| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/17/2003 10:48:54 AM · #1 |
Hi. I'm looking for a dslr and have been reading reviews on the Canon 10D, Nikon D100, as well as Sigma's SD9. Advice from actual users would be appreciated. Many users have mentioned that the 10D has focus problems and the D100 is soft unless you shoot in RAW and use a photoshop filter. The Sigma (cheapest one) actually looks like the best option and when viewing samples it looks the best as well. I would get the Fuji dslr since everyone who has it seems to love it but it's out of my price range.
I'm also curious about about fixed lense cameras such as the Nikon Coolpix 5700 and others which brings me to another question.
The dpchallenge has some excellent photographs and as I browsed through the most amazing thing was the fact that so few great photos are done using dslrs such as the D100 or D60. It seems as if the best photos on here were done using the Sony 707. This makes me wonder if I would be better off getting something like that and then just using telephoto and macro adapters for other work. Thanks for any advice.
Also, please don't respond by advertising dpreview.com. Thanks. |
|
|
|
04/17/2003 11:21:52 AM · #2 |
Manual focussing can be a real bind with a non-dslr camera. Especially with moving subjects (and I ain't talking emotions).
When I bought the 602 recently, I didn't take the full plunge and go for a DSLR because I didn't think the image difference would warrant the extra few thousand quid.
I will buy the telephoto and wide-angle adaptors for the 602 eventually. And I've read a review of the SD-9 that stank on image quality.
But my final judgment was fiscal: it just isn't worth the price difference. Not on my budget.
Ed
|
|
|
|
04/17/2003 11:31:04 AM · #3 |
Price is the main reason you dont see more DSLRs on this site. Athough the price drop on the new Canon 10D is making it more attractive for someone to move up into the DSLR arena. As far as great shots go, owning a DSLR doesnt automatically make you a better photographer. It only gives you more advantages to full SLR camera settings and lenses. You still have to figure out how to use all these features coupled with having the ability to compose well, and produce an interesting shot. As far as recommending a DSLR, I use a D60 and have adjusted well to it. If you have a 35mm SLR background, the adjustment is quite smooth. If you have only shot digital, the loss of a live action preview on the LCD may be bothersome at first, but is easy to get used to when you see how many more aperture and shutter adjustments you have available. I think the Canon 10D is a great choice for moving up to DSLRs.
Message edited by author 2003-04-17 11:31:49.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2003 11:34:48 AM · #4 |
There are so few DSLRs here 'cause they're expensive! The great photos you see done here with the F7x7 are more due to the photographer's skill and imagination than the quality of the camera. Sure, they're great cameras, but people have scored well here with 1 megapixel point-and-shoots as well. Contrary to what sometimes seems to be popular opinion, having a DSLR isn't going to make you Ansel Adams overnight...
There are certain and definite advantages to the DSLR (flexibility, responsiveness, etc.) but few ever write on the advantages of smaller cameras. The F7x7 cameras, for example, are distinctly more advantageous in certain situations. They're much lighter and less obtrusive, the sensor is never left exposed to dirt and dust, they're cheaper and they offer a more discreet package with which to shoot pictures. Under certain conditions, a DSLR can resemble a bazooka. This same argument is used when comparing, say, Leica M cameras against 35mm SLRs (except for price in that case).
James. |
|
|
|
04/17/2003 01:06:32 PM · #5 |
As others have mentioned DSLRs are expensive. Besides the cost of the body, lenses are not at all cheap, and then you will probably want other accessories to go with your camera that aren’t very cheap for DSLRs. The equipment is also much bulkier and heavier than say a 717 or 707 which turns a lot of people off. For me the extra cost, weight and bulk were all well worth buying a DSLR. I love the control and responsiveness that the DSLR gives. I also like the general look of the pictures I get from my DSLRs. DSLRs almost always require a bunch of post processing to get the end result that you are looking for and pretty much require you to become good at using photoshop. Sony is VERY good at post processing (within the camera). The images that I see coming out of cameras like the 717 look wonderful without doing anything at all to them in photoshop most of the time. This isn’t because the lens and imager are so great but rather that the software in the camera is very good at taking the raw data and turning it into something with the right sharpening, contrast, colorâ€Â¦ I believe that in general DSLRs require more technical skill to get a picture of the same quality as say a 717. This is not to say that 717 users are less skilled than DSLR users and has nothing to do with compositional skills or artistic ability. A lot of people don’t want to mess around with all the post processing that DSLRs require. The Sigma SD9 is particularly bad because the camera only outputs raw files that must be post processed in a computer. Also remember that there are a far smaller number of people using DSLRs on here than other types of cameras giving the non-DSLR crowd a higher probability of getting a great shot. Just because you have the finest equipment doesn’t mean you are going to be producing top pictures every week. I am a prime example of that. I believe that very few participants on this site have the quality of equipment that I have but there are many other users who have a lot more to show as far as their performance in the weekly challenges goes. I will also add that having the best equipment you can afford does generally make it easier to get the photo that you want and I would encourage you to buy the best you can afford. As far as the focusing issues on the 10D go, I believe that a lot of these issues are resulting from people using the equipment correctly. I know that when I first got my 10D the AF sensors kept locking onto the background or objects other than my subject. The reason for this is that the AF sensor that sees the greatest contrast is the one that locks on. The camera has no idea what it is that you actually want to focus on and will always lock onto what has the greatest contrast. I found that if I only use the center focus point I have gotten VERY consistent focus with my 10D. This is not to say that there aren’t defective 10D’s out there but I think that the whole focus thing is way overblown. The AF on my 10D is almost as good as that on my 1D which is saying a lot. The D100 is also an excellent body as is Nikon glass. In choosing between the two I would recommend going to a shop and handling both cameras and seeing which one feels better to you. I would probably steer clear of the Sigma as it seems to be a lot more limited than the 10D and D100.
Just my $0.02
Greg
|
|
|
|
04/17/2003 03:08:03 PM · #6 |
The price mainly.
I have a 10D, and after seeing how they have fixed the issues with D60/D30 (low light autofocus problems), i decided to jump on it. It is also 700 bucks less than D60 at $1500 street price. But you still have to buy lenses, etc. You also have to really know what the camera is doing, as it is designed to be post processed. It no longer sharpens as much as other cameras in the past unless you bump up the sharpening factor. It doesn't mean you can't use the in-camera processing, but requires you to fine tune it based on scene situation.
I dunno, I don't like the F717/F707 images that much because they tend to be overtly sharpened and that's why I went with the PowerShot G2 a year ago and then now moved into the DSLR realm. I like the fact i can adjust whatever i want later without having the camera permanently do it for me (which means you can't adjust it later without introducing artifacts). There are also a number of very good linear processing things for the RAW images DSLR produces, such as CaptureOne.
|
|
|
|
04/17/2003 10:56:28 PM · #7 |
I'd say price is a biggie. My lens collection goes from 19-300 (30-480 after the camera crop factor) and cost about $2500! (and that's probably less than the majority of DSLR owners). And then ya got the cost of the camera body, $350 flash, multiple bags, etc.. etc..
Be very prepared to get a (costly) lens addiction if you buy a DSLR.. One quality lens could go for twice the price of a high end consumer digicam!
Message edited by author 2003-04-17 23:01:48. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/22/2025 09:10:23 PM EDT.
