, but its nowhere near as nice as my workhorse 35-105 Canon zoom. Not even close! Once you experience the convenience of interchangeable lenses, believe me, you never want to be w/o that option ever again. The pluses far outweigh the minuses.
Ideally, a person should have both: a compact digital you can stick in your pocket or purse, and a DSLR for more serious work. Even if I spring for a DSLR, Im planning to keep the compact around…the best of both worlds!
So, Im still waiting around in the shadows like you… watching, deliberating, daydreaming, and waiting for prices to stabilize and come down more. And, prudently buying lottery tickets…one never knows when his/her ship might sail into port… 😉
You’ll find the D10 surpasses the D60, and the 300D (digital Rebel) takes just as good pictures as the D10, just in a cheaper plastic body and some functions that were intentionally left out by Canon in order ti differentiate it (a bit) from the D10.
If you have Canon lenses, by all means stick to Canon.
I believe Ramon means the Canon 10D. A friend bought one last week and I had a chance to use it a bit. It is a fine camera, IMO *much* better than the 300D. But then again the 300D is the cheapest SLR digicam made, so maybe we should expect it to feel like the cheapest SLR digicam made.
Glad you shared your experience and possible plans for your next move. Although I trust the quality of the Nikon and previously thought for sure I would buy another Nikon, now I’m pretty sure my next purchase will be a Canon… although I think I should at least try out a Nikon and personally compare it to the Canon first.
If I were forced to make a purchase tomorrow, it would probably be the 300D… but since I’m not in any hurry and actually don’t have that much spare time right now, I will wait a little longer… and just keep following the reviews and forums.
Not sure how everybody else feels… but while I’m waiting I am enjoying the ride. I find the anticipation and learning process enjoyable. When I take breaks from my time sheet I love to see what the pros, amateurs and enthusiasts are saying… and even finding more samples to look at… until I can get out and try the equipment myself.
I hope I have as much fun after I buy the camera as I am in anticipation for it. 🙂
Yes, I got my designations backwards on both the 10D and the 60D, though I got the 300D right. Thanks for correcting me.
It gets a little confusing with all these "D" camera names, it takes a really outlandish name like "*ist-D" to remember it correctly. Maybe that’s why Pentax chose it and, in that case, it’s not as dumb as I first thought. ("CS" is not cool, though. :))
You’ll find the D10 surpasses the D60, and the 300D (digital Rebel) takes just as good pictures as the D10, just in a cheaper plastic body and some functions that were intentionally left out by Canon in order to differentiate it (a bit) from the D10.
Yeah, thats what Ive gathered, so far. The only problem I encountered with the D60 is with the autofocus… it seemed a bit slow and lethargic in certain situationsunduly hunting around for the ultimate setting. Other then that, I found it to be a great camera. In fact, I found it very similar, in both feel and handling to my EOS 650. Striking resemblance.
The 10D (which replaces it) Im told, resolved the focusing problem. From all the accounts Ive read, its extremely fast in that regard.
Hi, Sorry if breaking in on this thread. 🙂 I recently bought a Canon 10d and while I love it I thought I’d share some things I encountered along the way. One thing to keep in mind with the new Canon’s (specifically the 10d and Digital rebel) is that they aren’t compatable with some of the older Canon lenses. Also, some lenses (such as my Sigma 170-500) require you to send in for (in this case free – except for shipping) upgrade. If you aren’t invested in lenses and are going to be buying mostly new this may not be much of a concern. Also, compatable off brand flashes are hard to come by.. the Speedlites are kinda expensive considering I hardly use a flash. I’m used to picking up a cheap Sunpac or something, but not in this case. That being said, I love the 10d.. we have a Nikon D100 and Canon 1DS at work and I take my 10d out more than either. The new Nikon (D70?) DOES look very nice though. Hmm… 🙂
The dPreview review of the D70 leaves out the fact that there is no ISO 100 for the D70. They tested the D70 against the Rebel with the Rebel set at ISO 200. I consider this fact huge when evaluating the two. If you want the best that each camera can produce the Rebel should have been set up at ISO 100 to be fair.
As far as flashes go, the Sigma EF-500 DG Super works perfectly with the Canons and has FEC like the Canon 500EX flash. It can be had for $189 from B&H.
The Rebel and the 10D use identical sensors and produce identical picture quality. The Rebel has a few crippled features the D10 has but so far it hasnt been something I miss.
Good review overall, but I find that either Phil has inconsistent methods for testing noise or his conclusions don’t follow the actual samples he produces. I thought the noise from the D70 looked clearly more acceptable than the Rebel in a couple of instances, and at least as good as the D100 in every instance, yet he claims the three are about the same and actually charts the D70s as worse on the graph. Weird. Just goes to show even his reviews (the best on the web generally) are not without flaws.
From your posts I surmise that you own, and/or use a Digital Rebel. Would you mind sharing your experiences (good/bad) with it so far?… Handling, Feel, Stability, Body Structure, etc.
I dunno; Ive always been wary of second-class imitations… the timeless slogan of: you get what you pay for, keeps harping at me every time I feel the urge to make a move on the Rebel. However, in this case, I believe that I could make an exception. DSLRs are still in infancynew models are sprouting up like wildflowers every week, it seems. Still, how many snazzy features does a guy/gal really need to get a good, printable product? Ofttimes, less is conspicuously better. My EOS 650 has all the bells and whistleswhich, while nice to know, also makes selecting certain functions unduly cumbersome. Heck, there are some that I seldom (if ever) even use.
As long as I have my selectable shutter/aperture/focus/ev settings, thats really all I need. Twenty years ago I would never dream of buying a camera w/o a double exposure feature. I used it incessantlyGrads, Weddings, Family Port, etc. I loved experimenting, and it provided an outlet for my imagination. Also, impressed the heck out of all my friends/foes and associates. Nowadays, with Photoshop, that feature, IMO, is completely useless. Anything I accomplished with DE then, I can now do ten times faster and decidedly more accurately using PS.
Here in Canada, the Rebel retails for $1399.00not exactly chick feed. The 10D is well over two granda serious investment. While I have spent well over that limit (Bronica ETRS) for a camera, I also did a lot more freelancing then, so getting my investment back was no problem. I dont really do that much commercial shooting now, so a Pro oriented outfit isnt that significant anymore.
Basically my choices were between the Canon 10D, the Rebel and the Nikon D100. With the research I did I decided to go with the Canon line due to the CMOS sensor and the excellent photos it produces. Now the choice came down to the 10D and the Rebel.
Since this was my first digital camera and I was starting from scratch I decided since the 10D was a good $500 more that did not include a lens I thought I might be better off getting my start with the Rebel with kit lens and invest that $500 in another lens when I had a clue what I was doing. I haven’t been sorry. The only thing I have heard that worries me is shutter problems on a few cameras. As more people have these cameras over the long haul more info will be available about how long they last. I know people who take around 5000 photos per month. So far I have had 0 problems. It feels sturdy enough to me and the 10D is quite a bit heavier.
I am not a professional photographer but I have heard quite a few pros say they love this camera and many more of them have it as a back up camera. Sometimes I wish I bought the 10D but then think that I will probably just upgrade when Canons next camera comes out. I am completely hooked! Waiting until then to begin my experience was not an option so for now I have the Rebel and absolutely love it.
If I were starting today I would probably do the same thing. I would give the D70 a serious look but the lack of ISO 100 kills that for me since I almost always shoot with that ISO.
I don’t know how helpful I am since I have not owned one of these other products and my experience is limited to the past few months. Perhaps you could go to a camera store and handle all of these cameras. Take a flash card with you and take a few pictures.
Can’t you order online? You can pick up the kit for under $1000 from B&H or Canoga Camera.
If you can’t bring yourself to order the Rebel for fear of low quality I would wait until the next general 10D since that camera is probably on its way out. I do not expect a next generation Rebel for a while. The D70 does have features (bells and whistles) that Canon has to answer.
Thanks, Cindy… I appreciate your feedback. Looks like you are happy and contented with your Rebel. Your personal experiences seem to reflect the ones that Ive come across in various forums over the last few months. So far, Ive yet to hear anything negative about the camera. Your reference to shutter problems is the first one Ive heard. Where did you read about that? Might be worth checking out!
Can’t you order online? You can pick up the kit for under $1000 from B&H or Canoga Camera.
$1000.00 US… which, (with current exchange rates) equates to about $1400.00 Cnd. The price of the Rebel is pretty much the same everywhere, give or take a buck or two. Its probably one of the hottest items out there right now, so I cant really see that changing for a while unless Canon decides to up the ante with a newer model.
Im gonna wait for a month or sodont rightly have any spare time right now anyway. Maybe Ill order it from the Shopping Channel here and check it out. Thatll give me 30 days to evaluate and play around with it. If Im not impressed, itll just go back…
I understand the Rebel has ISO 100 (which should produce even less noise than ISO 200 on either camera), but you kind of missed my point. I’m saying the DPR samples (for those ISO settings each camera has) don’t bear out the D70 as being more noisy, even though Phil implies otherwise and actually graphs the D70 as being more noisy across the whole spectrum of ISOs.
To my (hopefully still 20/20) eyes, the D70 samples actually look quite a bit *less* noisy at ISO 200 and 400 than the Rebel, and certainly no worse than the D100 at either setting. One thing Phil did note that I agree with is that the D70’s noise — where it appears — seems much more granular compared to the competition, which is more "splotchy" in certain color channels.
Anyway, not a knock on the Rebel — cameras are just tools — but more a bit of ding against Phil in terms of the consistency of his review approach. In this particular case, anyway.
I think the shutter problem is mostly rumor. There were a few people who had to have the shutter replaced due to Err 99 around 5000 photos. Of coarse that is way too low to be doing that. Then I know those who has thousands of photos with no problems.
When you consider how many Rebels have been sold I would think if there were a real problem it would be all over the place. I am waiting to see if more of this comes in when the Rebel is close to a year in production but I truely think everything is probably ok.
I know it sure is easy to take lots of photos with a digital camera 🙂 I am slowing down now and thinking much more about composition and exposure than I did in the beginning.
Up until the Outdoor Scene Comparison Page, I was getting very excited about the D70… with a bit of little concern about the RGB color tag mentioned earlier in the article. Then I saw the Outdoor Scene images and the Canon again seemed to win over the Nikon.
"Can’t match the EOS 300D’s silky smooth ISO 100 (low noise)" is what I think I keep seeing.
Then I read the…
Nikon have achieved three major improvements with the D70 (compared to the competition / the D100): (1) They have improved the performance of the camera, with its instant on availability, very fast shutter release, superb continuous shooting and image processing speed and smart use of its buffer. (2) They have maintained build quality while still delivering a smaller and lighter camera, the D70 doesn’t feel much less well built than the D100 but is lighter, it certainly feels much more like $1000 worth of camera than the EOS 300D could. (3) They have improved image sharpness and detail, while we could niggle about moiré the compromise between artifacts and sharpness is worth it, in many instances the D70 delivering more detail than our previous benchmark, the EOS 300D / EOS 10D CMOS sensor.
Yep. Everyone does see what they want/read to some degree, however I’m referring not to actual photo samples but Phil’s "grey screen" noise tests. The one with side-by-side comparisons of a grey card (I think) that was shot by both cameras, one for each ISO. Then he splits them into three channels so you can see where the noise comes from….
Those reviews at Dpreview are fairly worthless in my opinion. He shoots images in totally different lighting conditions and then concludes that one camera is better than another. With the resolution charts he’ll shoot one chart with a camera using a prime macro lens & another camera with a cheap zoom and then state that one camera shows more detail when in fact its only really showing that the lens is better.
Regarding the comment about the Rebel 300D: "So far, Ive yet to hear anything negative about the camera" you must not have read very many reviews, or touched one. No way any competent reviewer is going to rate that camera high in the "expected durability" category, unless they don’t evaluate that parameter, in which case IMO it is not a complete review. Of course, low on "expected durability" does not mean it is not an appropriate choice for some folks (those that baby an SLR, don’t use it a lot or hard).
Regarding ISO 100 being a big issue: NOT. These SLR digicams are NOT FILM. They do NOT perform like film. If noise is very low at 200 (which it is) there is little downside to not having ISO 100 available, except to slow down the camera in bright sun while maintaining wide aperture on fast lenses. Most photogs seldom need that, and when they do, inexpensive neutral density filters work very well. Far more important is how does the camera do with noise at higher ISO settings.
As I have stated before, I do not in 2004 recommend the Nikon D100 as a choice; it is older technology. The use of evolved modern technology is very important in digital cameras – just like computers (the D100 is now a G4 in a G5 world). Today in digital Nikon SLRs folks should be comparing to the D2h and the D70, and hopefully soon to a D2x.
What is it that makes the Canon produce images that seem to have an extra punch of color? Do you think the Canon beefs up it’s images with a shot of saturation? But then, it’s not just the intensity of the color, it’s the creamy dreamy feel of the color.
I’m shooting a bunch of cameras, about 70% film and 30% digital; everything from the trusty old rangefinder Leica and Contax through Nikons and others in various film formats.
