Looking to buy a D-SLR Camera.

[andrewfee]

I've had an interest in photography for some time now, and have been planning on getting a new camera for a few months. (I'm stuck with a cheap 3.1mp camera right now)

I had initially been looking at something like the Powershot G6 or the Powershot Pro1, but I think that if I bought one of them, I'd end up wanting to buy something better in 6 months time, which is why I'm thinking of getting a D-SLR.

Admittedly I don't know a huge ammount about "proper" photography right now (I've been reading up on it lately, and have just read all of Canon's "Digital Learning Centre (http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/)" which helped) and it looks like I could pick up the basics pretty quickly.

I'm wanting to get something that will be able to expand with me as I learn more about using the camera, which is why I don't like the idea of buying a fixed-lens camera. (or one with a very limited selection)


I'm thinking of saving for a month or two and spending a max of around £1000, and was wondering what was the best way to spend my money would be? (if something cheaper is recommended, I would be able to get it sooner, which is why I'm asking now)



What I'm currently looking at is to buy the new Canon EOS 350D Kit (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0007R6CHQ/qid=1108838192/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/202-8259825-3782253) (£800, only £50 more than the body) with a "Sandisk 1GB ULTRA II Compact Flash" card (£90) and I'm sure I read somewhere that as a starting lens, other than the kit one, the "Canon EF50mm f/1.8 ll Lens (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005K47X/ref=pd_sr_ec_ir_aps/202-8259825-3782253)" is the best money you can spend, at £80.

From looking at various sites, it seems that the 350D is perfectly suited for someone like me who wants to get started with an SLR, as it has full-auto settings, partially auto settings, and a full-manual mode.



Is this the best option for me to go with, or (within that budget) could I be spending my money better?

[Mord]

the 350D sounds like a kick ass camera i'd go for it.

:)

[qzak]

great timing, i'm taking an intro to digital photography next semester so i'm looking into gettin a digital slr soon to (next month).

same as you i guess i'm looking for a good d-slr that is good for beginners but will not hold me back when i begin to learn more and more.

does anyone have a good site for d-slr camera reviews or anything like that?

[vtprinz]

The 350D looks to be a great camera by the specs, though I would wait until some full reviews are available before making any decisions. The PMA has just started, which is the photo equivalent to MacWorld. Lots of new cameras coming out right now. And according to www.dpreview.com (which is a site I HIGHLY recommend, that and www.luminous-landscape.com), they expect a lot of new DSLRs to be announced, if not during the PMA than shortly after. The only other camera I'd really recommend without spending too much money is the Nikon D70, which you can get with the 18-70mm kit lens and 1GB sandisk extreme CF card for $1099US after rebates (check out www.bhphotovideo.com). It's an amazing camera, and both Nikon and Canon have a huge list of lenses to use (especially canon). If you want to spend a bit more, I'd say either the Canon 20D or the Minolta 7D (which adds image stabilization to all your lenses).

But, again, from the specs the 350D really does look amazing for the price. Of course, I recommend you stop by a local shop once the 350D is available and play around with the cams before making your decision. How the camera feels to you is VERY important. The better it feels in your hands, the more likely you are to use it. (For me, the Nikon D70 beats any Canon cam hands down in terms of comfort and "feel", but that's obviously a subjective view)

As for the 50mm f/1.8 canon lens...this lens has been highly revered in 35mm photography, but you have to remember that DSLRs have a field of view crop. On the 350D (1.6x FOV crop) it would be an 80mm lens, quite a bit different. Whether that matters is up to you. 50mm is considered "normal", and is the most popular range for portrait work. I believe you can get ~31mm lenses that would equate to 50mm on the 350D

[jared_kipe]

I would definitely go for either the 300D or the 350D, obviously the 350D is the better bet. But a few months ago I was looking for one and I might have just gone for the cheaper option just to get into the DSLR world. As for your choice of lens, I hear the 50mm is a great lens, I would probably go for the kit lens too, you can't beat it for 18mm, and if you get into macro you can reverse that for a kick as 1:6 easily. If you're looking for a medium zoom, I've read around and people really really like (I have one too) the Canon EF 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM, which is a really well built lens for the money (~150USD on ebay). For something longer (which is where I'm looking) the EF 100-300mm USM mkIII is a decent lens especially with a tripod. There are quite a few of the 100-300mm 5.6L lenses floating around on ebay, but no USM and not the fastest lens ever.

Just remember with a quick firmware hack you can have practically all the features of the 10D for much much less than one would normally cost. Including flash exposure compensation, mirror lock up, assigning a button for quality, and flash assisted focusing without firing a flash. Just to name a few.

In my personal opinion, for prosumers like us, the Canon bodies offer better features for the money like low noise. When I sat and looked at the differences I decided on the 300D over the Nikon D70 for price and for features. Also on feel, the D70 seems huge to me. The 350D is so cute, I love the new knob on it.

[dhracer88]

Another site I would reccomend is http://www.kenrockwell.com.

I'm also going to be looking for a DSLR, probably a Canon 20D (when it's updated--I can wait) because I have a few Canon lenses already, but I like the looks of the 20D in addition to a few other features over the Rebel XT/350.

I also heard the Lexar CF cards offer a data recovery system too, just in case the card is corrupt etc. But in my experience, San Disk has never lost any pictures for my Olympus.

JM

[andrewfee]

As for the 50mm f/1.8 canon lens...this lens has been highly revered in 35mm photography, but you have to remember that DSLRs have a field of view crop. On the 350D (1.6x FOV crop) it would be an 80mm lens, quite a bit different. Whether that matters is up to you. 50mm is considered "normal", and is the most popular range for portrait work. I believe you can get ~31mm lenses that would equate to 50mm on the 350D
Ah, thanks for that tip. :)

I was sure it was to go with the 300D/350D I had read about it, but perhaps whoever was recommending it had forgotten about the 1.6x FOV crop.

As it will be a month or two to afford something in the £1000 price-range, I'll wait and see what else is available then, and I had fully intended on checking out the cameras if I could find a local shop selling them.

[cemorris]

I think your setup would be perfect. If you are planning on using iphoto 5, then wait until you can confirm RAW photo support for this camera. Sometime camera manufactures will change the RAW format and it takes a little while before 3rd party software is available to read it. I have a 300d with the 50mm lens you mention and I love it. I don't shoot much RAW, but when I do, it is nice that iphoto can now import and view the photos. But for RAW photo editing I prefer Photoshop Elements 3 (or Photoshop CS if you have that). One drawback I have heard is that Photoshop Elements is not in the list of included software for the 350d (Elements 2.0 was in the 300d package). I am not sure if they will include an equivalent program, but Elements 3.0 is $90. I think this part of the cost savings to bring the 350d $100 lower than the 300d.

