OK, so I'm looking to get a digital camera, and if possible I'd like to get an SLR. Ideally, I would have about 1000 USD to spend, but in reality I only have about half of that, so I have to choose with care.
My wife asked someone who is supposedly an expert in this area, and he said that there is little difference between brands these days, so the most important thing is just to get the highest resolution (I think that's the right term) possible.
This just doesn't ring true to me, especially when it comes to SLR cameras. For those of you out there who own such cameras, what sort of things should I look for, and what should I be wary of?
If you want an SLR digital camera and if you can afford no more than 1,000 dollars, then you are in the same situation I was one month ago. I decided to buy the Canon Digital Rebel, also known as Canon 300D.
I've been using it for this time and I like it. But, I see some problems. I don't like the quality of "main dial", it's a mechanical rotational button, like those that we now have in every mouse, to scroll pages, and it's used for a lot of things in this camera. I don't like its quality because it's too hard to rotate and you need to rotate it for a lot of functions in the camera. And, for most of them, there are no alternatives. You must use this dial, or you won't do what you want to do. I'd like it to be softer, much softer.
I also don't like the quality of the flash pictures. This camera is too much picky when taking flash pictures. The exposition of the picture is not predictable at all, unless you use a trick to make it dependent only on your central AF point, in which case it is still delicate to get the right exposition, but you can have "some" predictability of the result. I believe that the sensors are not as good as they should be.
To make things more difficult for you to decide, now there are, or very soon there will be, more than the Canon for around $1,000. Nikon will very soon release, or maybe already have released, a new model, the D70, but it's a little more expensive, and surely will be a tough competitor to the Canon 300D.
Sony recently released the DSC-F828 model, that seems great, full of interesting features, but it's not SLR and according to dpreview, it promised more than it accomplished. There is also the Olympus C8080, to be released, I guess, not SLR but I guess it will be a serious camera in the market.
But, back to your question, with 1,000 dollars, wanting an SLR digital camera TODAY, your almost only option is the Canon 300D. The Nikon D70 should cost around 300 buck more. I believe that with this tough competition coming up, Canon should soon release a better camera than the 300D, for the same price. But this is just my speculation. If you can wait some more months, I'd wait. I couldn't wait because I'm coming back to my country soon, and I need some months to test the camera and make sure she's okay.
There are quite a lot more things to consider than just the resolution. I would spend some time over at DPreview reading up on all types of cameras if I were you. They do an excellent job of providing all kinds of feedback on cameras and using many sample images to illustrate their points.
Considering your budget I would say go with a non-SLR first. There are so many hidden expenses with DSLRs, it would make it tough for you. Obviously you have the body and those aren't cheap. You'd be lucky to find a body alone that's within what you want to spend.
Then you get into lenses and for decent lenses you can easily look at paying more than you did for the body. Then there's bags, memory cards, batteries, chargers, etc, etc.
I would strongly recommend going with a non-SLR since this is your first dig cam and because of your budget. Find a cam that will allow you to do everything manually and that has a nice lens with good optical zoom capabilities. My personal choices would be Canon, Sony, or Nikon.
If you decide to go with an SLR be prepared to spend more than 1000 bucks.
quote:There are quite a lot more things to consider than just the resolution.
Indeed. According to dpreview, the new Sony non-SLR, with 8 megapixels (and some features to make those who don't have them jealousy ), has a quality of image not better, actually worse, than the image from the Canon 300D 6 megapixels SLR.
I think that, not going into too much technicalities (that I don't master anyway), what's more important is how big is the sensor. What's the use of having 8 megapixels in a sensor that's smaller than another one that has 6 megapixels? My understanding is that the bigger the "pixel" - inside the sensor - the better your chances of having a better image because it will sense more accurately the light. So, just the number of pixels is not good enough, although it's one of the features to consider, definitely.