Digitally, I’ve been using loaner Nikon D100’s and many others. The only digital one one I have bought out of my own pocket is the Pentax *ist-D, which uses the same sensor as the Nikon D100 but has other features I like much better (much brighter viewfinder, smaller but sturdier build with metal frame, no in camera sharpening unless you intentionally apply it, and other features that make it feel more like a film camera than a digital, such as more control through knobs and physical switches, no LCD for composing, etc) and allows me to use over two dozen prime lenses I’ve accumulated over the years, including an 1100mm telephoto lens (1650mm effective angle of view on the digital camera).
I also had a Canon 1D on loan, excellent images. The digital Rebel didn’t appeal because it just didn’t feel right, and the only previous Canon camera I have ever owned was a 35mm Rebel that was about the most unfortunate purchase I ever made.
I’ll probably buy the next generation Nikon because I do have some Nikon lenses.
For the time being I am really thrilled with the *ist-D. As soon as I’m able to get around a little bit more I’ll be taking it out again.
Thanks for the explanation Ramon. I want those kind of images. I think Cindy and Todie have it right. I need to wait for the next generation, if I can wait that long. Let’s hope it will be sooner than later.
Regarding: "Digital cameras change so fast that I will shoot pictures till my Rebel breaks and buy the next generation camera."
That makes perfect sense if it is not for daily professional use.
Regarding "I need to wait for the next generation…"
That makes no sense at all, except of course as regards cash flow matters. 🙂
The current US$1000-7000 digital SLRs (and also the top end of the Canon and Nikon point-and-shoots) all are spectacular devices at their respective price points, including the Rebel 300D. You can shoot 10×12 magazine covers all day long with any of the digital SLR cameras. And, they are all hugely cost-effective when compared to shooting film. There is certainly no technical reason for anyone to postpone entering the learn-photography-quickly digicam world right now.
I like many Nikons, many Canons, and some Fujis. By far my greatest experience is with Nikons, often used under the most rigorous conditions on the planet. My Pentax experience was 20 years ago, and the hardware (admittedly not Pentax’s very best at the time) did not stand up to my hard usage.
What do you know about coping with internal dust issues with the D100? Any tricks or other advice?
Regarding the comment about the Rebel 300D: "So far, Ive yet to hear anything negative about the camera" you must not have read very many reviews, or touched one.
Youre right… Ive never touched one; nor have I been anywhere near one, yet. If I had, Im sure my decision would certainly be less taxed then it is at this time. All Im going on right now is word of mouth, and what Ive seen on paper and monitors.
The negative comment was indirectly aimed at various user forums across the net where different members freely exchanged data about their Rebel purchases. I just came across another one this morningthe fellow is happier then a lark reciting its latest rendition of The Tennessee Bird Walk… 😉
During the various times I used the D100, I never encountered any particular dust issues, though I read somewhere that may be a problem. I did switch lenses a number of times, and just used the dust blower bulb a couple of times. Nothing out of the ordinary.
There are a lot of people who are not professional photographers but are in the design field in one form or another for whom the entry level of SLR’s are perfect. I am one of those.
While I would love to have a high end SLR it is probably not an investment I will make unless for some reason I start making a lot of money selling photos. If I were to make enough money on photography I would natually buy the best camera that my business could justify. Until then the Rebel is a great camera that serves me well. For me the Canon 10D and the Rebel shoot photos that are the best my money can buy in my price range.
I was able to buy myself another lens with the money I saved buying the Rebel instead of the 10D. With the way digital cameras are changing I think that was a sound decision.
I think the Nikon D70 is a contender but for me I have purchased into the Canon line which I do not regret and when the Rebel breaks I will buy another under $2000 Canon unless my situation has changed.
From what I can see of the samples from the D70 compared with the Rebel I still think the Rebel produces better looking pictures. The D70 is a more solidly built camera or it appears to be. We have yet to see how well it holds together. Build quality is not all there is to it although it is something I will pay close attention to on my next purchase.
Thanks for your encouragement Ramon. Sometimes I feel a little sorry I didn’t get the 10D but I should’t. I think what is going to happen is that I am going to learn a lot and buy the next camera up when it comes out or when my Rebel quits on me. Who knows, maybe by then I will buy "L" glass but so far since I shoot RAW, Photoshop RAW has been able to correct any CA that I have.
The only reason Linda hesitates (in my opinion) is because like me she is afraid of making a mistake especially where business is concerned. Perhaps I am out of line for making this assumption but I believe that sometimes we just have to start (Linda if that offended you my apologies).
I wouldn’t miss this last year for anything. But then by the time Linda buys a camera I will be able to help her out 🙂
It makes sense for Linda to wait for a less expensive, better SLR, because she has a digital camera and knows how to use it for her actual needs (while learning more about the ways of the professional photographers).
Wait? Why? Certainly Linda does not need a "better SLR" than the low end digicam SLRs like the Rebel 300D and the Nikon D70, which both are very good digicams. Suggesting that someone miss out on a year of digital SLR photography to wait for something better than exists now is IMO very bad advice. Life is too short.
Every modern SLR digicam already is capable of producing images equal or better than 35 mm film scans for most pix. Only folks needing to equal medium format film scans should even remotely consider waiting.
Note that in post #852 I specifically included the Rebel 300D as a viable choice. Not for me the camera-beater, but certainly for many other folks. I am thrilled that Canon hit the US$1000 price point; I am sure it motivates all the other manufacturers.
For those bright sunlight shots – and especially on the web at 72 ppi – an SLR digicam would provide small benefit. However with an SLR Linda probably would have come back with good (10×12 prints no problem) pix of those same planes FLYING (assuming that they flew while she was there). A huge difference, probably the biggest difference between the under US$700 cameras and the over US$999 cameras is the ability to reliably capture pix of moving subjects. Also the ability to cope with less than ideal light, and the ability to capture good telephoto. And croppability [I just made that word up, so I decide how it is spelled 🙂 ]
[Edit] I did find some flying plane pix on Linda’s Air Show site. The limitations of lower end digicams like the CP990 are apparent. All in all though I think Linda has a good eye and takes nice pix! All she needs is an SLR…
Not to worry about me being offended. I know you have my best interest at heart and I appreciate that very much.
It’s not hard to wait when you’re too busy to go out shopping. 🙂 I’m about ready to wrap up a couple of jobs. By that time I should be able to focus and take this more seriously, and if all goes well my budget will be a little larger than I expected, making it possible to buy needed accessories and maybe an extra lens.
I don’t think I’m missing out on anything so far, mainly because I’ve been blessed with enough work to keep too busy to shop or shoot. I appreciate you saying that about having a good eye. I hope so. We shall see…
As for larger prints, I’m hoping to be able to incorporate them into oversized graphic design pieces that can be used for poster purposes… either as backgrounds or incorporated into artwork.
I just wonder how many mega pixels I would need for 18×24, 24×36, or even 36×48.
Oh, and since you made it up, croppability it is! 🙂
I am reminded of when I was going through a similar process trying to choose a color laser printer. The Phaser 780 was a big hit with graphic designers. Because it had been out for a while I decided to wait for the next one to replace it, thinking the next one would surely be even better. I did just that. I waited until the Xerox Phaser 790 came out. The reviews were great. I plunged right in and ordered one. It has since turned out to be the worst purchase I’ve ever made. It’s a lemon. People are still loving their 780 while I continue to pour money into the 790. It’s one thing after another. Yesterday it started printing messy. Today it’s jamming. It’s now telling me I need to order another print copy cartridge. I’m only on my third set of toners (some of them might still be the second) and I’m replacing the print copy cartidge for the second time.
I hope I don’t make the same mistake with my camera purchase. Perhaps I should go with the proven Canon Rebel and then later upgrade if needed… like some here have suggested.
Linda, Regarding those print sizes, much will depend on the resolution that you need to print at and above all, the RIP doing the upsizing. I would normally be tempted to just say that you need a 1DS for those file sizes, but the truth is that much is subject dependent and will also be down to what you find acceptable.
A well known fashion photographer called Melvin Sokolsky once talked about obtaining superb prints from the old 1D which is a 4MP camera with prints up to 40×60 from the lightjet printer. A 10D is more than capable of producing billboards sized images because they are done at such low resolution however it might have difficulty with some subjects that need to show very high levels of detail in large prints and at close examination in which case you need 11MP and up.
Its impossible to say whether a camera will be able to produce images or not at a certain size without knowing the complete process. To get the best results though, shoot Raw, work with prime lenses and stay in 16 Bit while making tonal adjustments. I’ve found Sharpener from Pixel Genius very useful in getting extra details out of digital files.
All of the SLR cameras have manual and auto modes as well as interchangeable lenses. That is one of the main differences between point and shoot cameras and SLR’s. The moderately priced Rebel and D70 can be shot in manual mode as well as a lot of in-between modes.
Perhaps I should go with the proven Canon Rebel and then later upgrade if needed.
I don’t think you’ll need to upgrade, save for the eventuality that the camera disintegrates on you, which I wouldn’t expect any time soon –unless you keep loaning your cameras out. The 300D digital Rebel takes wonderful pictures and the Canon line of lenses is excellent.
For a slight change in subject. I am just scanning some Kodachrome 25 images that I shot nearly 20 years ago with a Contax using the legendary 50mm Carl Zeiss lens. Wow, it makes all other film look really nasty by comparison and I think it says a lot for modern digital cameras that the noise levels are about the same as my 10D at 100 ISO.
Ann, that’s really not a fair comparison because you are discounting your existing investment as though it was free. Throw in the price of your scanner, clip tests, Polaroids and all the rest to see how it compares. Digital will pay for itself very quickly.
Once upon a time Ann you were resolutely in favour of OS 9 and now you are using OS X. My bet is that in 12 months time you will be telling us all how wonderful digital is. Wade may hang on a while longer…
I really think that in the not too distant future digital backs for medium format are going to have a very hard time selling. Its not that they won’t be better than 35mm cameras, just that the difference will be largely academic in print and they will always lack the handling advantages of 35mm.
When the new 1DS comes out with a very likely 16MP sensor and super low noise like the 10D there will be no justification to shoot either film or medium format for most people. The only exception will be when very precise camera movements are needed with view cameras and that’s a small market.
The D70 and the 300D are both good choices, each with its pros and cons. Both are far too new to qualify as "proven," however.
————————————— Linda- You have received enough advice, done enough asking. Ask a D300 owner what he/she likes and the answer is obvious: he/she chose the D300. The same applies to D70 owners. The two cameras are of the same genre, both good value. The D70 is more camera but costs more.
You have to decide which is the better value for you, in your hands, for your planned shooting, so… you _must_ handle the cameras! The ergonomic differences as experienced _only_by_you_ are much, much more significant than the picky details as expressed in a plethora of reviews, and way more relevant than what I prefer, or Cindy prefers, or anyone else prefers.
Most importantly dont let the camera store person sway you. Each store receives very different profit margins on different cameras. And **absolutely** stick with lenses of the same brand as the camera you select. **Never** accept that "special deal" offered to you with some third party lens (why could be a whole new thread topic); just don’t go there.
————————————– Ann, when you recommend only prime lenses and no auto exposure, no auto focus, you are back in Luddite mode. True in the 1970s, but very bad advice today for someone newly moving up to either film or digital SLRs.
 Quality modern zoom lenses today are just that: quality. Prime lenses will always technically be inherently better because they are usually a bit faster, and in the very long term moving parts do wear on zooms. However, prime lenses s*ck for getting the shot in a changing environment.
The ability to – instantly, and without carrying multiple lenses – compose at varying focal lengths is a very, very significant boost to composition. Unless you wear a camera vest full of lenses and are really fast at changing lenses, by the time you can change a lens you have missed most shots in the real digicam world (where one of the photoflow [another word just coined] benefits is to shoot lots of _free_ shots and learn from each shot) because the subject or the light has changed.
For a beginning SLR person actually seeing the full range of compositional choices through the lens in real time is a huge learning benefit. Only with many years of experience can a photog glance at a scene and immediately know what focal length lens will be best. Even then, sometimes a scene begs to be shot at two focal lengths, like the plane with pilot as one pic and tight on the pilot as another; and you only have 4 seconds to get both shots. It is easy with a zoom lens, impossible with prime. Zoom lenses allow more precise composition in camera, meaning less cropping, which of course means better post process resolution.
 Not using auto-exposure on a modern SLR digicam is absurd. Auto-exposure (at least on the better Nikons to my knowledge) became very good in the 1980s and excellent in the 1990s. Today in 2004 it is nothing short of spectacular. In the 1970s and before I bracketed every exposure, meaning 12 images per US$20 roll of slide film; very important pix were double bracketed, meaning 7 images per US$20 roll of film. During the 80s I started finding very good auto exposure almost all the time, and stopped bracketing anything but really critical shots.
Even if you ignored the above truisms, digital SLR cameras have a different photoflow. What you do is shoot the pic, look at the image, look at the histogram, look at the blowouts, adjust (all these cameras easily adjust exposure +/- 5 stops) and reshoot if necessary – faster than you can even pick up a light meter, let alone get a righteous reading!