[andrewfee]

I think your setup would be perfect. If you are planning on using iphoto 5, then wait until you can confirm RAW photo support for this camera. Sometime camera manufactures will change the RAW format and it takes a little while before 3rd party software is available to read it. I have a 300d with the 50mm lens you mention and I love it. I don't shoot much RAW, but when I do, it is nice that iphoto can now import and view the photos. But for RAW photo editing I prefer Photoshop Elements 3 (or Photoshop CS if you have that). One drawback I have heard is that Photoshop Elements is not in the list of included software for the 350d (Elements 2.0 was in the 300d package). I am not sure if they will include an equivalent program, but Elements 3.0 is $90. I think this part of the cost savings to bring the 350d $100 lower than the 300d.
I currently have Elements 3.0 (90% of CS' features for 1/10th the price :D) so was planning on using that to edit the RAW files, and then saving the edited ones as TIFF files to be put into iPhoto. (I hear that editing RAW from iPhoto edits the original, not a duplicate like it does for jpeg)

[dhracer88]

...wait until you can confirm RAW photo support for this camera...

Isn't Adobe releasing the "Digital Negative" that would be a RAW-standard for all camera companies? Or is the DNG only for archival purposes?

JM

[iGary]

I think you need to ask yourself a few questions first.

1. What type of use do you plan to put this camera through? The Rebel is a plastic body. Though quite sturdy, it will not stand up as well to constant abuse like a magnesium alloy body like the 20D or 10D will. My camera is in and out of the bag, shoved into the back of small airplanes, it gets bumped...my Rebel just didn't stand up well to this.

2. What type of shooting do you plan on doing? Although the new 350D has a slighly higher FPS rate and a larger buffer, it is still a little slow for sports, wildlife (birds) or action-type photography. But again, that depends. If this is a hobby thing for you, then perhaps you dont need the 23-image buffer of the 20D or the 5 FPS shooting rate. I shoot birds sometimes and it requires me to follow them in flight and just hold the button down.

3. The dial and interface of Rebel is a pain in the butt, although I see they have gone away from the recessed menu buttons (to raised ones), which were really difficult to navigate with quickly. If you are looking at Canon, the 10D and the 20D have a wonderful iPod-like scroll wheel, which makes menu navigating a lot nicer, no, immensely nicer.

4. Do you ever plan on dong any professional-level work? You might consider the 20D with some of the advanced features, which may come in handy in the future, if you plan on making a part-time or full-time living out of this. Nothing earth-shatteringly different from the Rebel, mind you, but some nice stuff. Keep in mind that the aforementioned Wasia hack for the 300D voids your warranty. Period. The 350D has a firmware patch that locks this out. The 20D has some really advanced custom features, including a wicked-good WB feature controlled with a joystick, and it has a full B&W mode complete with filters. But again - you gotta figure out if that is stuff you need.

5. All in all the Rebel does take some nice pictures, and the 350D will probably do nearly as well image quality-wise with the 20D

The only thing i would warn against is under-buying, which was what I did. It's always said in these forums "Buy the most computer you can afford for your needs." I think the same is true with cameras. I bought the 300D, looking to save money, when a 20D was really what I needed.

Good luck! :D

[cwright]

i think this thread is a re-post :D

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=109934

[jared_kipe]

I don't think the crop would be a bad thing on that 50mm, it woul still be very useful as a portrait lens, you just have to get farther away from building you want to shoot normal, but thats what the 18mm on the kit lens is for.

[Ambrose Chapel]

i'm in the same boat, and right now i'm leaning toward the 350D. as vtprinz said, i'm going to wait for the reviews just to make sure it's as good as advertised. i've considered the 20D (particularly wrt the 300D), but now compared to the 350 the 20 doesn't have much that i'd miss. my cousin, a pro, has been pushing me to get the 20 but agrees the 350 looks good, at least for my hobbyist needs.

now let's see dpreview, dcresource, et al get those review up!

:)

[iGary]

i'm in the same boat, and right now i'm leaning toward the 350D. as vtprinz said, i'm going to wait for the reviews just to make sure it's as good as advertised. i've considered the 20D (particularly wrt the 300D), but now compared to the 350 the 20 doesn't have much that i'd miss. my cousin, a pro, has been pushing me to get the 20 but agrees the 350 looks good, at least for my hobbyist needs.

now let's see dpreview, dcresource, et al get those review up!

:)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/

[vtprinz]

and it has a full B&W mode complete with filters.

The 350D has this now too :D

[vtprinz]

If you're interested in either infrared photography or astrophotography, Canon just announced a modified 20D, the 20Da (I assume the "a" stands for astro). The IR filter that's built into all cameras has been removed in this cam. You can get an external filter that does the same thing (blocks IR light). With this filter on you can use the camera like a regular 20D. Then you can get a filter that blocks visible light but allows IR to pass and get some great IR shots :D

...of course, you'll have to wait a long time, as it's only available in Japan right now...

[Ambrose Chapel]

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/

i saw! will they update this with a final review at some point?

[vtprinz]

i saw! will they update this with a final review at some point?

yes, and probably asap as it's sure to be in high demand. Though, they do have a LOT of new cams to review, so be patient.

[jared_kipe]

i saw! will they update this with a final review at some point?

Since they have the camera (I think they have posted samples and hands-on stuff), I think we can expect a review when the camera goes public or shortly their after.

[pulsewidth947]

If you are interested in the Nikon D70 theres a cashback offer on if you buy your camera before 31st march.

If you buy the D70 no lens, or with the 28-80mm you get £50 off, or if you buy with the 18-70mm lens you get £100 off..

I'd recommend the 18-70 as its better glass, and you get more of a wideangle. Its £659.99 inc rebate and free postage from Best Cameras online.. bargain. Then u just need a large mem card (ebay) and a bag (jessops).

Nows a good time to buy it, but if you can wait, i'd see what Nikon come up with to compete with Canons EOS350..

