DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Digital SLR
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 62, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/05/2003 06:40:01 PM · #1
I am new to the photo biz and wanted to know which digital SLR's are good and affordable.
08/05/2003 06:47:16 PM · #2
I'm also new but I've been reading a lot. A good place to start sure seems to be the Canon EOS-10D.

//www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos10d.asp

Message edited by author 2003-08-05 18:47:40.
08/05/2003 08:43:45 PM · #3
Only look at the Canon 10D. It's the only DSLR worth considering, every other DSLR should be burned and other companies should be forced out of business or stoned to death. If anyone says otherwise please smack them in the face.
08/05/2003 08:55:08 PM · #4
Been a LOT of discussion here over the last week or so regarding exactly this. The two main choices are the Nikon D100, and, as posted above, the Canon 10D. Also good is the Fuji S2 Pro.
You really will be making a choice between lens systems as much as between cameras. In time, your investment in "glass" will probably exceed your investment in the body, and you want this to transfer to your next body, so you are in many respects making a committment.
You can expect to pay $1400-$1500 for the 10D, about $200 more for the D100, and $???? for the S2 (it's in the same price range as the other two). Expect to spend another $500-$750 for lenses to cover wide angle to moderate telephoto. You want good glass to get the most from these cameras.

08/05/2003 08:58:32 PM · #5
Originally posted by matt betea:

Only look at the Canon 10D. It's the only DSLR worth considering, every other DSLR should be burned and other companies should be forced out of business or stoned to death. If anyone says otherwise please smack them in the face.


Hey, c'mon now Matt, just 'cause 10D ownership on DPC will eclipse D100 ownership in the next week or so, no reason to wax sarcastic! ;^)
08/05/2003 09:27:39 PM · #6
Speaking of lenses...

Where's a good place to go learn about lenses and the differences between Canon and Nikon?

08/05/2003 10:17:12 PM · #7
//www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html
08/05/2003 10:20:16 PM · #8
of those 3, the fuji s2 is , imo, the cat's meow.

i opted for the 10D, though, because i'm price conscious ;)


08/05/2003 11:24:25 PM · #9
I really couldn't care less how many more people on dpchallenge are using the 10D over the D100. Point is though, anytime someone asks about a DSLR, you get anyone that uses a Canon talking about how it'll bring you coffee in the morning it's so good and in not so many words how one shouldn't even consider an alternative to Canon. All this talk about "oh you just have to have IS lenses, etc, etc" is getting tiresome. IS or VR doesn't make a photographer, having a one of a kind lens that probably 90% of people on here would never use doesn't make a photographer. Cameras are just tools and I don't think anyone here is getting comp from Canon so lets keep the bias to a minimum. Thanks.

Ryan,
If you're serious about a DSLR, the best place to start would be checking out reviews. DPreview is one of the tops for reviews. Though I would recommend staying clear of their forums. See what features you like about each camera and what you don't like about each one, make a list. See how each pro or con weigh in your decision. Last, but in my opinion, most important. Don't buy something unless you've held it. Maybe even taken a few shots with it, at the least gone through the functions, menus, etc.

I know I would have been very unhappy if I wouldn't have gone and looked at the cameras in person. Even though I had some big gripes about the Fuji S2, I was going to get it. But holding it re-affirmed my gripes and I couldn't see buying it.

The prosumer DSLR's in the 6mp range that are out in all respects are pretty close and all are good. It's going to be what you like the most and feel comfortable with.

Message edited by author 2003-08-05 23:26:04.
08/05/2003 11:32:55 PM · #10
Here is a great review of the D100 vs the 10D by Ken Rockwell. Ken is a pro photographer who has a lot of great info on his site about all photography, not just digital.

Long and short, they are both great!

Link for Ken Rockwell Review of 10D vs D100
08/06/2003 09:30:41 AM · #11
Ryan Here thanks for all the great feedback. But I am currently using a film SLR and I don't really know whether I should go digital or stay traditional?
08/06/2003 09:38:13 AM · #12
Originally posted by ry_the_photoguy:

I am new to the photo biz and wanted to know which digital SLR's are good and affordable.


They are all good (except the ones from Kodak).

None of them are affordable.

They will all be obsolete in 2 or 3 years (though still working fine no doubt) [2 or 3 years is probably optimistic]

08/06/2003 09:41:51 AM · #13
obsolete in what sense? that's the question.

are manual cameras "obsolete?? "



Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by ry_the_photoguy:

I am new to the photo biz and wanted to know which digital SLR's are good and affordable.


They are all good (except the ones from Kodak).

None of them are affordable.

They will all be obsolete in 2 or 3 years (though still working fine no doubt) [2 or 3 years is probably optimistic]
08/06/2003 02:32:45 PM · #14
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

obsolete in what sense? that's the question.

are manual cameras "obsolete?? "


Obsolete in the the sense that the word means.

Obsolete: Outmoded in design, style, or construction

It is not really up for discussion that in 1 or 2 years time, more affordable digital SLRs will be available. They will have more features, better sensor technology, improved auto focus, faster electronics, larger storage, improved battery life, better quality displays and better exposure systems. They will also be cheaper.

As a result, the current crop of DSLRs will be outmoded in design, style and construction by these new, more affordable DSLR designs.

As I mentioned above, the current DSLRs will still work.

Manual cameras have not been made obsolete, simply because there haven't exactly been huge advances made in the design of new manual cameras.




08/06/2003 02:42:45 PM · #15
S2 has better skin tones, but other features make it really unsuitable for me (such as mirror lockup -- c'mon, a $2200 camera doesn't have that simple feature????)