 Autofocus has similarly improved over the decades to where on the most modern (meaning 1990s and later) better SLRs it can be the focus method of choice for many (but not all) shots. You can switch among, focus, recompose and photo three different critters in a herd in two seconds, for instance, and have the eyes in all 3 photos in perfect focus. To approach (but still not reach) that speed manually takes years of practice. Manual focus of course still is always available for those pix where it is necessary.
Well, lets see Photoshop 7.0.1 is definitely faster on the new machine in OS 9.2.2 than in Panther; no printing, scanning or third-party device incompatibilities; superb and trouble-free font management, including ATR; a bunch of applications that only run in native Mac OS 9.x and not in Classic; no need to learn much new stuff nor ever worry about system updates any more; minimal system maintenance, no need for Cocktail waitresses or Janitors; no fear of destroyed FireWire drives; vastly superior proofing tools in Russian, German, Dutch, French and Italian; no decent MS Office suite of applications in OS X; I could go on
Like I said, manual is still sometimes preferable. Fast moving critters, particularly at a relatively _unchanging_ distance are one good example. E.g., in addition to your marine mammal, I shot a ski race this weekend and manual focus was much preferable. I could get 3 high speed shots of each racer in manual focus mode instead of just one shot in autofocus mode.
I have to agree with what you are saying Allen regarding auto-focus these days and my perspective on using fixed focal length lenses is because of the sort of work I do where zooming is just not necessary and I feel happy with fixed lens. If I was shooting street scenes I’d go for a zoom every time.
On the subject of light metering, yes I think that much has improved to the point where I’ll only use my hand held light meter in the studio or on really tricky subjects. Very curiously, I’ll often choose the centre weighted option rather than Matrix, because I think the Canons have a habit of going crazy over a small distant highlight and underexposing the scene in general if you aren’t careful.
For me the great thing about digital, is that I can think of an idea for an image, do it and look at the Raw processed result 5 minutes later on my screen while knowing in advance that I had everything right before putting the camera away. Recently with photo stock shooting, I have been able to shoot a series of images, process and upload them to the agencies in a couple of hours and it hasn’t cost me a penny. The quality of cameras like the 300D is now good enough for a large number of commercial applications and the convenience and productivity is astounding compared to film.
Ramón: You can mute the colorfulness of OSX very easily by choosing Appearance: Graphite.
You could also make your own desktop background by taking any one of Apple’s; opening it in Photoshop; and desaturating it. Then settle for tiny icons and a disappearing Dock and you will be safely back in the Calm Zone again.
Todie that says an awful lot about most pro labs. Actually the one thing that really pushed me towards digital was a sense of total despair with a lot of the shoddy work being turned out by the labs. It seemed like I was bending over backwards to do everything right and some underpaid lab technician would always mess everything up and I got fed up with paying for such sloppy work.
The labs may be complaining now, but they have been their own worst enemy in many cases.
Yes Kodachrome 25 had its pluses IF you had enough lens speed and light to get the pic and liked the saturation and color shift. The problem was how many pix were missed because of that slow film speed; I preferred Kodachrome 64 back then. Note that AFAIK they stopped making Kodachrome 25, probably because of the similar competence of Velvia at ISO 50.
Ramon: I could never go back now that I’m used to Panther. When I first saw OSX I thought the same as you. Then I began using it. Now OS9 looks plain and sterile. Nor do I miss all the system crashes with OS9. Panther is the best ever!!! I work day after day, week after week, month after month… lol… no system crashes… well, maybe one when I allowed it to go to sleep without shutting down one night.
Allen: I think I’ve got it. You never know though. 😉
I have used Panther. I experience no crashes in 9.2.2.
The notion that if you keep banging your head against the wall you’ll eventually learn to love it is not very appealing to me.
Sure, a human being can and will adapt to just about anything, but why adapt if there’s no reason to? I tried all kinds of tobacco products when I was young and hated every single one of them, so I’m a non smoker. No reason to make a special effort to get addicted to something you don’t need.
Why is it difficult to conceive that people have different tastes and needs? Personally I dislike champagne and I dislike caviar; give me a bottle of good German white wine or a Spanish or French red anytime. Why would I have to make an effort to like champagne or caviar?
Sorry, but the more I read you guys, the more convinced I get that you’re wrong. 🙂
Ramón, Ramón, Ramón as I have said i the past to Ann (stubborn, stubborn Ann) Shelbourne come to the darkside and Ramón you have had crashes and loss of work in OS 9.2.2 even though it is pretty stable, but you have had them
Nope. no crashes in 9.2.2 so far. Maybe in 9.1, but it was quickly attributed to the extensions I got rid of since. Earlier than that, sure, many freezes and crashes.
Besides, in the last 30 months I lost hundreds of hours trying to troubleshoot OS X on my old Frankenmac. And OS X did crash on me, Kernel Panic and all. Not 9.2.2. (Knock on wood.) I read about folks losing files in Panther too, though it doesn’t crash. Sure, there’s always something to blame it not, never on the sacrosanct OS X though. Programs quit, but the OS X allegedly doesn’t. A difference without a distinction. I’ve lost work because the program crashed on me, which then led to a system crash in earlier, pre 9.2.2 systems.
My point is that by the time 9.2.2 came and stayed, I had it pretty much figured out. I knew what extensions to get rid of and other tricks like never ever let the first application you open be a MS one, purge and check the system often, save all work and quit if it’s starts ballooning in size (MS application at work, for sure), etc.
One thing I can assure you, combining all work I may have lost in twenty years of Mac usage, it doesn’t amount to one fourth of the time I wasted on OS X.
I know there will come and time when I will be forced to start using OS X; but, for the time being, I don’t have to, and that’s a very good thing.
Have you ever considered sidling down to the pet shop and acquainting yourself with a cute, cuddly kitten? Sneak it on home, then watch in wide-eyed amazement as it jumps up into your lap and purrrrrrrsss you into a conciliated little nap…. 🙂
You have to decide which is the better value for you, in your hands, for your planned shooting, so… you _must_ handle the cameras!
This is not necessarily as Cut and Dried as its sometimes laid out to be… I just got my Kensington 5-button mouse replaced under warranty. Id been using this rodent for about three years, and every nook and cranny of its structure had become so distinctly familiarized with my right hand that every action I performed with it was second nature. When it failed, I called Kensington, and they informed me that the model I had, had been discontinued, but that theyd send me the replacement model. When it arrived a couple weeks later, I almost threw a gasket… Instead of having the 3rd and 4th buttons on either side like before, they switched them both to the left side.
Holy Cripes….!!! For the next couple of days my mousing maneuvers were frustratingly rippled with repetitive errors… my finger kept reaching for that elusive, right-side button, only to find an empty void there. This was about three weeks ago. But, you know what? Once I got my finger reprogrammed, I found that Kensington actually made a smart move… Having those two buttons on the same side, now feels much smoother, more intuitive, and allows noticeable faster button selections. I can actually work considerably faster with that setup. I still make the odd mistake ever so often, but theyre getting rarer by the day. Another week, and the old setup will feel like OS 9 does to me now stagnant and stale..!
When I used OS9 I pushed it to its limits. I kept a lean and mean system. I think I actually locked it up 2 or 3 times. mostly because I tried doing too many things at once. But as Ramón said 9.2.2 is rock solid (it has to be to run as classic under OSX). Although I have managed to crash Classic a few times.
the Fact that Ramón doesn’t prefer OSX at this time is not a bad thing. Poking him in the eye with your verbal sticks isn’t going to change his mind. If you follow Ramóns helpful posts he has a good grasp of OSX and is able to help those having trouble with it. Ramón, like Ann in the past, prefers OS9.
He will in time come to use OSX mostly because all the new software is only made for OSX and soon some app will come along that Ramón will feel he can’t do without forcing his hand. Similar to Ann having a G5.
I have one, but for the majority of my work I still prefer the lowly ole mouse. Call me blind, stupid or indifferent, thats just the way it is!
Poking him in the eye with your verbal sticks isn’t going to change his mind.
Notice that I said: the old setup will feel like OS 9 does to me now
If Ramon and company still prefer working in OS 9, thats more than fine with me… as long as they dont try to cajole me back into it. I think Ramon also knows that were just trying to ruffle his feathers we all enjoy his crafty comebacks, and OS9 seems to do the trick at this point… 🙂
Guess what? I might be actually needing a new camera sooner than I thought. A client whose print and Web jobs I wrapped up yesterday asked me if I’d like more Web work. He said he wants to refer me for another Web design job that will include going in and taking pictures of the office and equipment. Is it not interesting how circumstances and time prod us along at just the right time? I’m sure for Web work I can still use my little Nikon and then enhance photos in Photoshop but since I’m almost ready to upgrade I may as well make the purchase before I take on a job like that.
But folks, Linda wants to buy a point and shoot camera because its easier to use and I’ve gotta come up with an intellegent way to talk her out of that. I think a point and shoot is a mistake in the long haul but is it?
I’d like to hear what others think of that. I say that if Linda is in a big hurry for this particular job she should use the camera she has rather than buy the PowerShot Pro1. These cameras (her current camera) work just fine for web work.
I think… that if Linda really gets interested in photography then she will, like most photographers, end up with a collection of cameras and lenses for each particular subject matter. In the short term, i.e. the next couple of years, the Pro1 would be ideal.
You probably don’t know what age bracket I’m in, so let me just tell you that I was born when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president of the US and Adolf Hitler ruled Germany. That leaves a suitably ambiguous time span but gives you a rough idea. 🙂
The reason I bring this up is your remark about cats and petshops. I’m old enough to know what I like, what I dislike and what I have a genuine aversion to. Cats fall in that last category. I have been involved with horses all my life and with dogs since I was about four years old. I love both horses and dogs; I hate cats. It’s a genuine phobia. Who knows, it may even be in my genes, for my oldest daughter is deadly allergic to cats, and I do mean in a life-threatening manner.
Now, why in Hades would I go into a petshop to cuddle up with a cat? It doesn’t take an IQ much higher than that of a caterpillar’s to realize that isn’t going to change a thing.
One thing that amazes me is that you OS X fans seem not to have read my posts where I have set forth why OS 9 suits my needs at this time, otherwise you wouldn’t keep insisting that I make yet an umpteenth painful effort to bang my head against the wall with Panther until I adapt to it and in the meantime lose considerable speed in Photoshop, multilingual custom software keyboard layout functionality, and the use of highly specialized software, including a CATA system that cost more than the new car I bought late last year and will never be available for OS X. That would really be insane.
The reason I’m irritated this time is because it’s become increasingly clear that you presume to feel entitled to act condescendingly because you believe I’m actually resisting OS X out of sheer ignorance. Allow me to turn the tables on you for a change, for it is you who doesn’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
Zeb, that may be true but money is a consideration for some of us. Also I think the "feel" that comes with an SLR is part of the addiction. If she were going to get addicted from a point and shoot she would have that already. She already has a P&S.
I guess I can see how you might have read into my email, as follows…
Since I do not have a lot of free time, do you think I will find the 300D Rebel to be easy to use? One of my clients wants to refer me for another Web job that will include taking pictures of the office and equipment. I want to buy something that will be easy to use and give me great results.
I just wanted your take on the Rebel in this regard. 🙂
Linda, regardless of which digital camera you get I would suggest that you test it out really extensively as soon as you get it and if its not 100% right don’t let anybody hoodwink you into accepting substandard performance.
When digital cameras are good, they can be a true pleasure to work with, however, in this day and age when too many products are rushed to market without being thoroughly tested, quality control is not what it should be and many bugs are never resolved during the life time of the product, which can be so annoying when you have spent thousands of dollars.
Apart from the little test reports, which mean very little when you remember that reviewers will never be too critical when they depend on the same manufacturers for advertising, look closely to see if there are constant user complaints and how the manufacturer deals with them. Also make sure that you purchase from a reliable vendor who has a good policy for returns.
Let me put it this way Linda. Any time I take a picture now it is really easy and instinctive. It took me a little while to get to that point. I think that is something you have to commit to.
If you are going to take indoor shots you would be better off with an external flash. But that is the case with any camera. The Rebel tends to underexpose indoors with the built in flash but that can be helped by shooting RAW. I got an external flash that has built in FEC which solved that problem for me. I do know some tricks on how to use the internal flash successfully too.
I think if you got the Rebel with the kit lens you would be shooting great pictures in no time flat. It even has a "P" mode that does pretty good. The only thing that is hard to get used to is the exposure. I think P&S’s are easier there. Also, you will need to do some post processing which you probably do anyway.
If you do it I think you should shoot a lot of picts in jpeg till you get a feel for it then switch to RAW.
I would be willing to help you out any way I can in email too.
Ashley: Thanks for your comments. This is why I’ve not been in a hurry… and I really don’t need to rush into a purchase for the job possibility. I feel pretty confident that my little Nikon will do whatever I need it to do for this kind of Web work. I’ve been somehow pulling off this sort of stuff for a while… and clients seem pretty happy with my work… thankfully.
Ann: I am leaning toward the 300D which is a SLR.