[andrewfee]

1. What type of use do you plan to put this camera through? The Rebel is a plastic body. Though quite sturdy, it will not stand up as well to constant abuse like a magnesium alloy body like the 20D or 10D will. My camera is in and out of the bag, shoved into the back of small airplanes, it gets bumped...my Rebel just didn't stand up well to this.
I don't see it getting a lot of abuse; I take a lot of care with my electronics, so I think the plastic body should hold up well.

2. What type of shooting do you plan on doing? Although the new 350D has a slighly higher FPS rate and a larger buffer, it is still a little slow for sports, wildlife (birds) or action-type photography. But again, that depends. If this is a hobby thing for you, then perhaps you dont need the 23-image buffer of the 20D or the 5 FPS shooting rate. I shoot birds sometimes and it requires me to follow them in flight and just hold the button down.
It's really a hobby thing, and I can't think of much where I'd even need the 3fps shooting, let alone 5fps. According to the preview and the review of the 20D, the 350D can take more RAW shots in 30 seconds. (32 vs 27)

3. The dial and interface of Rebel is a pain in the butt, although I see they have gone away from the recessed menu buttons (to raised ones), which were really difficult to navigate with quickly. If you are looking at Canon, the 10D and the 20D have a wonderful iPod-like scroll wheel, which makes menu navigating a lot nicer, no, immensely nicer.
It is something to consider, but I don't think it's something that would make me choose one over the other; from reading the preview, it looks like it'd be fine on the 350D

4. Do you ever plan on dong any professional-level work? You might consider the 20D with some of the advanced features, which may come in handy in the future, if you plan on making a part-time or full-time living out of this. Nothing earth-shatteringly different from the Rebel, mind you, but some nice stuff. Keep in mind that the aforementioned Wasia hack for the 300D voids your warranty. Period. The 350D has a firmware patch that locks this out. The 20D has some really advanced custom features, including a wicked-good WB feature controlled with a joystick, and it has a full B&W mode complete with filters. But again - you gotta figure out if that is stuff you need.
I don't think I'll really be doing any professional level work, it'd be nice to be able to sell a print or two, but I don't expect to even be doing that for some time. (as I'm pretty new to all this)
I'm not sure if there's a difference, but I thought I had read somewhere that if I want a black and white shot, I'm better to shoot it in colour and then use an image-editing program to do it? This way if the shot turns out differently from what I was expecting, I can keep it in colour.
The same goes for white-balance; I thought that (with raw at least) I can easily adjust the white-balance via Photoshop?

5. All in all the Rebel does take some nice pictures, and the 350D will probably do nearly as well image quality-wise with the 20D
Well I see that DPReview has got some sample pictures up, and they're fantastic quality, better than I was expecting, so I think I'd be happy with either camera, and the quality looks pretty comparable.

The only thing i would warn against is under-buying, which was what I did. It's always said in these forums "Buy the most computer you can afford for your needs." I think the same is true with cameras. I bought the 300D, looking to save money, when a 20D was really what I needed.
This is something that I'm worried about; I've had it happen in the past with other things that I've bought, and ended up selling and buying the more expensive one in the end.

I'm just not sure if the 20D is really worth the extra £350 over the 350D, especially at the level of skill I'm at right now. The kit alone is more than I was looking to spend, and I'd still need to get a CF card, and would like to have another lens.

If you are interested in the Nikon D70 theres a cashback offer on if you buy your camera before 31st march.

If you buy the D70 no lens, or with the 28-80mm you get £50 off, or if you buy with the 18-70mm lens you get £100 off..

I'd recommend the 18-70 as its better glass, and you get more of a wideangle. Its £659.99 inc rebate and free postage from Best Cameras online.. bargain. Then u just need a large mem card (ebay) and a bag (jessops).

Nows a good time to buy it, but if you can wait, i'd see what Nikon come up with to compete with Canons EOS350..
Hmm, that is a great price, but I think I should wait and see if Nikon come out with something to compete with the 350D. The other thing is that it's of course a rebate, so I may not see the £100 for quite some time, so it's still £759.99 out of my budget really. Presumably they have this offer because they're just about to update.



Thanks for the help so far everyone. :D
I think that, unless Nikon release something better than the EOS350D in that price-range, I'm probably going to stick to the 350D, and I just can't see £350 of things that the 20D has over the 350D really.

If the price difference was smaller, I would be seriously considering it, but it's just too far out of my budget. (£1150 kit, £1050 body from what I've seen)


Edit: It looks like "Best Cameras" is a bit cheaper; they have the "Canon Eos 350d + 18-55 + 55-200 Canon lenses" for £850. The 20D (body only) is £999
which is a better price, but when you add in the cost of lenses, it's still a bit much.

I assume the 55-200 lens they're adding is the "Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM" lens, as it's the only 55-200mm lens they sell. It goes for £200 on its own, so I think I might just have to go with that, seeing as it's only an extra £50.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Andrew, it sounds like you really have done your homework. Congrats, in the end I think that you will make the right choice.

Another factor to consider is how a camera feels in your hands. A camera that is priced right, but not comfortable might not be used as much as one that does.

Keep in mind that the 350D feature wise (excluding the 8mp sensor) beats many "pro" level DSLRs from just in the last two or three years.

[Benj]

Edit: It looks like "Best Cameras" is a bit cheaper; they have the "Canon Eos 350d + 18-55 + 55-200 Canon lenses" for £850. The 20D (body only) is £999
which is a better price, but when you add in the cost of lenses, it's still a bit much.

I assume the 55-200 lens they're adding is the "Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 USM" lens, as it's the only 55-200mm lens they sell. It goes for £200 on its own, so I think I might just have to go with that, seeing as it's only an extra £50.

Check to make sure it is not some horrible Tamron or something. I suspect it is a Canon though. They recently resucitated it to dovetail with the kit lens - it was originally designed for the APS SLR bodies. Not a fantastic lens by all accounts (I have never used it). I would steer clear personally. Use the £50 saving on a hood for the kit lens (most underrated and ignored item of photographic equipment) and part of the way to the 50mm.

The 50mm 1.8 lens should be a compulsory purchase for all EOS owners. At £80 it is criminal not to own it. It looks and feels cheap but takes very good pictures and is a bargain, particularly compared to the 50mm 1.4.

If you really want to improve your photography stick this one on, or any prime, leave the rest of the kit at home and go to work. Many photography books and teachers recommend shooting one body with one lens for a year. Really makes you think and work harder.