Originally posted by magnetic9999:

of those 3, the fuji s2 is , imo, the cat's meow.

i opted for the 10D, though, because i'm price conscious ;)
08/06/2003 02:44:36 PM · #16
Manual cameras are obsolete for Canon :-) (they don't make manual lenses any more) but not for Nikon or Leica, with their lines of truly expensive and overpriced lenses.

Personally I'd wish that Canon has put in the pentaprism focus screen so that i can use manual focus like it used to be.


Originally posted by magnetic9999:

obsolete in what sense? that's the question.

are manual cameras "obsolete?? "



Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by ry_the_photoguy:

I am new to the photo biz and wanted to know which digital SLR's are good and affordable.


They are all good (except the ones from Kodak).

None of them are affordable.

They will all be obsolete in 2 or 3 years (though still working fine no doubt) [2 or 3 years is probably optimistic]
08/06/2003 03:13:37 PM · #17

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

obsolete in what sense? that's the question.

are manual cameras "obsolete?? "


In the sense that higher-performance sensors will be available: more megapixels, faster transfer, more buffer, greater dynamic range, lower noise, lower ISO *higher* ISO, etc.

In the film world, obsolescence occurs less quickly, and only really with respect to camera featuresets. I can put new Velvia film in a 20 year old Oly OM-10, and (given eqivalent glass) take equal quality shots with those laid down by Velvia in my new Nikon F5. Image quality does not differ just because one camera is vastly newer than the other. So, the OM-10 is obsolete only in the respect that it has no AF, no evaluative metering, no aperture or full program mode, or any of the peripheral features of the F5.

In the digital world, the (sometimes wonderful) top-quality images I make with my D100 will never be equivalent (given equivalent glass) to the third of fourth generation D-SLR's that will be on the market in a year or so. So, given an interest in making the best images I can, for all practical purposes, my D100 will become obsolete when my images are consistently less than "par" for digital, and it's the technology's fault.

Mark

08/06/2003 03:23:21 PM · #18
so, an image that made you say "wow" now won't make you say "wow" when a better camera comes out?

that doesnt make alot of sense :) ..


08/06/2003 03:55:52 PM · #19
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

so, an image that made you say "wow" now won't make you say "wow" when a better camera comes out?

that doesnt make alot of sense :) ..


Actually, I believe it does. Our perception of "wow" shifts to incorporate what we know is possible. In any technology area, as the performance benchmarks are set, people become used to them, and anything less is then... less. After seeing pix from the 1Ds, everything else is... less. Not BAD, just a bit below the high-water mark. The fact that we have surpassed 35mm film in performance (the previous mass-market camera benchmark) makes the advances in digital all the more amazing. But three years hence, 6Mpix will look to us a bit like 3 does today.
08/06/2003 04:00:17 PM · #20
So you people are saying to stick to Film for now (because I am still young and in 3 years I am not going to be some crippled old man
08/06/2003 04:09:56 PM · #21
well, in 3 years when you buy a DSLR.. it'll be outdated in another 2-3 years after that :)

and kollin, no one ever said that.. but the camera ITSELF will be outdated (compared to the technology that will be out at that time).. not the pictures it takes :)
08/06/2003 04:17:34 PM · #22
It's not so much the resulting image as the ability to capture images that changes. Faster autofocus, faster shot-to-shot, more continuous frames, larger and brighter viewfinder, etc. makes it easier to get good shots.

Originally posted by magnetic9999:

so, an image that made you say "wow" now won't make you say "wow" when a better camera comes out?

that doesnt make alot of sense :) ..
08/06/2003 04:27:18 PM · #23
Undoubtably next years' cameras will have more pixels and allow you to shoot in more extreme conditions.. No one really cares about more pixels when viewing on a web site but is is pretty nice to have as many as possible when it comes to printing..
08/06/2003 04:40:58 PM · #24
Originally posted by kirbic:

Hey, c'mon now Matt, just 'cause 10D ownership on DPC will eclipse D100 ownership in the next week or so, no reason to wax sarcastic! ;^)


Now, now, boys... Selling more cameras does not necessarily indicate that the product is better. Though, I think for the current time, the 10D probably DOES have better features than any under-$2k DSLR. By a very slim margin. A margin way overshadowed by personal preference.

Besides, having "the better" camera sure as hell doesn't mean the owners will be better photographers. I mean... if you give an idiot a rocket, you don't get an astronaut. You just get a very fast idiot.

Regardless, I am quite happy with my D100, and look forward to lots of years with this DSLR body and the ones that follow.

Mark
08/06/2003 05:02:24 PM · #25
Originally posted by magnetic9999:

so, an image that made you say "wow" now won't make you say "wow" when a better camera comes out?

that doesnt make alot of sense :) ..


Certainly the technical quality of the captured image will be much improved. Many of the current technical limitations are due to engineering trade-offs between sensor complexity (single colour sensitive pixel matrices), spatial sampling frequency (pixel size vs pixel density) [anti-aliasing/ need for sharpening/ adding artefact contrasts to get a final sharp result], semi-conductor materials noise features (noise filtering, exposure time limitations) and so on. Over time improvements are made in these and the image quality can improve.

But I think the real place that significant inovation is possible is in camera functionality. It isn't so much about improving the pixels in the final image (though there will be improvements) it'll be improvements in things like exposure metering, auto focus, flash control, colour accuracy etc that will make the current crop of DSLRs look slow and unwieldy. They'll still create the great pictures they currently do, but there will be newer cameras that will no doubt be cheaper and have better exposure systems, focus systems and processing backends that will make the current crop look archaic.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/17/2022 03:30:56 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2022 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/17/2022 03:30:56 AM EDT.