BTW, I don’t even like the looks of the Pro1… it looks unprofessional and requires special lenses which won’t work on the others. Not going there.
If I bought the Mark II, what kind of accessories would I need right away? I know I’d need a large Flash Memory Card, probably enough to fit a CD (thanks to recommendations earlier in this thread). But what else would I need to buy?
From those reviews, the Rebel would appear to be an excellent choice for you.
The reviews do all cite durability as a factor but this probably won’t worry you because you treat your equipment carefully. Just do NOT lend it to anyone else!
Regarding the built in flash: you can disregard those comments because you shouldn’t want to use it — except perhaps at 1/3 power to fill in shadows (if it lets you use it in that way) because you will almost certainly want to get an off-camera flash.
Try to give yourself a day off so that you can go to the nearest dealer and get a hands-on feel for it but beware that you probably won’t go home without it!
[ "That? That old thing? It’s just a camera. Had it for ages. Hadn’t you noticed it until now? "]
Ann, Cindy: Coming back down to earth. I almost zoomed into outer space with the Mark II temptation. Reason and sanity returning [for now at least]. I’m reminded to crawl before I stand, and stand before I walk… 🙂
Ashley: Thanks for the email… Enlightening and helpful.
Working through this process is great! Fixed on the 300D again.
You could get the Rebel, buy a good lens in a month or so as an addition to the kit lens and when the next camera upgrade comes out get that which will probably be better than the MarkII by then thus saving a bundle 🙂
That’s what I’m thinking Cindy. By this time next year a camera such as the Mark II or it’s replacement may come down enough in price to cover both purchases. It’s the 300D. I would order right this minute but I have work to do… so I’ll sit on it over the weekend.
Do you have a local camera store that carries the 300D? For the camera I prefer a local store in case there is anything wrong you can take it right back. Also, get an extended warranty. Just a good idea.
Cindy: I’m thinking the same thing. I called MacMall and my discount isn’t that great this time. Matter of fact it’s not much of a discount at all, it’s quite a bit higher than other mail order sites I’ve seen.
It would be nice to get plugged into a local retailer, where they can get to know me and be there to help when I need it.
I’ll wait on the lenses then, and make sure I get the extended warranty. Thanks!
A lot of the time a local retailer will teach you a lot. They took a few hours with me. Not so much because I wouldn’t let them go but because these camera folks love to talk camera so are very helpful.
I’m glad you are willing to wait on the lenses. There is a lot to say about that too which is premature.
Since she knows what she is going to the local retailer for they can’t sell her anything she doesn’t want. I have had very good luck with mine. There are many advantages to using a local retailer as long as you do your research before you go in. If they are trying to scam her then she needs to go to the next one.
 A digital SLR is indeed what you want for the new work you just described. There is even the "image" issue with clients, which is not a small point. For the work described you might well accomplish the exact same pic with a CP8700 as with a D70, but with a full size SLR you look like a more professional photog to many clients. I am not personally espousing that image concept, but clearly it very substantially exists. And in a way it is true, because having a pro tool in one’s hands often helps lead one toward doing more professional work. Which cameras may look/feel more professional in your hands is up to you to decide: put some time in handling those two cameras!
 A very large competitive benefit that accrues to those of us PS-competent folks using SLR digicams is the ability to very quickly get a job done from concept to photo shoot to final web or print output. We do it in a few _hours_! Clients love the instant response – dinosaur film-based work flows cannot compete.
Lighting is of course what photography is all about, and instant lighting as needed for the fast workflow described above very often involves flash photography. If you evolve into doing more of the work you describe, at some point in the near (my advice would be on day 1) future you will want to add a righteous external flash to your digicam.
The key word above is righteous. Old style flash photography as still practiced by most pro and amateur photogs s*cks as an instant-lighting tool even though it works very, very well in the hands of a pro with years of experience and lots of setup/equipment time.
The very latest Nikon camera/strobe systems (e.g. the D70 or D2h with an SB-800 or SB-600 flash unit) are very much better than previous strobe systems, the last generation of which was pretty good. A relative newcomer to SLR strobe photography can now achieve generally pleasing instant flash assisted pix; a boon to those of us building quick-turnaround workflows.
Canon also has one modern strobe for the 300D, the 550 EX. IMO among modern SLR camera/strobe systems Nikons setup is very substantially the best, but if you do select Canon you should plan on that one specific Canon 550 EX strobe being likely in your future. The cost of such external strobes runs in the range of US$300-350.
P.S. Please, please spend some time handling the cameras in question. It sounds like you are evolving to your decision without what is by far the most important information.
Ann must be sleeping, or she would have poached #1000.
You may want to review earlier strobe discussions in this thread before any strobe decisions: a strobe that "works with" a camera is not necessarily "state of the art" with that camera. It makes no sense not to take advantage of the very latest technology when it can greatly improve the quality of flash pix. If you buy a 300D there is only one right strobe choice. Or with the (IMO better flash system) Nikon D70 there are only two right strobe choices.
LOL! Now I have another decision to make… which camera store to use. We have several that have been around for a long time. One is quite large, the other very old… then there are several more. I plan to visit them and see how I like the people who work there… as well as check prices.
The prices are going to be within a few dollars of each other because I think Canon sets the price. These stores do not make much commission on the cameras. They make it on lenses and accessories so be careful there.
I would go with the combination of who is most helpful as well as knowledgeable. We (me) can be pests. When I bought one lens at Canoga Camera I took 4 back until I was happy 🙂 I bought the camera at a different place that I actually like better but unfortunately their lenses are too much higher to justify.
Thats another thing. Don’t order lenses on line. When you are ready for that you go to the store that has the most lenses in stock.
Now as far as flash cards and batteries I got those after market and sometimes they are better that way. You do have to get a flash card right away though so you will probably get that at the camera store. 512k is a good size. I would rather have 2 512k than a 1 gig.
By the looks of this thread, neither can anyone else today
Well, I have an excuse, I’m on sick leave, kind of recuperating myself and taking care of my wife, who had surgery last week and has a steel nail protruding from her toe and going into her foot toward the heel. She has to keep her foot elevated above heart level, so she needs lots of help.
I strongly believe in buying things in person at retail when possible. E.g. if I use a camera store to test shoot new cameras I feel ethically obliged to buy the camera there, even though it costs a bit more.
However, for many other things – like strobes, lenses, filters, film, cameras I don’t store test – many pros including me have successfully used B&H Photo out of NYC for decades. <http://www.bhphotovideo.com/> Unlike many other retail vendors, they are scrupulously honest and fair, and usually have among the lowest real (meaning without scams involved) prices. In addition to mail sales they have a retail store (that everyone should visit at least once, it is better than Disneyland) but taking your time and handling the hardware is NOT part of their sales ethic. The average sale is probably more than US$1000 and takes about 90 seconds – literally!
Note that much camera eqpt. comes in USA and (cheaper) non-USA versions. B&H identifies which is which, but many other sources do not. One trick is to always verify that a USA warranty is in the box.
[Edit] Actually 90 seconds for a transaction is probably an overestimate. It seems the push your multi-thousand-dollar transaction through in half that.
I bought the camera where I tested and I bought most of the lenses where I tested. I like being able to test several lenses before I buy. I am down the street from Canoga Camera which is similar to B&H as far as stock.
I do not feel obliged to buy lenses where I buy the camera but I have tried to be fair if I do a lot of testing. Canoga actually sent me to their competitor when they were out of stock on something so I do try to have a good relationship. Spent good money at 3 different local camera stores.
Allen: I’m glad to know about the USA warranty. I too do not like to take advantage of a store if I don’t plan to use them, but in this case I would like to find out what the people are like as well as test the equipment.
The store I visited a few weeks ago in Wellington will probably not be my choice. The young guy was very nice. The older guy was so so. I knew more than they did about some of the features of the camera. There was no real enthusiasm about their products.
Do try not to buy their demo camera. I bought my camera and after 5000 pictures I noticed that the s/n on the camera did not match the receipt. The store questioned it but I happened to have pictures taken inside their store and each photo has the camera s/n embedded in the EXIF. They exchanged it without any further question.
These cameras are made to where the amount of pictures taken get recorded inside the camera and cannot be changed. You can take your flash card and it can get certain numbers in the camera to change so format your flash with the camera. Actually, you would be better off to buy a new flash card to do your testing with because of the numbering. Hard to explain.
There is a setting that has continuous picture numbering but even if you dont select this it still has embedded the actual number.
She had fractures on both feet but kept walking on them for nearly two years. During that time they tried plastic boots (removable casts really), the device with electrodes that send electrical impulses 24/7, etc. All to no avail. Finally they had to do quite a bit of reconstruction of that particular toe and other parts of her foot.
Based on this article <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0404/04040801eos300dblack.asp> released today, the black version of the 300D is only being produced in Japan right now. So unless I’m willing to wait I will have to go with the original one… which is really okay. I like the black but not sure I want to keep waiting now that I’m pretty sure of what I want to do.
Canon Japan has today announced a new black bodied version of the ‘Kiss Digital’ as it is known in Japan (EOS 300D / Digital Rebel). At this stage it’s unclear whether Canon will make the new black body available in Europe (as the EOS 300D) or North America (as the Digital Rebel). Remember also that the Japanese market get the USM version of the EF-S 18-55 mm lens which is powered by a normal DC motor in the rest of the world. Personally I think the camera looks much better in black, the color Canon should have chosen right from the start.
Trying to remember who else might be ready to take the plunge? Was it Macmanx or Oz that said they were in the market? Just curious if and what others are planning to do.
Probably not this weekend. I am still quite busy and want to take my time with the final process of tring them out and finding a store that I like. Maybe this coming week though. I actually prefer to shop during the week to avoid the weekend crowds. That way I have a better chance of getting the attention I need.
Ive been away all day, and just got back to read your last post addressed at me… I had to reread it a couple of times to make sure I wasnt hallucinatingit literally left me speechless!
Let me begin by saying this: This conceived notion of yours about me having it in for anyone (especially you) still using OS9 is completely misconstrued. Why should/would it matter to me what any given person prefers as his operating system…? Its an individualistic preferenceplain and simple. I still exchange pleasantries and ideas with some net buddies who are still on 8.6, and swear on their mothers grave that its the ultimate system… 🙂 Who am I, to argue otherwise… if theyre happy, Im happy!
Ive been roaming and participating in user forums since the advent of the net. Never have any of my posts been as misinterpreted as the ones youre referring to in this thread. I dont know about you, but I sometimes get exasperated rereading the same problem topics day in and day out. When youve just finished answering a users question with a lengthy (possible) solution to their problem, and then come back an hour or so later to see another poster requesting answers to the exact same problem…well, lets just say I get a little vexed… especially, after a trying day. Possibly, even worse, is if you never hear back from them again. Now, did my solution work, or didnt it? All too often were left in the dark as to the final outcome. One would think that the aided person would at least extend the courtesy of a simple reply or Thank-you! At least thats the way I was raised and schooled.
So, what does all this rhetoric have in relation to the topic at hand? Years ago, after keenly watching other skilled wordsmiths at work, I found a possible solution to vent away some of my frustrations… Humor! Why not throw out some good-natured humor from time to time to lighten the mood? Seems plausible, right? So I give it a shot, and have successfully used it over the years to brighten my (and hopefully) someone elses day. That is, until yesterday..! I guess I just found out that some of you folks around here are not too keen on some of my raw humor. Either that, or Im starting to lose it! So, for now, I guess Ill have to start picking my spots more diligently… 🙂
The reason I bring this up is your remark about cats and pet shops. I’m old enough to know what I like, what I dislike and what I have a genuine aversion to. Cats fall in that last category. I have been involved with horses all my life and with dogs since I was about four years old. I love both horses and dogs; I hate cats. It’s a genuine phobia. Who knows, it may even be in my genes, for my oldest daughter is deadly allergic to cats, and I do mean in a life-threatening manner.
Now, why in Hades would I go into a pet shop to cuddle up with a cat?
Youve avidly made your point, Ramon… Cats, for you, are definitely out… BTW…if I had known about this beforehand, I certainly wouldnt even have raised the topic… My apologies.
It doesn’t take an IQ much higher than that of a caterpillar’s to realize that isn’t going to change a thing.
Fair is fair, Ramon…but if this is directed exclusively at me… its far more condescending than anything I may have inadvertently suggested in any of my posts.
One thing that amazes me is that you OS X fans seem not to have read my posts where I have set forth why OS 9 suits my needs at this time, otherwise you wouldn’t keep insisting that I make yet an umpteenth painful effort to bang my head against the wall with Panther
I dont have time to read all the daily posts, Ramon… so youll have to pardon me on that count, also. I may simply have missed them.
The reason I’m irritated this time is because it’s become increasingly clear that you presume to feel entitled to act condescendingly because you believe I’m actually resisting OS X out of sheer ignorance.
Nothing, could be further from the truth, then this, Ramon. You are totally, 100% mistaken. Any person who frequents this forum would have to be totally blind to NOT see the valued contributions you make here on a daily basis. I personally command you for your exemplary efforts.