[Dave00]

I'm in a bit of a similar boat as the original poster. I've got a Canon S400 which is truly a remarkable camera for outdoor use. I've gotten some amazing panoramas (you can stitch together photos and use the included software to make a Quicktime VR file you can pan & zoom) and macros of wildlife up close.

Where it's really disappointed me was in lower-light situations. Anywhere it's even remotely dim, the picture becomes grainy and I have to try to correct it with software. I know that part of the problem is that the flash is so close to the lens, making flash photography challenging. But more what I'm interested in is photography in lower light that wouldn't require a flash.

Anyone use any of the higher end digital cams in a low-light situation without the flash (e.g., weddings, indoor shots of people, shots in caves, etc.)

thanks

--d

[andrewfee]

Andrew, it sounds like you really have done your homework. Congrats, in the end I think that you will make the right choice.

Another factor to consider is how a camera feels in your hands. A camera that is priced right, but not comfortable might not be used as much as one that does.

Keep in mind that the 350D feature wise (excluding the 8mp sensor) beats many "pro" level DSLRs from just in the last two or three years.
Thanks. :) I always like to do a lot of research before I make a purchase, especially one as expensive as this.

I know that I'll have to go down to a shop when they get one in and hold it, but it definitely looks like it'll be the most comfortable for me out of the cameras I've been looking at.

[iGary]

"It's really a hobby thing, and I can't think of much where I'd even need the 3fps shooting, let alone 5fps. According to the preview and the review of the 20D, the 350D can take more RAW shots in 30 seconds. (32 vs 27)"

Which review is this?

[andrewfee]

"It's really a hobby thing, and I can't think of much where I'd even need the 3fps shooting, let alone 5fps. According to the preview and the review of the 20D, the 350D can take more RAW shots in 30 seconds. (32 vs 27)"

Which review is this?
dpreview.com's review of the 20D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page6.asp) said it was shooting about 27 frames in 30 seconds, and their preview of the 350D (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/page6.asp) said that it shot 32 in 30 seconds. (RAW in both cases)

[bousozoku]

dpreview.com's review of the 20D (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page6.asp) said it was shooting about 27 frames in 30 seconds, and their preview of the 350D (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos350d/page6.asp) said that it shot 32 in 30 seconds. (RAW in both cases)

I wouldn't be surprised that the 350D could take more shots more quickly since the pixels per inch is most likely a lot lower, just like the 300D, which uses 180 ppi. Uggggh.

[iGary]

Ah, then not Apple's to Apple's?

[andrewfee]

I wouldn't be surprised that the 350D could take more shots more quickly since the pixels per inch is most likely a lot lower, just like the 300D, which uses 180 ppi. Uggggh.
Does the pixels-per inch really make a difference if they're both shooting roughly the same resolution? (3456 x 2304 w/350D, 3504 x 2336 on the 20D)

Surely if an image has the same number of pixels, the only difference is that it will print smaller at a higher ppi rate?

Like I said, I'm new to this, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought that would be the case?

[iGary]

I think I'll just be a disgruntled 20D owner, sell my 20D and then max out my creidt card on a 1D. :p

[Benj]

I'm in a bit of a similar boat as the original poster. I've got a Canon S400 which is truly a remarkable camera for outdoor use. I've gotten some amazing panoramas (you can stitch together photos and use the included software to make a Quicktime VR file you can pan & zoom) and macros of wildlife up close.

Where it's really disappointed me was in lower-light situations. Anywhere it's even remotely dim, the picture becomes grainy and I have to try to correct it with software. I know that part of the problem is that the flash is so close to the lens, making flash photography challenging. But more what I'm interested in is photography in lower light that wouldn't require a flash.

Anyone use any of the higher end digital cams in a low-light situation without the flash (e.g., weddings, indoor shots of people, shots in caves, etc.)

thanks

--d

The best way to improve low light digital photography is by using the fastest possible lens (e.g. the Canon 50mm 1.8) so that you do not need to go too high on the ISO. Only the most expensive digital cameras go above about 400 ISO without introducing a lot of noise (the 300D/Rebel is great at 400, mediocre at 800 and dire at 1600). Some newer cameras (like the 20D) have noise reduction features but to be honest this is the only area where digital still can't compete with film.

The other thing to consider, if you have an SLR, is a decent speedlite. I have the top of the range Canon one (550 or something - can't remember) which was expensive £200+ but makes a hige difference because:
(a) the flash light itself sits way above the camera body
(b) it can be angled to bounce light of walls or ceiling
(c) it zooms with the camera so works out how much light to throw at your subject.

Plus if you shoot RAW and use a decent converter (another shout out here for Capture One) you can sort out any over-exposure very easily.

[Jeromie]

The best way to improve low light digital photography is by using the fastest possible lens (e.g. the Canon 50mm 1.8) so that you do not need to go too high on the ISO.

In addition to a fast lens for low light photography, one of the most valuable accessories you can buy is a tripod. It will allow you to take otherwise impossible shots and have everything come out a bit crisper. There's almost as much of a price variance in tripods as there is in cameras, so that can be your next purchase to mull over.

One piece of advice I'm suprised I haven't seen is the question of whether a DSLR is the right choice for all of those posting in this thread. I suppose it comes from the technophile nature of those who post here. :p While SLRs are amazing tools and really neat gadgets, they aren't the most appropriate choice for everyone. There are some amazingly versatile digital cameras with a fixed zoom lens, and the picture quality of many of them is superb. They can be a lot more convenient than an SLR too, and the best camera is always the one you have with you to get the availible shot. That's not to say you should avoid a DSLR, just consider if it's really the best tool for what you want to accomplish.

With that piece of advice, I'll go look at the film SLR I haven't used in a few weeks and consider joining you in the digital revolution. ;)

[andrewfee]

In addition to a fast lens for low light photography, one of the most valuable accessories you can buy is a tripod. It will allow you to take otherwise impossible shots and have everything come out a bit crisper. There's almost as much of a price variance in tripods as there is in cameras, so that can be your next purchase to mull over.
This is something I had been meaning to ask about; I currently have an old portable tripod (folds down to about a foot long) but was looking to get something lighter and more stable.

Is there anything you would recommend at a low price-point? (a tripod isn't something I'd want to spend a lot on)

[bousozoku]

Does the pixels-per inch really make a difference if they're both shooting roughly the same resolution? (3456 x 2304 w/350D, 3504 x 2336 on the 20D)

Surely if an image has the same number of pixels, the only difference is that it will print smaller at a higher ppi rate?