About hidden costs for SLR cameras, it's right, but not that right. If you buy the Canon 300D kit, that comes with a lens, I guess that the only hidden cost is the case, that's around 60 bucks. If you want extra batteries, you'd have to buy them anyway, being SLR or not. The Canon doesn't come with a memory card, but the ones that have it as part of the deal, usually give you such a small card that you'll end up buying a better one anyway.
If you have no more than 500 dollars, there is no digital SLR available (I'd buy the Olympus 5050, very well recommended, or wait for the 8080 that'll be more expensive, for sure). If you have 1,000, then there is only Canon's. If you have more, like 1,300, you can wait for Nikon's.
Thanks for the advice. I was afraid that perhaps my budget would rule out the possibility of an SLR at this point in the game. I hadn't even thought about "hidden expenses."
That's a great link there. I'll definitely be spending a lot of time there doing some research before I go out shopping this weekend. Prices here in Korea will be different, of course, but it should at least give me an idea of what to look for. I definitely want something that allows me to do everything manually... I'm getting a bit tired of using automatic cameras.
Again, thanks for the all the advice.
[Edit: Oh, I almost forgot... krets, you mentioned looking for a camera with a nice lens. How do I tell which lenses are nice and which aren't? I'm afraid I'm not too learned in this area...]
[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-06-2004).]
Basically you want to look at things like it's zoom capabilities, aperture range, max and min shutter, ISO numbers, and focal length. A good dig is going to have a lot of range in these different areas.
For instance, some cheaper models don't let you manually set the ISO which is the sensitivity to light. Whereas a camera like the Sony F-707 which is what Shi and I use lets you set your ISO manually at 100, 200, 400, 800, or you can use the Auto function.
Look at the shutter speed to determine the max and min values. If you want to do long exposure shots pay attention to the min value because some cameras have crappy min values. The Sony let's you expose for a min of 30 seconds which is a common number I've seen amongst prosumer dig cams. The max will tell you what the fastest shutter speed will be. Mine goes to 1/1000 of a sec which is decent but no great. The new F828 will go to 1/3200 sec.
The other thing you might do is see if the dealer will let you walk around and take some shots with the cam. Most of them will let you stroll around and check it out to see if you like the way the cam feels and the controls. Take a bunch of shots using all levels of zoom, take some macro shots, and see how you like it.
Honestly if you stick with the name brands and check out the reviews available on the net you can't go wrong. It's really just about finding a camera that "fits" you.
Thanks very much for the advice, krets. I've been looking at some of the reviews on dpreview, and I think I'm getting the idea. I will definitely keep everything you've said in mind when I go shopping.
Suho, when someone says "do yourself a favor and buy a good lens", usually they mean that you need to buy professional grade lens.
The problem is that professional grade lens are insanely expensive. For a pro, they say they are a must, because taking pictures is their way of living, but for regular people (like me, and probably like you, since you don't look like a pro as of now), professional lens are: (1) insanely expensive and (2) insanely heavy, making them insanely difficult to buy and use in a daily basis.
So, my advice: forget about "real good lens". The one that comes with the Rebel 300D is a good one, good enough for someone starting in this field (of digital camera). Sony claims that the lens that comes in the new DSC-F828 8 megapixel non-SLR camera, that costs around 1,000 dollars, has a professional grade, but that's not good enough to make it better than the Canon with its non-professional lens. Canon itself claims that the lens that comes with the still-to-be-released non-SLR Canon PowerShot Pro1, is a Pro lens (Canon Pro lens have a red ring around them and the "L" letter in the "name"), but there is yet no comparisons in dpreview. This Canon PS Pro1 seems a good candidate to me, when available, if I hadn't already bought my Rebel - but it's not SLR.
So, forget about professional equipment. Unless you have thousands and thousands of dollars to spend.
viol: My point is that to get the kind of flexibility with an SLR that you get with a good prosumer is that you're going to have to spend some bucks. Since you've mentioned the 828 several times, take a look at the lens capabilities of the two cameras right out of the box:
300D: 18-55 mm at f/3.5 - f/5.6 (This is the most common lens I found included in a kit)
Sony: 28-200 mm at f/2 - f/2.8
That Sony Zeiss lens is as fast, flexible lens. You're going to shell out lots of bucks for a comparable SLR lens. The downside is that you don't have the flexibility to change the lens even if you had the money to buy lots of others.