Allow me to turn the tables on you for a change, for it is you who doesn’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
Well, if you wanted revenge, I guess you got your wish… Again, my attentions were NEVER meant to cause hard feelings, much less to be construed as provocative or inflammatory. Im sorry you took them as such. My motto in life has always been to try to make friends whenever possibleNOT enemies… unfortunately, we dont always succeed with the latter part.
My take on this fiasco (not the first I’ve been involved in) is that Ramón is a very passionate man (well,.. so am I; that’s not a negative) and he has a tendency to forget his civility (which under normal circumstances is more than adequate). I find myself redrawing the line in the sand closer to my essentials. Hopefully Ramón’s redrawn line will leave out cats (I cannot care less about Sony but don’t touch Rollei : )
Drat! I was looking on dpreview for a new device to keep the topic alive but there’s nothing important to me.
Don’t you mean Canon Speedlite 420 EX TTL Flash? It works but from what I hear is not really adequate. You need either the 550 EX or the Sigma EF 500 DG Super Flash EOS because both of these have FEC (Flash Exposure Control).
The Rebel does not have built in FEC which some people have considered a handicap. I personally have not had any problems. There is a hack out that enables it but I have not wanted to use it.
Yes, its the one I got back in 84 when I bought my EOS 650. If I remember correctly, it was the best flash unit Canon had to offer then. It cost me over 300 greenbacks back then, and I was hoping that it would suffice for a while if I got the Rebel.
Whats the 550 EX going for now? I can only imagine… If prier experiences are any indication, its probably half the price of the camera.
Thanks, Cindy. Ill wait and see what kind of results I get with 420EX combo before I decide on further action.
My only regret now is that Ill have to invest in CF cards. Oh, well… I wanted a digital Canon, but the deal I got on the Sony was simply too good to be refused. Plus, its still a good little camera thatll be handy to keep around for a while.
You may want to review earlier strobe discussions (e.g. post 986) in this thread before any strobe purchase decisions: a strobe that "works with" a camera is not necessarily "state of the art" with that camera. It makes no sense not to take advantage of the very latest technology when it can greatly improve the quality of flash pix. If you buy a 300D there is only one right strobe choice. Or with the (IMO much better flash system) Nikon D70 there are only two right strobe choices.
Financially even the lowest end digital SLR (the Rebel 300) with cheapest external strobe is in the range of US$1500 total package. Spending 10% more to get the optimal strobe for the camera/lens combination is the smart way to go. If someone cannot afford the correct external strobe they should simply not purchase an external strobe.
In the 1970s and before, third party strobes were often better than those from camera manufacturers. Since the advent of computerization in camera/lens/strobe combinations in the 1980s, however, the performance of matched camera/lens/strobe combinations has typically FAR outperformed third party solutions. The 2003/2004 versions are the best yet, very much improving the quality of most flash pix – especially in the hands of less skilled photogs.
As a working tool for the kind of work Linda referenced, IMO having the very best, most modern strobe/camera/lens system is a hugely important characteristic.
Note 1: the above comments refer to on-camera external flash units for 2004 film/digital SLR cameras.
Note 2: not all lenses, even those by the same camera/strobe manufacturer, support optimum strobe operation (more prepurchase homework to do).
the performance of matched camera/lens/strobe combinations has typically FAR outperformed third party solutions. The 2003/2004 versions are the best yet, very much improving the quality of most flash pix – especially in the hands of less skilled photogs.
Personally, I have never used an external flash directly on the camera, always on a bracket (or on a separate tripod, if shooting conditions allow it).
[EDITED TO ADD: Obviously, in a studio you would use studio lighting.]
I am not going to read over all the threads to find where I DID previously state that I thought getting the 550 EX was a better idea if you can afford but I did say it. But I also believe that if you are strapped for money the Sigma works fine. It is what I did and I don’t regret it.
You keep harping on the same thing when I have already agreed with you.
macmanx ask me about the 420 and my answer was relative to that as I don’t feel it is adequate if you are going to use an external flash because it isn’t strong enough and it does not have FEC.
As far as my camera choice I am completely happy with my choices for a number of reasons which I won’t go into…again. I reviewed it again today and came to the same conclusions.
I’m back… not shopping yet. 🙂 I plan to wait until after the holiday weekend to check out my local camera stores. Now that I know what I want, I don’t want to wait too long or some other cause will beg for my bank account. 🙂
Monday I have a job to finish. Tuesday one of my clients wants another Photoshop lesson before he goes north for the summer. So I might aim for Wednesday or Thursday. I am very excited about this.
Allen, I do plan to buy the 550 EX Strobe. Not sure if it will be at the same time as the camera. We shall see.
Hi John! I wondered where you were. I am going for the Canon 300D.
Why are you fellows referring the flash units as strobes? A flash unit lamp and housing is very different in design, light emission and color temperature than a strobe unit.
It might sound professional and the camera manufacturers may be labeling these flash units as strobes but quite frankly there is no comparison even if they are technical considered a strobe. It’s like calling Welch’s grape jelly preserves. Just doesn’t spread the same way.
The only recent digital camera which springs to mind that I would actually call bad is the Kodak 14n. To be fair there is a brand new updated version that is probably a lot better but the original camera which was launched about a year ago suffered from terrible noise levels in shadow areas that required huge amounts of post production work and it was very limited in its ISO settings. Despite the incredible 14MP resolution I’d still call that a bad digital camera.
I have no axe to grind with Kodak, I just don’t think the noise levels shown on that camera in practically any situation except the studio were acceptable with a "pro" label on the camera.
On a slightly different subject, has anybody seen this:
Linda, the D2h is actually a very new camera that was only released a few months ago. It is aimed at sports photographers primarily who need speed rather than high resolution and there have been a few reports that the quality is not as good as it should be.
Really that article just backed up what I said earlier that producing successful large format prints is very subject dependent and relies heavily on the method of interpolation chosen.
I always feel with digital that when you get everything right it can look fantastic, but small errors which would often not show with film can make you look bad as a photographer if you mess up. The capture medium may have changed but good technique is more essential than ever.
These images are not altered in any way different than my typical prep for web display. They are Fine JPEGs, straight from the D2H camera, ISO200, resized to 72 dpi, converted to sRGB colorspace, and one application of USM at 500%, R0.1, T0 simply to correct for digital capture.
What a bizarre way to set up a picture for printing.
Ashley it should be pointed out that the lab probably used a very high end sharpening software and that they use such as software at a lab I use to use called Color wheel where I saw them take a low resolution scan made from a slide on a poor flat bed scanner that was fussy and pixelated at 4 x6 inches and re-interpolate the file to 11×14 and it looked as good as what you saw in that posting.
So yes if you have the software you are fie and quite frankly it doesn’t matter how you shoot it.
Heidleberg has such software a very interesting thing to see. I am sure there are others.
The only recent digital camera which springs to mind that I would actually call bad is the Kodak 14n.
You’re right of course, That camera was not only bad but terrible. I don’t think it qualifies as a current model any more, though. From my viewpoint, it represented a premature release motivated by sheer desperation on the part of Kodak.
Sure why not you have one? Are we talking about the medium format or large format version? The medium format you know will no longer be made! That is because they think that it will not improve the quality over the newer 35mm size digital cameras and of course they aren’t selling a whole lot of them.
I have always used the term strobe rather than flash to apply to both. The dictionary definition is
strobe light: n. A flash lamp that produces high-intensity short-duration light pulses by electric discharge in a gas.
Anyway it sounds like just semantics to me.
Regarding technical differences between (using your preferred terminolgy) strobes and flashes, would you please elaborate? My understanding was that flash units like those used on Nikon & Canon SLRs are around 5000K temperature as are "daylight" studio strobes; the big difference being in power and recycle times. Of course studio strobes of other temps are also available.
Suggesting that all digital cameras are premature is pretty silly when the digital SLRs work so well and have so many benefits over scanned 35 mm film for many pix. Only when compared to scanned medium format film are SLR digicams still premature.
The studio strobe or monolight or mono block units have a lamp that is mounted outside of the housing that is they send the light in all directs. they doe have a small reflective surface behind the lamp but they remain omnidirectional and are general shape in a circular con figuration although there are more specialized lamps as well, as opposed to a flash unit which has a lineal tube that is housed in a reflective housing and offers only directional lighting, part of the reason for red eye. The color temperature of the flash unit as opposed to a professional strobe unit I have never seen one that is actually 5000k even though all of them state that they are 5000k.
Because a strobe is omnidirectional if you bounce it of two or three adjoining surfaces you will obtain a true diffused light and a very natural look you will never be able to achieve this with a flash. It is true that light is light but it becomes an issue when you want to control it. You can use all sort of bounce apparatus with a flash and you will never achieve what you will with a simple operation and a strobe unit.
Also keep in mind the amount of power and light you will get from a strobe output is enormous by comparison to any flash unit 1000ws is something like a guide number of 600. The highest monolight comes in 1500ws I believe but there are power packs that yield 6000ws though you need several heads to take advantage of this.
A powerful flash might yield 100ws the Norman 200B is 200ws and is really a battery operated strobe as it requires a reflector to give it true directional light as do all strobe units.
Todie 6:30 would be fine where would one meet I guess at Color Edge how about tomorrow?
I do not follow religious Holidays myself, I have no real calling for it. So I am never up to date, perhaps next week when the Holidays are over. They are over then? I know I have clients away until next Friday.
Is that when it all ends? I hope you are not offended by my ignorance in this matter.
Ramon, I am hearing some much more positive things about the new Kodak 14n and from a couple professionals that I trust. It seems like a lot of the old problems have been fixed and that this camera is now capable of some outstanding results.
The overall opinion I have heard is that it is a camera which needs to be treated with great care and that the 1Ds is more tolerant of exposure errors, however, if you get it right with the new incarnation of the 14n its honestly capable of outperforming the 1Ds from a quality standpoint with higher resolution and much better colours and zero noise that really takes sharpening very well.
Please enlighten me as to which one of the currently available digital SLRs is bad according to your definition.
The only DSLR Ive ever used or been associated with was with the Canon D60, which I enjoyed. My post was in reference to a recent incident… I ran into someone in a coffee shop who said he used a HP DSLR for a week. His exact words: A piece of sh*t.
That’s because HP is a printer company. I’m not even sure what would posess a person to buy an expensive camera from HP (or Epson for that matter). Would you buy a blender from Toyota or a bicycle from Panasonic?
Granted, they pitch themselves as a digital photo company, but there’s a difference between making a good consumer-grade PAS camera vs. a fully functional DSLR. Entirely different animals.
They might have been refering to the HP PhotoSmart cameras (an SLR-like camera.. not a true SLR…instead of having a mirror, there is a beam-splitting prism that directs part of the light to the viewfinder and part of the light to the CCD sensor)
Chris – no I’ve never handled any of the 14n bodies whether Nikon or Sigma based.
I never thought for a moment that the handling would be as good as the Canon 1Ds but I have heard that if you edge towards overexposure with the 14n and use Camera Raw you can preserve the highlights and still maintain noise free shadows with great colours and resolution.
The photographers I know who are doing this are very satisfied with the results and say are preferable to the 1Ds which they have also used.
Sorry Chris, with this bad cold I misunderstood your original question. This medicine is strong stuff!
No I haven’t ever played with the Sigma digital cameras, though I have received a few files to play with. The images looked very sharp, but the jagged edges in some parts were pretty horrible and the colour looked like it had come from some cheap no brand film and had been poorly processed.
There has never been a digital SLR manufactured by HP or marketed under the HP brand that I can find anywhere.
Interesting! I never saw the camera in question… I just did a search at dpreview for SLR, and the HP Photosmart C912 shows up alongside the Canon 300D, 10D, Kodaks, and others. Under format: SLR. However, looking at the picture and reading the specs, reveals otherwise. Looks like the poor guy fell for the marketing hype.
This seems to be a good case for: Dont believe everything you hear…
Either way (I’ve never even bothered looking at HP cameras), whether it’s an SLR or an integrated "prosumer" camera (like the E-20), you’d be nuts to spend a lot of money on an HP camera. They make some OK Point and Shoot type deals I think (competing with Kodak and Fuji PAS), but that’s about it. Marketing hype indeed.
The HP Photosmart C912, definitely not an SLR, is nothing other than the Pentax EI-2000 sold in Japan in Europe under the proper model and brand name of its manufacturer. It was made by Pentax with the HP name and logo stamped on it.
While not a digital SLR by any stretch of the imagination, that Pentax camera was actually an excellent performer within the limits of its class range (2.24 megapixels) at the time it came out. It was made to look more like an SLR, at the time when digital cameras in its class looked more like belt buckles or screwed up miniature TVs, but it had none of the functioning characteristics of a digital SLR.
I make it a point to go through with my spring purchases before completing my tax return. I know what the IRS does to people’s plans. Fortunately, this year I owe them less than any time in the past 25 years, but I still have to mail them that check –on the 15th and not one day before.