Like I said, I'm new to this, so maybe I'm missing something here, but I thought that would be the case?

It's all about the print quality and how far you can extend an image.

A cheap printer will mask the difference quite well because everything will look like mush to the trained eye but on a good printer you'll see that there is a distinct advantage to the higher ppi number in the clarity.

The 20D will be much more satisfying because it has more pixels per inch and, most likely, because the sensor is better.

Think of it almost as the negative size on film. We've had several formats over the years but you can obviously get a larger, good quality print from 6x4.5cm or 6x7cm negatives than 35mm (24x36mm) film.

However, if you don't print anything at A3 size or above, it may not matter to you.

[andrewfee]

Thanks for clearing that up. :) I just didn't think it made a difference as it's the same total number of pixels (roughly) and you can set PPI (well, DPI at least) in Photoshop without altering the image at all.

[Benj]

One piece of advice I'm suprised I haven't seen is the question of whether a DSLR is the right choice for all of those posting in this thread. I suppose it comes from the technophile nature of those who post here. :p While SLRs are amazing tools and really neat gadgets, they aren't the most appropriate choice for everyone. There are some amazingly versatile digital cameras with a fixed zoom lens, and the picture quality of many of them is superb. They can be a lot more convenient than an SLR too, and the best camera is always the one you have with you to get the availible shot. That's not to say you should avoid a DSLR, just consider if it's really the best tool for what you want to accomplish.

With that piece of advice, I'll go look at the film SLR I haven't used in a few weeks and consider joining you in the digital revolution. ;)

Agree.

I have two cameras (well two that still get any use at all ;)) - a DSLR and a very small, cheap 2MP sony. The Sony stays with me most of the time just in case. Pictures aren't great but then better than no pictures at all!

If you are serious about your (digital) photography the SLR is the only way to go. Even the most pro "prosumer" models are difficult to override and do not deliver the flexibility of shooting styles and lenses. Also, if you want to shoot RAW, as far as I know none of the non SLR cameras have it right yet. (Plus given how cheap Canon DSLRs are now the price is not such an issue.)

The decision all comes down to whether you want photography as a hobby or you want to make a record of the things you see and do. Both entirely valid but perhaps requiring different equipment.

[bousozoku]

Thanks for clearing that up. :) I just didn't think it made a difference as it's the same total number of pixels (roughly) and you can set PPI (well, DPI at least) in Photoshop without altering the image at all.

Without altering the image at all? :D I like that. Everything done in Photoshop alters the image. It may not be visually apparent but I assure you, the image has changed. :)

[Benj]

This is something I had been meaning to ask about; I currently have an old portable tripod (folds down to about a foot long) but was looking to get something lighter and more stable.

Is there anything you would recommend at a low price-point? (a tripod isn't something I'd want to spend a lot on)

I have a Velbon Ultra Lux which is very light and folds down quite small (has its own shoulder bag etc.). I think it cost about £80 and I would definitely recommend it.

You can't really scimp on tripods but you only need to spend serious money if you have a heavy camera body and/or you use very long lenses.

Another option is to have a solid, good quality tabletop tripod. I have a Manfrotto one which always lives in my gadget bag. This is better than nothing and always with my camera. You can even use them braced against a wall or (at a push) your shoulder.

[andrewfee]

The decision all comes down to whether you want photography as a hobby or you want to make a record of the things you see and do. Both entirely valid but perhaps requiring different equipment.
It'd definitely be as a hobby rather than just taking a record of the things I see and do.

Most of my life seems to revolve around computers; I'm either doing webdesign work, browsing the internet, keeping in touch with friends via email/im, or playing games in my free time.

I'm thinking that photography would be excellent to start up, as it will get me out of the house more, because I'll want to go to interesting places to take photographs. Then, when I am at home, I can spend less time playing games, and more time being productive editing photos.

[vtprinz]

This is something I had been meaning to ask about; I currently have an old portable tripod (folds down to about a foot long) but was looking to get something lighter and more stable.

Is there anything you would recommend at a low price-point? (a tripod isn't something I'd want to spend a lot on)

As someone before said, you can't skimp on the tripod. Many people overlook the tripod in their camera purchase, thinking they can pick up any cheap tripod that will do the same as the outrageously expensive ones. For most photography, this simply isn't the case. no matter how nice your camera is, how fast your lens is, or how high your ISO can go, if your tripod is weak, you can still lose images to motion blur.

Of course, this becomes more apparently with farther and farther zooms, where every tiny, unnoticeable movement in the camera corresponds to a huge shift in the image. A tripod purchase needs to be researched nearly as much as the camera itself. It all depends on what you need it for. If you want to go out in the field, perhaps in difficult terrain or in windy areas, you'll need a very sturdy tripod. If you just want to use it for indoor family shots, then something lighter will suffice.

The speed that you can use the tripod is also important. If it takes you a few minutes to set it up and get the camera pointed in the right direction, you could lose the shot. Probably the fastest tripod head that I've seen is the manfrotto ball head with joystick. Grip the joystick and move the camera in any direction you want, release it and it locks. Much easier than unscrewing one bolt to move up or down, another to move side to side, and another to tilt.

Check this out: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/tripods_&_heads.shtml

[-hh]

Figure I'll toss some more fruit into this salad of opinions :-)


First, do you already have anything significant invested in a modern 35mm SLR?

If you do, then because dSLR's are generally backwards-compatible to their 35mm forefathers, you can leverage your existing lens investment. But do keep in mind that if your lenses aren't worth much, you shouldn't let the tail wag the dog.

Second, the current "top dog" in the dSLR marketplace is generally considered to be Canon, in no small part because of their impressive lens suite.

As such, they're a safe bet for a long-term investment that will give you room to grow (if you choose to). But...if you don't have the money for many lenses, this becomes the "if I can't afford it, does it really matter anyway?" philisophical debate: it may or may not be an item of consideration.

Third, ergonomics are NOT(not, not, not) something to be lightly disregarded. It doesn't matter if its got the greatest specs in the world if its usability quotient is low - - - and since this is a Mac website, the point here should be painfully obvious. Personally, I'm not familiar with the 350, but simply hearing someone raise the question on the possible poor suitability of its buttons raises a red flag for me to go do more research.

IMO, its more important to personally fondle and see if the controls are laid out in a way that I like and buy that camera, even if in the 14th layer of technical debate, there's a 10% difference that has a chance of showing up for 1% of my photo opportunities: you can have the best technical hardware in the world, but if its hard->impossible to use, you'll miss the shot.