If you really want to see some good test shots from the various cameras, take a look over at DPChallenge. You can browse by camera used to see examples of the kinds of photos taken by each camera: http://www.dpchallenge.com/camera.php
I understand your point, krets, but since I don't have a Sony to test and compare, I have to believe what dpreview, and other sites, say about it, in this particular case. And the Rebel does a better job than the Sony, even using a non-pro lens. Of course you don't have the zoom capability of Sony's.
The features that this Sony camera has are really nice, but what drives my decision is quality of the picture.
It's like a decision I am postponing about buying a video camera. There is the Sony VX-2100 and the Canon GL-2. The Canon has more features, better lenses, bigger zoom, is smaller and lighter, is really a nice and cute camera, but the quality of the shooting of the VX, specially at low light condition, is much better. So, I don't know what to do: I want the Canon, but I want the quality of image of the Sony... So far, no decision, but, this time, I'll probably go for the Canon. After all, it's some hundreds buck less expensive.
viol: Yes, you are right. I am a poor, unprofessional slob with no hope of ever being on the same level as the photogods here...
And, since I haven't gone shopping yet (and won't go until this Friday), I thought I'd throw this out. I took a look at a bunch of cameras over at dpreview, and of those that are more or less in my proce range, the Canon Powershot G5 is looking pretty good. Does anybody have any experience with this camera? Or do you know of a "better" camera with a comparable price? (I put better in quotes because I know these things are subjective...)
The pros & cons of SLR v. non-SLR cameras probably depend most on what your ultimate purpose for the camera is. If you just want a digicam to take general snapshots, there are plenty of very nice, fairly inexpensive models out there.
I recently purchased a Kodak DX4530, which is non-SLR and have been pretty happy with it. It cost me right at $300 USD. It's 5MP, and has a nice LCD viewing screen as well as a viewfinder (which I haven't used yet!). The lens system takes nice, crisp photos, and the processing time is an eye-blink compared to the digicams that both my parents have. The only problem I see with this model is that most of the zoom feature is in the digital zoom function, and that takes some pretty crappy images. I'm sure there's a balance somewhere, I just have to figure it out.
We shopped around a bit for a decent, reasonably inexpensive camera, and this one came up with more features at the price we wanted. But on the whole, there isn't a whole lot of difference. If I had $6- or 700 USD to spend, I'd likely have picked a model higher up on the technology ladder, but for my general purposes, this was well worth the money.
Spend enough time reading reviews, you'll figure out which one's right for you...
quote:Yes, you are right. I am a poor, unprofessional slob with no hope of ever being on the same level as the photogods here...
I didn't mean any offense, Suho. I used the few hints from your post to deduce you're not a pro, but if I'm wrong, I apologize. A pro for me is someone that can make a living out of taking pictures. not someone that can't take good pictures.
You're right, I am not a professional photographer. My reply was just me poking fun at myself, that's all.
bodhi: I think an SLR is out of my range, but I want to do more with the camera than just take snapshots. I'd like to get a decent camera that allows me to do things manually, and hopefully take some nice photographs. I realize that a lot of photography is in the skill of the photographer, but having a nice camera helps. I'm really quite tired of using my automatic tourist camera.
OK, after going out and actually looking at a bunch of cameras, checking out the picture quality, and doing a bit of pricing, it looks like the Canon Powershot A-80 is what we're going with. It's a compact, which isn't what I was originally looking for, but I like the quality of the pictures I've seen, it's gotten some good reviews, and it also happens to be within our budget, which is always nice. Thanks to all for the advice, and hopefully I'll be able to start posting some pics once we actually get the camera.
posted 04-05-2004 15:20
), has a quality of image not better, actually worse, than the image from the Canon 300D 6 megapixels SLR.