That’s a good idea. Too late this time though. I also forgot to mention that my next big expense will probably be my inevitable printer repairs. Hey, anyone want to buy a lemon of a printer for $3,000.00. I paid around $6,500.00 for it and it retailed for $8,000.00 with the duplexer. Joking of course… no one is going to want my printer. 😉
The fixed pellicle mirror was introduced back then when the Canon Pellix came out, if I recall correctly. Yes, there were arguments pro and con as to whether it was a true reflex. The idea was that it wasn’t just a prism splitting the light, but if the mirror did reflect enough light through the viewfinder, then it wasn’t a plain mirror either. Just the same, not all the light entering the lens reached the focal plane, since part of it went to the eye of person taking the shot.
Canon have been making fixed mirror cameras for just short of four decades.
I agree. The Canon Pellix I mentioned in my post # 1130 was the first one. Your link confirms it.
Still, the Pentax EI-2000/HP C912 had no mirror, but a prism that splits the light in two.
Even if you apply the definition of SLR very broadly to include a prism instead of a mirror in order to apply it to Pentax EI-2000/HP C912, which is a bit of stretch (in the German-speaking world, it was marketed as a "spiegelreflexartige Kamera", "SLR-like camera"), the fact is that it was not a "bad" camera in its class.
Then you should have written "a law" rather than "the law", since you’re speculating and not referencing a specific law. Besides, advertising laws are rarely enforced and even more rarely complied with.
I do think it has to do with what a corporation perceives to be the strength or weakness of their intended market base. The usual hype we see in the US rarely goes well in Europe, in my observation. It’s more a question of approach rather than claims, I think.
Actual cases involving so-called "subliminal advertising" are, in actuality, few and far between. Nevertheless, one recent federal district court case did involve the allegation of subliminal advertising. (Rickel v. Mountain Valley Television Corporation, et al., No. C-96-1033 DLJ, United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19961, November 27, 1996.)
I have seen someone get a ticket for jay-walking : )
Oh, I’ve seen a senior federal judge being ticketed for jay walking two blocks from the federal courthouse. That’s easy to accomplish. 🙂
Suing or prosecuting for advertising excesses is a horse of a different color.
I think American professional photographers are not dumber then their European counterparts.
I hardly think a professional photographer (anywhere in the world) would have considered buying the HP C912. The intended market base is a different one. And, yes, it’s easier to get a certain segment of the American consumer base to buy certain things like pet rocks or a pasta machine. Look at Ron Popeil.
We had concluded that the HP C912 is not an SLR, not is it remotely aimed at professionals. (One non-removable 3x zoom lens + 2x digital zoom, 2 megapixel, etc.) The "digital SLR designation" was aimed at certain types of snobs in the market who know little about photography.
Nope, that ticket wasn’t dismissed. The judge sent a cheque forfeiting bail, i. e, paid the fine.
While not a digital SLR by any stretch of the imagination, that Pentax camera was actually an excellent performer within the limits of its class range (2.24 megapixels) at the time it came out.
If this is the same model the person I talked to used, then he certainly didnt share your glowing reviews. Quite the opposite, in fact… three flaws he harped on were: corrupted memory cards, (his biggest beef) exposure problems, and excessive battery usage.
So you got double BS from that person.
Not necessarily! There are those ignominious creatures posing under the moniker of ‘Lemons’ rolling off assembling lines every day. Its quite possible that he couldve gotten hold of a Monday Morning Special, or a late Friday Afternoon Express. He certainly wouldn’t have been the first person cursed with that affliction. Nor, sorry to say, the last!
You’re talking about hypothetical conclusions based on a model you’re not even sure of, used by a person you ran into in a coffee shop, and you feel confident to express an opinion on a camera you’ve never used and debate it. It certainly puts your previous posts into perspective.
You’re talking about hypothetical conclusions based on a model you’re not even sure of, used by a person you ran into in a coffee shop, and you feel confident to express an opinion on a camera you’ve never used and debate it. It certainly puts your previous posts into perspective.
Oh man, here we go again… this topic is perilously spiraling out of control, so Ill take the initiative step to rise above it and put it to sleep.
Somehow, somewhere, we got off to a rough start, Ramon. Im throwing out my white flag… Truce..?
Things are looking a little better. I might end up with money for the 300D after all, in a week or two.
Keep digging away… I need a 300D ciber-buddy to share my trials and tribulations with once I eventually spring for mine… 🙂 Hopefully, Cindy will take us under her wing as well.
That darn old tax man… seems like every year he wants a bigger slice of the pie, doesnt he? One of these years well just have to throw up our hands and say: enough is enough, and go on strike. Or, form a union! Maybe that’ll teach ’em… 😉
MacManX: I’m trying to remember… Do you already own the 300D or are you getting ready to buy one? Cyber-buddy sounds like a good idea… Kind of like an extension of what we are doing in this thread. Cindy has been a wonderful resource and inspiration with photography to me… and provided she has the time, I trust will enjoy teaming up with us.
The D70 is compared to the Rebel 300D and other cameras in a very comprehensive review. The review seems to concur with my earlier opinion that at only US$100 more than the digital Rebel 300D (camera bodies only) the Nikon D70 is MUCH more camera.
Among other things, the author in detail and with sample photos disusses the HUGE benefits of the latest Nikon flash technology as expressed in the D2h and D70, confirming what I posted earlier:
"From the above, it’s easy to see that flash photography is one area in which the D70 easily outdistances its competition. To even approach the capability offered by the D70, you’d have to spend several hundred dollars more for a wireless strobe trigger system for a competing d-SLR. And even with a wireless slave system, you’d still lack the effortless TTL flash metering the D70 provides. If you have any significant interest in flash photography, the D70 really stands alone (along with its big brother, the D2H) in the d-SLR market."
This review seems to concur with my earlier opinion that at only US$100 more than the digital Rebel 300D (camera bodies only) the Nikon D70 is MUCH more camera.
I hope you don’t hate me… I know I’m not supposed to go by those samples… but I figure who ever took those pictures surely knows more than I do, so I must somewhat go by them… but I think they are missing something… particularly the Musicians group. Ugh!
That review site has reviewed almost every digicam since digicams started coming out. Generally they do a very good job.
The pix are not supposed to "look good." They are a standard set of pix they take with every camera reviewed, to attempt to compare different sensors/software/etc. Particularly early in the digicam evolution individual cameras would shoot warmer or with a green cast or whatever. Today mostly they can help with identifying resolution quality and the ability to check shadow detail.
The musicians image I believe they use to visualize white balance changes. You may also check the same musicians image as tested on the other cameras you consider. However in my strong opinion what really matters is what YOU test shoot. Like I have said many times, ergonomics are far, far more important than small details as reported by any given reviewer, and more important than other folks opinions in this thread, including mine.
I didn’t know that law passed. I guess I’d better get in the habit of turning mine off while I drive… since I am a compulsive phone answerer.
As for Jeb Bush, we are lucky to have him in Florida… regardless of what I might think about the cell phone law… although cell phones really are a problem on the road.
Now, let’s not spoil this wonderful thread.
Back to digital cameras? 🙂
I have one of the pros getting ready to show me some shots from his new Nikon D70. He has all kinds of equipment and has won all kinds of awards for his photography. He is elated over the new Nikon so I’m going to take another look.
I’ve been asked to take some pictures of this year’s Parade of Breeds for our community Equestrian Show (this one not for pay). I lost track of the time and just found out that it’s this Sunday. Last time I used my Nikon 990 but this time I would like to be able to use my new camera… but I haven’t bought it yet… and worst of all, I don’t know how to use it…
If I buy the Canon 300D, I wonder if the automatic settings work sufficiently in a pinch. 🙂
Thanks for the link John. I’ll check it out shortly.
Hi Ann. I got on the phone and called a local camera shop. They don’t have the 300D in stock and are going to call me back about ordering it and price.
I think I’d better slow down. I want to enjoy this process and not be pushed into anything. My 990 did a decent job for the last two shows, better than any other photos I saw if I remember right. It should serve me well enough again. Some of the photos will be published in an equestrian magazine… provided they turn out okay.
Maybe I’ll dig up some from the last two shows and see what you think.
Oy! I’m a little nervous. The other place I called last week was short with me. I want to find a place where they will offer me support and be NICE too. If they are short over the phone without having met me, what will they be like if I end up having lots of questions. I may as well order from Mac Mall if that’s the case… cause I sure won’t have the nerve to go in for help if I’m not comfortable.
Maybe the Apple store is a good idea. It’s an hours drive though. It’s getting late to start out now as most places close by 6PM. Maybe I’ll start out early tomorrow morning, start at my end of town, and work my way south to the Apple store. The Ritz store is also in the same mall, which is where I tried out the 300D a few weeks ago.
I will be buying the kit lens… mainly because I have way too much to learn to be messing around with special lenses at this point. I’ll start with the basics and then add to them once I get more experience.
For the extra $75 I’d get the kit lens as it’s nice and wide…then get a second lens in a few months when you feel comfortable with the camera… you might have a better idea on what lens you could use as you mentioned about shooting birds – the 28-70 is just too short for bird photography. Though the pros use 400 to 600mm lens you could get a 300 Zoom as a compromise.
It appears that prepurchase handling/testing of cameras is a lost concept on this group. <sigh>
It appears that recommendations to stick with the-same-brand for cameras, lenses and strobes ia also lost on this group. Folks seem to think that the cheaper third party manufacturers fully understand what Nikon and Canon are up to with their complex electronics, both now and in the future. <sigh> <sigh>
The ERR 99 messages is the Canon "fit all" explanation for anything it can’t quite explain. It happens with Canon lenses too and might not be anything to do with the lenses at all. I’ve luckily never had this problem but know some others who experience it regularly. Canon seemed intent on making this look like a Sigma issue and that is not necessarily the case.
With all that said, I once bought a Sigma lens but sold it pretty quickly and now use Canon only but it was more related to an issue of colour consistency with film because the Canon lenses all seem to have the same look and the Sigma colours were very different and I have to say less attractive. Its debatable if this is so important with so much digital manipulation going on nowadays.
People underestimate the way that a lens can change the feel of an image and its not all about shear resolution. I have run frequent tests between Nikon, Canon, Carl Zeiss and Mamiya lenses and found that the biggest differences are not so much in sharpness but in the way that subtle tonal nuances are revealed.
Let me put this in perspective Linda, the Canon images just looked more real to me, but don’t let my one experience from several years ago influence you too much. My chief problem was that everything was consistent on the colour front while using Canon lenses regardless of focal length or when I had bought the lens. If you threw the shots done with the Sigma somewhere in the same sequence, it looked like the lab had messed up with the processing or I’d worked with a different batch of film.
No insult intended, Mike. It is just that from a gearhead’s technical perspective, inserting third party components into complex *proprietary* computer-based camera/lens/flash systems just to save a few bucks is not smart. This is not film in the 1970s; SLR digicams are complex interoperating systems, not independent stand alone components. You can still take pix with third party (or unmatched same-brand) components, but at the cost of losing some modern capabilities.
And, when purchasing components today, we want to optimize as best we can for the future as well. When I first started paying a bit more for Nikon "D" lenses back in the 80s they really had very little benefit over cheaper Nikon glass with identical optics. However, that small additional amount spent then has meant that those lenses have been capable of 100% utilization in every Nikon tech feature since then, including the latest flash system and camera technology as represented by the SB-600/800 and D2h/D70.
This is probably the main paragraph I took note of from John Burnett:
The ‘tomato’ picture to which you refer was taken with a true macro lens the Tamron 90mm f2.8. It is one of the sharpest lenses available for this purpose. I have recently settled on two other Tamrons, the 17-35 f2.8 ‘di’ and the 28-75 f2.8 ‘di’, to do most of the ‘walkabout’ photography. Note that it took two lenses to cover the range of the kit lens. Yes, I did pick up a bit of extra range, and they are a bit faster, but the chief benefit is sharpness and contrast. Ummmm, and I have that Macro lens. And a 50mm f1.8 for low light situations. And I’m thinking about a longer zoom. Arrrrgggh! You can see why many people opt for a digicam!
Would anyone like to comment on the Tamron that John Burnett spoke about?
With both Sigma and Tamron lenses, each within its own line of lenses, you will see a substantial leap in quality (and price) when you go to the faster lenses. The f/2.8 indicated maximum aperture usually remains constant throughout the range of focal lengths achievable by the zoom lens, whereby the cheaper (kit) zoom lenses are slower and their maximum aperture varies, such as 3.5-4.6 or whatever.
All of the above holds true for Nikon and Canon lenses, each within their own line of lenses.
A faster lens with non-variable maximum aperture is just more expensive to make, so it has to be aimed at a more demanding segment of the market.
One Sigma zoom lens that I found to be very good was the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, for instance. If I were a zoom lens fan, I would have kept it.
Okay, bear with me please as I have a hypothetical question… for those who are not ready for a nap by now. 🙂
Take the tomato shot. <http://www.pbase.com/image/24687570&exif=Y> If I were to develop the skills and understanding to do so, along with producing the same lighting, could I get a shot that good with a Canon lens?