Get ahold of each of your short-list candidates (with their lenses) in your hands to hold and twist the knobs and look at the indicator displays. And go find and carefully read the reviews that go beyond mere pixel counts and talk about the camera's interface even though they are subjective. The underlying problem here is that there are cameras being designed and approved by committees of non-photographers these days, and features important to photographers are occasionally forgotten.

Fourth, if you wait for the next best thing, you'll never by anything digital. Decide why "A" isn't worth buying, but "B" is worth buying, and you'll go a long ways towards understanding your own requirements that you're trying to buy to. For example, if you enjoy scenic shots that have everything in focus, you had better get a camera that has a good DOF (Depth of Field) l system - - such as a dedictated button.


Personally, I made the virgin Nikon-vs-Canon-vs-X-vs-Y decision on film a few years ago, and ended up with Canon because they had a better set of ergonomic controls (IMO), and a slight edge in lenses (which has since become more pronounced, with the advent of IS and DO lenses).

As such, since my lenses are Canon, I'll look at a Canon dSLR. Today, that's probably the 20D.

However, no SLR is complete without a lens, and in the long run, they're going to be what a photographer spends his money on. For some insight, here's what I'm currently packing:

(off-brand) 19-35mm f/3.5-4(with 1.6x digital --> 30-55mm)
Canon 50mm f/1.8 (with 1.6x digital --> 80mm)
Canon IS 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (1.6x --> 45-215mm)
Canon IS 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (1.6x --> 120-480mm)

Except for the 50mm, each of these lenses run around $500, so adding a 20D body to the above, this is probably around $3000 worth of stuff. Don't worry too much, for you can build it up over time .

I got the 50mm is purely to continue to experiment with my Coken filters. Its diameter is backwards-compatible to my existing collection, whereas the rest of these lenses are not (they're too big in diameter). FWIW, the 50mm wasn't my first lens: an off-brand 28-200mm was, which I quickly replaced with the Canon IS 28-135mm.

The "1.6x multiplification factor" that we get from Canon's APS-sized digital sensor is pretty typical of the consumer/prosumer dSLR products. And we love how it "gives" us more telephoto, since it quickly gets expensive to get better than a 300mm at f/5.6 ... I've been looking to push out to 400mm and the basement is over a grand for the least lens, and my dream lens is the 400mm DO SI ... which lists for a bit over 5 grand.

But also notice with how what was "given" to us on telephoto was "taken away" on wide angle. Personally, the entire reason I bought that 19-35mm WA was because I found that the 28mm- was good, but not enough for what I wanted to do with it. To push a dSLR back down into the ~20mm WA range gets expensive.


Finally, because no camera is complete without a lens, you need to be thinking about what you want your first lens to be concurrent with the camera. IMO, I'd not go with a simple 50mm prime as your first & only lens...it seems to be just such a waste.



-hh

[vtprinz]

Third, ergonomics are NOT(not, not, not) something to be lightly disregarded. It doesn't matter if its got the greatest specs in the world if its usability quotient is low - - - and since this is a Mac website, the point here should be painfully obvious. Personally, I'm not familiar with the 350, but simply hearing someone raise the question on the possible poor suitability of its buttons raises a red flag for me to go do more research.

IMO, its more important to personally fondle and see if the controls are laid out in a way that I like and buy that camera, even if in the 14th layer of technical debate, there's a 10% difference that has a chance of showing up for 1% of my photo opportunities: you can have the best technical hardware in the world, but if its hard->impossible to use, you'll miss the shot.

Get ahold of each of your short-list candidates (with their lenses) in your hands to hold and twist the knobs and look at the indicator displays. And go find and carefully read the reviews that go beyond mere pixel counts and talk about the camera's interface even though they are subjective. The underlying problem here is that there are cameras being designed and approved by committees of non-photographers these days, and features important to photographers are occasionally forgotten.


This is exactly why I stress www.luminous-landscape.com so much!!! You won't find technical tests of a cameras absolute resolution on that site, but you WILL find a detailed description of how that camera handles in the field. As I've said before, Michael Reichmann (who runs LL) is more likely to complain about how the buttons on the camera are hard to use with gloves on than he is to complain about 1% difference in resolution. (it also helps that LL is almost entirely DSLR based. The only fixed lens cameras they've reviewed were the recent crop of 8MP prosumers (such as the minolta A2, sony f828, etc))


Go to www.dpreview.com for your technical questions, and www.luminous-landscape.com for your usability questions.

And finally, try them out yourself, as useability will always be a subjective view.

[bousozoku]

...
Third, ergonomics are NOT(not, not, not) something to be lightly disregarded. It doesn't matter if its got the greatest specs in the world if its usability quotient is low - - - and since this is a Mac website, the point here should be painfully obvious. Personally, I'm not familiar with the 350, but simply hearing someone raise the question on the possible poor suitability of its buttons raises a red flag for me to go do more research.

IMO, its more important to personally fondle and see if the controls are laid out in a way that I like and buy that camera, even if in the 14th layer of technical debate, there's a 10% difference that has a chance of showing up for 1% of my photo opportunities: you can have the best technical hardware in the world, but if its hard->impossible to use, you'll miss the shot.

Get ahold of each of your short-list candidates (with their lenses) in your hands to hold and twist the knobs and look at the indicator displays. And go find and carefully read the reviews that go beyond mere pixel counts and talk about the camera's interface even though they are subjective. The underlying problem here is that there are cameras being designed and approved by committees of non-photographers these days, and features important to photographers are occasionally forgotten.
...
-hh

Yes, ergonomics are a huge factor and the reason I would never choose a Canon camera for myself, esp. the Rebel (XT).

If the camera doesn't feel good and respond the way you expect, why bother spending a lot of money, especially on digital SLRs? You can get a great film scanner to go with a better than average 35mm SLR much more cheaply than a digital camera.

[puckhead193]

One piece of advice I'm suprised I haven't seen is the question of whether a DSLR is the right choice for all of those posting in this thread. I suppose it comes from the technophile nature of those who post here. :p While SLRs are amazing tools and really neat gadgets, they aren't the most appropriate choice for everyone. There are some amazingly versatile digital cameras with a fixed zoom lens, and the picture quality of many of them is superb. They can be a lot more convenient than an SLR too, and the best camera is always the one you have with you to get the availible shot. That's not to say you should avoid a DSLR, just consider if it's really the best tool for what you want to accomplish.