I realize that there is a lot more to good photography than a good camera… so my expectations of what I can produce are realistic and not too lofty right now. Just so long as I know I have the right equipment to achieve my goals in time, I will be happy… very happy. 🙂
Surprisingly little is missing, given that Canon has had to be careful not to cannibalize sales from its next up the model-ladder brother, the almost twice as expensive 10D. Of course image quality is of primary concern, and I’ll cut to the chase. When using the same lenses image quality is essentially identical to that from the Canon 10D. Both cameras use virtually the identical imaging chip and processing electronics, so this isn’t surprising.
You’re right. I might take a ride tomorrow if it looks like my schedule might be clear. But I do not want to ruin this whole thing with a sudden impulse.
BTW, I did test the 300D several weeks ago. Trouble is, at that time I was intersted in the Pro1 which was not in stock… so I failed to take the 300D seriously at that time.
I took a picture of the guy who works in the store using RAW. He also took one of me but used JPG. These were automatic settings though and when I got them home I noticed the lighting was not too good.
JPEG at its highest resolution is an excellent format with many benefits for some situations. Certainly if a pic in the store was "bad," the use of JPEG was not the reason, unless one of the low JPEG settings was used. One thing to do in testing camera A vs. camera B is to shoot four quick photos set at best JPEG and the same four RAW with each camera. Different cameras may perform very differently (e.g. Nikon D100 is slow at repetitive RAW captures but the Nikon D70 fixed that).
I have been reading this thread with interest so I will jump in at this point.
Re tomato – Canon makes 2 very good macro lenses 100 2.8 and 180 3.5L. There is also a MP-E 65 2.8 but that is strictly macro whereas the other 2 function as regular lenses as well.
Re testing the 300D – You should really spend at least a few days shooting with the camera to get to know it. When you test it, test it’s limits so you know when noise appears, when exposures might not be as accurate etc.
As others have said just get the standard lens with the kit and get really comfortable with that before going to extra lenses. When considering lenses, try to but the best you can afford. Let’s say in future years you decide to get a higher res camera like a 1Ds, if you don’t have really good optics you won’t be able to get the most from the camera.
John and Mike: Those are some impressive heavy weights alright. Thanks! 🙂
Thanks for jumping in Jim. All this input is so helpful. I’ll hang onto your comments.
Allen: I went back and looked at those pictures again. Actually, other than a little glare from the store backlighting, they are not as bad as I thought. I might post the one I took of the store clerk. I told him I might post it at a forum and he did not seem to object… so I trust it’s okay.
Sylvain: I too like to open them in Photoshop. Thanks for the link. Looked at that picture only taken with the D70 yesterday. I guess it might be good to compare them. I’ll check out the highlight and shadows as well. Thanks!
You know everything I am reading about the D70 is extremely positive. I currently use the 10D but I would have to agree with the reviewers when they say that for $100 more it seems quite a bit more capable than the 300D. All in all, I really think that anybody looking at these cameras should go and test them side by side and only then make an informed choice.
My neighbor came wandering over to my house kind of delirious. She had fallen off a makeshift ladder and hit her head pretty badly on the cement. She was having trouble remembering things. I sat her down and put peroxide on her elbow scrape, called her doctor and was told to take her to the ER, where we have been until now — 10:45 PM. She had a cat scan and seems to be okay. It ended up being a nice time getting to know her better… after 15 years. All’s well that ends well. 🙂
Staff photographer Bob Rosato’s collection of gear is fairly typical. To a football game he takes four or five EOS-1D bodies and 600mm f/4, 400mm f/2.8, 300mm f/2.8, 70-200mm f/2.8, and 50mm f/1.4 lenses. For basketball, he adds five or six EOS-1Ds cameras and dispenses with the 400 and 600mm lenses. Of the ten or so camera bodies that he takes to a basketball game, many are of course mounted overhead or around the basket for remote operation.
That’s kind of amusing! For football or basketball game!
It is also amusing to see that sports illustrator has so many digital images. It was posted here many times that this magazine shoots mostly digital these days so I picked up a couple of copies of different issues. I took a pretty close look at the photographs.
That film grain filter they’ve been using to make those digital images look like they were shot with film is impressive.
Over 1 million photos just digital I wonder how many images they use in an issue times twelve times the number of years. It’s amusing!
This morning I received a call back from another camera shop that I called yesterday. He told me that the 300D is not American made and would have no warranty in the US. I questioned him about it and he said it is only known at the Rebel in the US, not 300D. So I asked how many mps it has and he said 6.3. I might have jumped in my car and gone over there right away but by the time he said 6.3 his tone was getting a little irate… just what I don’t want. I said "Okay, thank you!" with a certain finality about it and ended the conversation. I don’t like doing that but if I figure that if they can’t be patient over the phone, what will it be like after the sale when I come back to ask questions.
I don’t know what this camera shop is talking about but if it does not have a warranty then something is wrong. Actually, you should get an extended warranty. I think there are Best Buy stores in Florida that sell a good extended warranty with the Rebel. At least that is what I have heard. Just a thought…
Of course the camera is not American made…Maybe he was saying the camera is a gray market camera and has no US warranty. Avoid this camera shop and any that sell gray market – if your gray market camera has a problem US Canon will not fix it.
Every camera has it’s idiosyncrasies no matter what you pay for it. When it comes to lenses you will find that one manufacturer is better at certain focal lengths than the other. Just keep the basic questions like these on your mind:
Feel of the camera (shape, controls, weight etc) Image quality (should be judged by prints) Viewfinder (easy to focus, bright enough etc) Color rendition Auto focusing (accurate, easy to override if you want to do it yourself) Flash (accurate, easy to use)
The more choices we have the harder it is to make a decision and the easier it is to question if we have made the right one. All we can do is make our best judgment and go with it. Believe me I have questioned more of my decisions than I want to admit to so I understand quandaries 🙂
He told me that the 300D is not American made and would have no warranty in the US. I questioned him about it and he said it is only known at the Rebel in the US, not 300D.
Never deal with that shop again. He obviously had a "Gray Market" item, meaning imported directly from Japan without Canon’s authorization. That’s why Canon will not honor the warranty in the US.
Some shady dealers even utilize that tactic so they can charge way more for the US-warranty model, usually hundreds of dollars more than their advertised price. They may not even have the gray market item at all; if you insist on buying a gray market camera at the lower price, they’ll just say it’s out of stock.
I’m trying to remember the keyboard shortcut for reading the text reversed
About the guy from the store, I think I explained it wrong. He told me that the 300D was gray market and was discouraging me from ordering it. He just wanted me to know that the US model was only known as the Digital Rebel ESO. This was sinking in as we spoke. The part that bothered me was the edge that increased in his voice when I asked about the mega pixels. I had not been on the phone more than 60 seconds and sensed the guy was getting impatient.
I know this is going to sound silly, but I am at a point in my life where I would prefer to surround myself with people who are more positive and less irritable. I realize that we all have our moments and we have to tolerate a certain amount of stuff, but whenever possible, if I have a choice, I would like to to find postive, supportive, and most of all patient people to give my business to… oh and honest of course. 🙂
I guess I would like to be treated as well as I try to treat my own clients.
Well it sounds like he is an honest guy after all and that it is your interpretation that is flawed. Also he was just responding to what to him must have been seen as a sign of mistrust on your part after he explained it was the same camera and made it quite clear that it was the camera and model you would want to buy if purchasing it for use in the US.
Quite frankly look at the picture you painted of this person and how everyone jumped on him just from taking in your view point. Hell on the phone or over the internet is really difficult to come to such conclusions in 60 seconds.
I think the guy is better off if you don’t buy from him. That s my conclusion!
Long ago in this thread I suggested that Linda not try to use the camera shop guys for info; naturally, some folks disagreed. Also the whole USA/non-USA warranty issue was discussed. But do use a retail store for test handling the gear and for actually buying the product. IMO it is unethical to handle product at brick-and-mortar retail without buying at brick-and-mortar retail.
Manufacturers and dealers love selling extended warranties! IMO extended warranties on high tech gear are no way worth the relatively very high cost, since most anomalies occur under warranty, and by the time the warranty expires the product has become old tech anyway. And such warranties seldom if ever cover the most likely thing to happen to a camera, which is shock-related damage.
About the extended warranty, I think you are right. I called and got info from Best Buy that they offer a four year extended warranty for $100, which is very good. The guy also said parts was covered automatically 1 year, labor only 90 days. But when I checked the Best Buy web site I got different informamtion. There it said both labor and parts are covered for 1 year.
I think my expectations for service and support are unrealistic so I’m just going to buy from the camera store at a mall close by for convenience. I might even spare the people my presence and allow my husband to make the purchase. 🙂
Now that my husband knows that I’m supposed to take pictures for the horse show tomorrow he wanted me to buy the camera tonight. I actually have decided it best not to use a new camera at the horse show because of all the dust in the air. I’d rather take pics with my old camera than to subject my new camera to all that dirt while it is still new.
BTW Allen: I truly appreciate your perspective on things and whereas I do think handling the camera is a good idea, I’m sure either the Nikon or the Canon will handle well enough for my liking. I still think I’m going with the Canon, although I’m recommending the Nikon to some people I know.
I still would like an 8 MP but I think the Rebel should be enough for me to learn on this coming year. It will be interesting to see where we all end up next year. 🙂
I worked on a CD package last year. I happened to remember that the photo on the back was shot by some local people that I know a little. I called the guy this morning and we had a nice discussion about cameras. He uses Canon film and his wife uses Nikon digital. His wife is looking to buy a new digital. They haven’t had time to research the reviews so I sent her an email filling her in on the new D70.
IMO selecting among cameras without handling them is a mistake. Any given camera can "feel/handle" very different to different folks. E.g. I have large hands and many cameras are clumsy in my hands. A person with smaller hands may well have a whole different set of preferences. Those preferences have a significant impact on how readily a photog "gets the shot." And that is just hand size, only one parameter of ergonomics.
That said, there are all kinds of good interpersonal family finances reasons for having your husband "pick it out." <g>
IMO 6 MP vs. 8 MP is an almost meaningless issue. Optics, ergonomics, optics, flash software, optics, etc. are all much more important.
Use your new camera – that is all it is good for. Don’t leave it in the closet for fear of dust! And any 6MP SLR is a much, much better horse show camera than the s-l-o-w CP990. You can still (literally) have your CP990 in your pocket, just in case.
Thanks Allen. Good points… especially about the speed. I might actually get some horses while they are still jumping. 🙂 Last time I had to guess and click early in order to catch the horse as it went over the jumps.
My husband may be out buying one now… to surprise me. He asked the model of the one I want a while ago… then left to run some "errands".
So if he buys it, you think I should take it to the horse show? It really gets dusty with the horses kicking up all that dirt. I’m sure it will need a good cleaning after the show.
Other than canned air, what do you all use to clean your equipment?
If you are worried about dust, one good thing is to put a UV Haze filter over the lens. I have them on all lenses that will except them.
Be careful with canned air otherwise the propellent might get sprayed with the air. There are sensor swabs and eclipse fluid for cleaning the sensor when the time comes. You could also get a lens brush to brush dust off the filter.
I’m glad to know about the rubber blower and sensor swabs/eclipse fluid.
The surprise turned out to be ice cream, lol! So I don’t have to worry about taking a new camera tomorrow. I will want to clean my Nikon just the same. Glad I know not to use canned air. I think I have used it in the past. Lucky I didn’t damage it.
To take moving horse jump pix with an SLR digicam, typical 18-55 zoom lens, no flash usage:
Get a good spot <g>
Set exposure to Aperture Preferred, f-11.
I suggest you shoot JPEG Highest setting at first. Save RAW photography until you have practiced a lot.
Read the shutter speed in the viewfinder. It should be 1/250 or faster. If it is less than 1/250, change the ISO setting to a larger number, e.g. 400 or 800 so that your shutter speed ends up to be about 1/400 to 1/250 or so. Use the lowest ISO number that will give you 1/400 to 1/250 shutter speed.
Set to manual focus and focus where you expect the horse’s eyes to be.
Depress the shutter release half way as the horse approaches. Press the shutter release all the way when the horse gets where you prefer.
Check the LCD and exposure compensate as necessary for the next shot.
Check the LCD and zoom in to check for blur in the image. If the subject parts you want (and always including the horse’s eyes) are not crisp, recheck the point that you are prefocused on, and if that is ok, change the f-stop setting to a larger number like f-19. Then redo the ISO setting as needed like you did above.
If your camera has a high speed high resolution shot capability you can set the camera for High Speed and get multiple shots as the horse goes over a jump by holding the shutter release button down.
Obviously there are many other details and lots of other choices to experiment with, but the above should achieve useful pix, first try.
Im curious as to why youd prefer to use Aperture priority in this case…
Before I start shooting, I always weigh the perks of motion versus DOF (depth of field), then try to arrive at an acceptable compromise between both.
So, when I shoot ANY moving pix, I always opt for Shutter priority. For me, stopping camera-shake/subject-motion would seem more important then DOF.
In this case, Id set my shutter for 1/250 and play with the ISO to arrive at a suitable aperture. If lighting conditions should happen to change during shooting, Ill have better luck getting sharper images.
If, however, Id want some form of motion blur, then Id simply Pan the action utilizing a slower shutter speed.
Ill go along with the rest of the techniques outlined in your post… All good strategies!
The answer is simple. What I gave Linda was a relatively bombproof, therefore simplistic, setup for: first SLR 24 hrs new; challenging moving critter pix; photog coming from extensive experience with a CP990. As I said:
"Obviously there are many other details and lots of other choices to experiment with, but the above should achieve useful pix, first try."
———————————————- As to why aperture priority rather than shutter piority, I have found shooting ski racers with the lens discussed that the most common reason for unintended blur is the subject getting out of the camera’s in-focus range. 1/125 second is actually fast enough for the shutter, so the 1/400-1/250 second speed suggested actually gives 1-2 stops of shutter speed slack to Linda. IMO what makes a pic like a horse jumping look good is having minimum workable depth of field ("DOF"). If set to Shutter Preferred [a] the photog is wrapping his/her head around shutter speed, and I try to teach photogs to learn Aperture/DOF; and [b] as lighting changes (like it always does) the camera auto-adjusts DOF, and either too much or too little DOF makes for a poor pic. I want the photog to primarily be thinking about DOF and aperture on every single shot.
The reality is that the choice of Aperture or Shutter Preferred does not really matter to an experienced photographer shooting Auto, because hopefully we think about both settings with every shot, and it does not really matter whether you adjust SS to achieve 1/125/f-8 or you adjust Aperture to achieve 1/125/f-8. The result is still 1/125/f-8!
So it gets to the thought processes, and I prefer to teach folks to learn via Aperture Preferred, because planning DOF is essential for every single pic, and small changes in DOF always change the pic. Unlike shutter speed, where once you get in the habit of providing a stable platform the properly exposed pic does not change whether the shutter speed is 1/60 or 1/5000. Pretty much the only time I use or recommend Shutter Preferred is for panning or other planned motion-blur shots, or in bright light when synching to old style flash systems that give limited camera to flash shutter synch speeds.
Panning or other planned motion-blur shooting is beyond the scope of day 1 suggestions to Linda. <g>
I’m back. As mentioned last night I did not get my new digicam in time for the show today. So I used my old Nikon 990 and just did the best I could considering I could hardly see the monitor. I am long overdue for a new camera.
Allen is so nice to explain how to get the best results with a SLR. Some of the follow up explaination seems almost greek to me, but I’m determined that God willing, I will learn it in time and hopefully be able to converse intelligently with some of you.
I spoke with another professional photographer at the horse show today, a Nikon man with a lot of money tied up in Nikon lenses, and he also is interested in some of the information I’m gathering about the Nikon D70. So much of the great advice from this thread as well as some of the reviews about the new D70 is proving helpful, not only to me, but to two other photographers within two days.
I guess it all boils down to what techniques you first learned and started out with. In my case, Aperture preferred automation wasnt even available on some of the earlier cameras I used. If I remember correctly, the Canon A1 may have been the first camera I bought with that option.
LRK – that depends on the exact camera model. For my 10D, and probably the 300D, RAW files can be anywhere from 5 to 8 Meg (depending on the image content).
On a 1 Gig card, I typically get between 170 (conservative) and 200 (if I’m lucky) images.
I usually carry at least 3 Gig of CF cards – and have shot over 500 images per day on those (usually wildlife, so it’s not steady shooting). If I were shooting a sports event, I’d shoot a lot more images and thus need more CF!
See that is the kind of misinformation I am referring to, Chris, Linda is an amateur photographer with limited knowledge of what is going on she has to learn to walk before running.
First of all you don’t shoot sports events and are not a professional photographer and what you do or think should be done should be expressed in that light.
For instance I might shoot between $400 to a $1,000 of film in a day and may only do 6-8 different compositions that the nature of what I do but if Linda was buying a film based camera I would not be so irresponsible to suggest to her that she should bring a $1,000 worth of film on a shoot. Nor would I suggest it to an amateur like yourself.
She probably only needs one card this should have been your answer:
On a 1 Gig card, I typically get between 170 (conservative) and 200 (if I’m lucky) images.
Wade I think you awoke on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
She probably only needs one card this should have been your answer:
Wrong Wade. At least two – both don’t have to be 1 gig in size – having one as a back-up is good insurance. Any good photographer has extra batteries, polaroid film, regular film extra camera body, etc…
Best value was (last week, who knows what it will be next week…) to buy 512 MB cards. If you were to shoot a batch of pix of something (e.g. a wedding, a horse show, whatever) one card’s batch of images fits nicely on a CD. With 2 cards you can have one uploading to a laptop or a portable CD burner while you continue shooting on a second card. Two 512 MB cards is plenty to start with, maybe forever if you end up routinely uploading to something portable like I do.
Note that you may use neither laptop nor portable CD burner at this point in time, but having pix come from the camera in ~500 MB chunks has its benefits.
Which reminds me, a FireWire CF card reader is a necessity unless you use a CF–>PC card adapter in a laptop. Uploading via USB cables is not recommended.
Thanks Allen. The idea of using similar size cards to CD space sounds sensible and easy to manage. I currently have the Microtech CameraMate USB card reader. I probably will need firewire to speed things up.
I took 136 photos today before I ran out of cards. I ended up erasing some images to get more, so I could have used more space.
Thanks Bruce. Two 512 MB cards probably would be enough to get started. Glad to know it’s cheaper to do it that way.
I realized this week that it won’t be long before I need a laptop. I wasn’t thinking because of photos but rather being more mobile with my work. Now that you all mention it, having a laptop to take when shooting pictures would be very handy when warranted.
It wasn’t address to you Linda, it is to those who might not recognized that it is simply not a requirement for them to have outrageous amount of equipment and that some of the people posting here altoughg behaving as if they are professionals are not that at all.
There are many Photoshop users who read these threads that do not post respones as they come forgeneral knowledge, as I pointed out several times I thought that the info that Allen and Ashley and Todie and Buko and John and Ann and the others were extremely enlightening and exceptionally responsible. Because they understood what they were talking about and that it was a real world exchange of information.
Taking an extra card or battery is one thing taking tons of them is ridiculous for someone getting started, and Chris Cox is not the Pro he dreams about being and should come down to earth.
You only need a card or two, after all today you probably shot between twenty and thirty images at the most am I correct.
You don’t shoot hundreds of photosa in a day let alone in an hour.
I do not understand your reaction to Chris. I am very grateful for his advice. It is right on the money for me. I took 136 photos today before I ran out of card space. I will probably do exactly what Chris recommended.
I think it’s idiotic to make any assumptions about how many or how few images someone else will shoot in any situation, but one thing I’ve noticed with people making the transition to digital is that they quickly learn, when in doubt, take the shot anyway.
The metadata that accompanies each digital capture provides a great tool for learning why some things work and others don’t, for learning how trustworthy the on-camera metering is, and for learning how to expose for digital rather than film (which is a learning curve everyone who wants to shoot digital needs to ascend).
Having a laptop certainly has advantages. The main one being you can continue working if something takes you away from the office for an extended amount of time. I spent several hours in the ER with my neighbor Friday night after she wandered to my house somewhat delerious after having fallen from a makeshift ladder. Fortunately I had wrapped up my jobs for the day… but it confirmed the need to have a backup solution for continuing to work if taken from the office unexpectedly and feeling pressure to meet a deadline.
There is a new Web site I might be designing for an Optometrist. If I get the job it would require taking pictures of equipment in the office. Having a laptop would be ideal for sorting through the images on site for approval before taking them back to my own office. I won’t be buying one for this job but it would be nice if I had one. Hopefully by the time I’m ready for a laptop the next generation will be out. 🙂
"Quickly learning to take the shot anyway" is right. Since I’ve had my Nikon digital I always take more shots just in case. Besides, with that little monitor I can’t really tell how good a shot is until I get it back to my office.
I want to be able to take a very generous amount of pictures, and even all the more while I am inexperienced… the more I take, the better the chance of getting a good one. 🙂
Folks: It appears I have stepped over a line with my many postings here. I’ve received an email from Wade letting me know how foolish I am, for this and other things. I apologize for monopolizing this thread. I admit that I can be self-centered but have truly enjoyed interacting with you all on this topic. I hope I have not offended or irritated anyone else here. If so, please accept my apology.
I can’t imagine that anyone (except the one who complained?!) is in the least irritated by LRK’s posts in this thread — in fact I suspect that they are helping many lurking readers to understand the dilemmas that anyone faces when trying to decide on whether to make such a major purchase as this.
I’m sorry Wade. Tonight was the first time I decided to share this with others. I’ve kept quiet about the series of events that led up to this. You seem to have an extreme problem with me. We either drop it right now or I’m going to continue to involve other people in this. I have no idea what goes on inside you to provoke such anger.
Wade: It might seem stupid to you but to me it’s wisdom. This problem has been going on for a while. It’s not really about this thread and you know it. I have tried to make things right and drop it. You have put me in a position that I felt best to make others aware of it.
I apologize to others about this. Not sure it was the right thing to do but not sure keeping it quiet is either.
Now, I don’t want to ruin this very interesting and helpful thread for others so I will stop posting here about this matter.
If you cross a line, the Forum Hosts will let you know. It’s not like you’re holding a gun to anyone’s head and forcing them to read the thread…
….and the fact that this is post #1339, and the thread is still generally on-topic, would suggest that your contributions have value.
I don’t think you owe anyone an apology for anything you’ve posted here, and it’s probably pointless to apologize to anyone who is twisted enough to get offended by anything you’ve posted here. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to try, and you’ve done that. Now you can move on with a clear conscience.
You are correct some things can’t be fixed and this is one of them. And I am pleased that you recognize that yo are an idiot for judging something you know nothing about Linda is bringing an unknown issue to the forum highly unfair thing to do!
Ive personally enjoyed this thread immensely. Probably because, like Linda, Im in the market for a DSLR. The abundant flow of diverse info Ive gleaned from within all these posts has been truly helpful.
Wade for someone who dislikes digital photography so much you seem to have way too much advice about digital photography for Linda. Either you do it and understand it and know about it or you don’t, and you repeatedly show your distain for digital photography. You claim you don’t use digital, so how can you advise someone about digital photography?
One point to keep in mind while making your final choice: "How quick-on-the-draw is this weapon?".
If you have any type of action photography in mind, you must have a camera that responds instantly — and allows rapidly repeating shots at full resolution.
[Actually, this is another area in which film has hitherto had the edge, but maybe the new batch of DSLRs can now compete? A good powered winder can give you between 3 to 5 frames per second — although a well trained thumb doesn’t do too badly either!]
Take a chill pill. When were you voted director of vapor land?
If anyone needs to be kicked out of here it’s me, but than again, ask me if I care.
I realized this week that it won’t be long before I need a laptop.<
The other way you can go about this is a new nifty little device that is the size of a small, oh lets say 5 X 7 X 1.5 inch thick gizmo that has a built in LCD screen and 30 gig hard drive for about 400 bucks.
"FlashTrax can safely store high-resolution images transferred from any flash memory card onto the built-in 40GB USB2.0 hard drive and displays them on a 3.5" LCD that outperforms tiny on-camera screens. By using the sleek control pad, the user can change the image, zoom in, zoom out and scroll, or choose a slide show function – all without the need of a PC."
That sounds like the perfect answer:
The size of a couple of 5 x 4 DDS and a mere 12 ounces — you could pop that into the bag and not even notice that you were carrying anything extra.
Ashley – no serious problems. But I have found that digital cameras (on all dSLRs I’ve tested) are more demanding of proper focus than film because you can get sharper details and no grain. If I were printing everything at 4×6", I would be quite happy with the focus. But since I want to print 8×10", I find that the auto-focus will usually be off by a little bit — but no worse than I could do by focusing manually. This is something that digital SLR makers are going to have to address in the near future (and more megapixels just makes it more obvious).
Then there’s chromatic abberation in lenses that you don’t notice on film (due to grain breaking up the edges), but becomes obvious on higher resolution digital captures….
Cindy – yes, most can. (Man is that useful. Thanks Thomas!)
But I’d rather that they improved the lens quality rather than rely on a post-process fix that can’t always be accurate (because it can’t know the exact curvature of the abberation). (and I’ll be happy to test any new lenses Canon comes up with 😉
I’ve had some serious issues that just wouldn’t go away and I’ve had a few of these cameras, however an independent service centre in the UK was recently able to improve the focussing accuracy dramatically and I now feel happy to use the camera on jobs.
As a question of photographic style I like to work at F2.8 which I have always done in the past but Canon were trying to convince me that I should be happy to work at F8 and make countless other allowances, which I refused to accept. It should be in focus where we want and the fact that it now does, proves to me that its possible and that its more a question of quality control on the production line than anything else which needs to be addressed.
I have the 28-135 IS. This lens does pretty good except at times I am aggrevated by the CA. It is only in certain types of shots and I am told that it is not as bad as I let on 🙂 The more expensive L glass IS lenses are too heavy though.
They are coming out with DO lenses that are of interest to me but again, expensive.