I too agree. I'm also thinking of getting a new digital camera. I like digital photography as a hobby. I was thinking of (i am still) getting a DSLR but i was thinking about it, and i don't that i'm gonig to have a million lens. It seems too adavance for me and i don't have time to fool around. I'll prob get one or two (if i'm lucky). I was thinking of going this route... http://konicaminolta.com/products/consumer/digital_camera/dimage/dimage-a200/index.html or similar.

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

However, no SLR is complete without a lens, and in the long run, they're going to be what a photographer spends his money on. For some insight, here's what I'm currently packing:

(off-brand) 19-35mm f/3.5-4(with 1.6x digital --> 30-55mm)
Canon 50mm f/1.8 (with 1.6x digital --> 80mm)
Canon IS 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (1.6x --> 45-215mm)
Canon IS 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (1.6x --> 120-480mm)

But also notice with how what was "given" to us on telephoto was "taken away" on wide angle. Personally, the entire reason I bought that 19-35mm WA was because I found that the 28mm- was good, but not enough for what I wanted to do with it. To push a dSLR back down into the ~20mm WA range gets expensive.


Actually, considering what you have there, a canon 10-22 wouldn't be that much more expensive to fill in the wide side of your repertoire there. 19mm seems a bit too long for wide angle once you consider the crop factor. Yes, it's 800 bucks, but that 28-135 was 500+ too =)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Check to make sure it is not some horrible Tamron or something.

Just as with the camera manufacturers lenses, third party makers like Tamron, will have both good and bad lenses.

In fact many third party lenses may even better than the budget offerings from the camera manufacturers.

[Chip NoVaMac]

The 20D will be much more satisfying because it has more pixels per inch and, most likely, because the sensor is better.

In the case of the 350D and the 20D have nearly the same image size recorded, even if the PPI is lower for the 350D, that can be corrected in PS and the user will end up with closely the same results (assuming the same quality CMOS sensor).

[iGary]

Just as with the camera manufacturers lenses, third party makers like Tamron, will have both good and bad lenses.

In fact many third party lenses may even better than the budget offerings from the camera manufacturers.

Exactly...I have some Sigma glass that is simply amazing considering what I paid for it.

Tamron makes some nice glass, too.

[jhershauer]

Huh? What does the ppi tag on the image file have to do with quality or processing speed? Isn't it just an arbitrary value placed in the image file, and determined by the camera manufacturer? It has nothing to do with the quality or resolution of the image recorded/stored by the camera.

The 350D has a very slightly smaller CMOS sensor than the 20D, but they're very close in size and should be capable of producing very similar quality pictures.

Isn't the faster processing speed of the 350D more likely due to the use of the Digic II image processor?

Jeff

I wouldn't be surprised that the 350D could take more shots more quickly since the pixels per inch is most likely a lot lower, just like the 300D, which uses 180 ppi. Uggggh.

[Jeromie]

This is something I had been meaning to ask about; I currently have an old portable tripod (folds down to about a foot long) but was looking to get something lighter and more stable.

Is there anything you would recommend at a low price-point? (a tripod isn't something I'd want to spend a lot on)

I've been pretty happy with my Slik Sprint Pro (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&is=REG&O=productlist&sku=278541) [bhphotovideo.com]. It's not the most stable tripod on the market, but it's light enough that I actually carry it with me (again, if you don't take it with you it does no good) and has met my needs fine. It's pretty versatile too, with independently adjustable legs and a reversible center column. Oh, and not too expensive as far as these things go. Which really suprised me. I had no idea what a nice tripod cost before I started researching.

[absolut_mac]

From looking at various sites, it seems that the 350D is perfectly suited for someone like me who wants to get started with an SLR, as it has full-auto settings, partially auto settings, and a full-manual mode.

Is this the best option for me to go with, or (within that budget) could I be spending my money better?

First off, £1000 is a lot of money - almost $2000, so be sure of your choice before putting your pounds on the counter.

Secondly, IMHO the only other viable alternative in that price range is the Nikon D70. Either of these fantastic cameras should keep you happy for a very long time.

Do yourself a huge favor and check them out side by side before making your final decision. What may seem like an intuitive menu and ergonomic handling to me on either of these cameras, might seem just the opposite to you.

Keep in mind that all cameras have some compromises, so no one camera is going to be best at everything. A good photographer will learn the strengths of the camera and work around its weaknesses i.e. any photographer worthy of that label will get excellent results, whether shooting with a Kodak Brownie or a top of the line Hassleblad. Digital makes it painless and easy to shoot thousands of *practice* shots without wasting film and processing charges.

With enough practice, your camera should just become an extension that you don't even think about, hence the importance of chooing one that you're comfortable with.

Good luck and let us know what you choose. Oh, and don't forget to post some pics ;)

[qzak]

hey, maybe someone mentioned this already in here, but what about the Digital Rebel XT? is it between the 300D and the 350D or what?

[Jeromie]

hey, maybe someone mentioned this already in here, but what about the Digital Rebel XT? is it between the 300D and the 350D or what?

The Digital Rebel XT is the same as the 350D.

[Bhennies]

Exactly...I have some Sigma glass that is simply amazing considering what I paid for it.I have the sigma 15-30 on my d-70. Very nice lens. Paid 379 for it.

[bousozoku]

Huh? What does the ppi tag on the image file have to do with quality or processing speed? Isn't it just an arbitrary value placed in the image file, and determined by the camera manufacturer? It has nothing to do with the quality or resolution of the image recorded/stored by the camera.

The 350D has a very slightly smaller CMOS sensor than the 20D, but they're very close in size and should be capable of producing very similar quality pictures.

Isn't the faster processing speed of the 350D more likely due to the use of the Digic II image processor?

Jeff

Sure, and if I scan two images at different resolutions, it puts an arbitrary ppi number in there, equal to the resolution used in scanning. ;)

[jhershauer]

Sure, and if I scan two images at different resolutions, it puts an arbitrary ppi number in there, equal to the resolution used in scanning. ;)

No. With the scanner, it knows that it is bringing in a 4x6 inch (or whatever size object you scan) image and sets the PPI accordingly (different value depending on what resolution you set). If you pick a higher resolution, it will create a larger image (more pixels), and thus set a higher PPI to keep the print size the same as the original image size.

Canon could choose to attach any PPI value to the image that they want. It has nothing to do with the size/quality of the stored image. PPI is just a piece of information, or "tag", to tell the printer what density to use. I say "arbitrary" value for the camera manufacturer because it's up to them to pick a print size that seems appropriate for the pixel count of the image.

For example, if you import a 2336x3504 pixel image from a Canon 20D into your computer, and print it out at the default 180ppi setting, you'll get a 13x19 inch image printed out. If Canon were to "tag" the image file with a 360ppi value, and you printed that out at its default setting, you'd have a 7.5x9.5 inch print. Presumably it would be better quality, but not as visually obvious as something like a 100ppi print vs. a 200ppi print. I guess somebody at Canon decided that a 13x19 inch printout of a 2336x3505 image from a digital camera will provide "photographic quality". You're free to alter the ppi for your own printing wants/needs.

I don't understand the tone of your posts, or the use of winking emoticons given your apparent lack of knowledge on this subject. It's like going to a car performance thread and saying "well of course your car is slower...you don't have any pinstripes on it! Duh!"

Jeff

[Edit] Yikes. I should have read this thing over before I hit the Post button. I used the term "resolution" inappropriately at one point (I changed it to "size/quality").

[skipperchong]

as a 300d owner, I'm very envious of the 350d, especially the firmware hack. and the extra button.

*sigh*

[andrewfee]

Thanks for the advice and suggestions about tripods; I'll definitely want to buy something better than the one I have as soon as I can from the looks of things.

I got around to reading that luminous-landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/) site, and it was really helpful. There's a lot of good information there for beginners with "the understanding series"

I think that, unless I don't actually like the ergonomics of it when I get to test one out, I'm almost certainly going to be picking up a 350D with the kit lens, and a Canon 55-200mm lens for £850, and then a 1gb Sandisk Ultra II CF card.

I'll stick with my current tripod until I can afford something better, and then I'll probably look into getting more lenses. (and I should have a better idea of what I'll need after using the camera and the two lenses for a bit)

[bousozoku]

...
I don't understand the tone of your posts, or the use of winking emoticons given your apparent lack of knowledge on this subject. It's like going to a car performance thread and saying "well of course your car is slower...you don't have any pinstripes on it! Duh!"

Jeff
...


It's either that or I'm making fun of the numbers games that doesn't always lead to any visible difference.

[jared_kipe]

First off, £1000 is a lot of money - almost $2000, so be sure of your choice before putting your pounds on the counter.

Secondly, IMHO the only other viable alternative in that price range is the Nikon D70. Either of these fantastic cameras should keep you happy for a very long time.

Do yourself a huge favor and check them out side by side before making your final decision. What may seem like an intuitive menu and ergonomic handling to me on either of these cameras, might seem just the opposite to you.

Keep in mind that all cameras have some compromises, so no one camera is going to be best at everything. A good photographer will learn the strengths of the camera and work around its weaknesses i.e. any photographer worthy of that label will get excellent results, whether shooting with a Kodak Brownie or a top of the line Hassleblad. Digital makes it painless and easy to shoot thousands of *practice* shots without wasting film and processing charges.

With enough practice, your camera should just become an extension that you don't even think about, hence the importance of chooing one that you're comfortable with.

Good luck and let us know what you choose. Oh, and don't forget to post some pics ;)

Actually I think the Pentax *istD and *istDS fall into the catagory. But I think the 350D will be better.

[jhershauer]

It's either that or I'm making fun of the numbers games that doesn't always lead to any visible difference.

Yeah, I know what you mean about numbers games. That's a real pain in the butt. The numbers themselves are valild and meaningful when used in the right context, but the marketing guys get a hold of them and start twisting things around, and then it's hard to use them in a meaningful way.

[bousozoku]

Yeah, I know what you mean about numbers games. That's a real pain in the butt. The numbers themselves are valild and meaningful when used in the right context, but the marketing guys get a hold of them and start twisting things around, and then it's hard to use them in a meaningful way.

Exactly. I see so many people throw numbers out there and well, do they tell the whole story? If they did, I probably wouldn't be using a Macintosh, would I?

By the way, does anyone else consider the ;) to be a kind of sarcasm indicator?

[-hh]

Actually, considering what you have there, a canon 10-22 wouldn't be that much more expensive to fill in the wide side of your repertoire there.

True, but its an EF-S lens, which makes it not compatible with film...exactly the "conundrum" that Michael Reichmann states at Luminous Landscape. I might be willing to pick it up if it was only $200, but that incompatibility is a no-go at the $800 price point.

Personally, I don't intend on giving up film, as I'm personally cynical on digital on data archiving robustness for the very long term. What I have (somewhat reluctantly) decided is that 8MP of digital surpasses film at high ISO's, for me this generally means only the longest telephoto work (400mm & beyond), and thus does not apply as the best (IMO) solution for wide angle: my current strategy is to shoot film for WA and a 1.6x-type digital for Tele, and thus, each body can serve as a secondary backup for the other, even though each would be less capable than the other at its focal length extreme.


-hh

[Chip NoVaMac]

I have the sigma 15-30 on my d-70. Very nice lens. Paid 379 for it.

And compared to the APS-C sensor sized lenses coming from Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina; you have the advantage of being able to use it on a film body. In fact a cheap Rebel Ti, N75, or what have you makes a good back up and gives the ability to take advantage of that wonderful wide angle glass that you bought for "normal" wide angle work on your DSLR.

[parrothead]

We use several Canon EOS 10D's at work and I have been very impressed with them. They get banged around pretty good, being that we stick them in housings, carry them on bumpy boat rides, and drag them through the water. They have been durable and the pictures are really nice. I dont know that much about photography, but have found it relatively easy to figure most of the settings on the camera.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Thanks for the advice and suggestions about tripods; I'll definitely want to buy something better than the one I have as soon as I can from the looks of things.

I got around to reading that luminous-landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/) site, and it was really helpful. There's a lot of good information there for beginners with "the understanding series"

I think that, unless I don't actually like the ergonomics of it when I get to test one out, I'm almost certainly going to be picking up a 350D with the kit lens, and a Canon 55-200mm lens for £850, and then a 1gb Sandisk Ultra II CF card.

I'll stick with my current tripod until I can afford something better, and then I'll probably look into getting more lenses. (and I should have a better idea of what I'll need after using the camera and the two lenses for a bit)

Tripods are a tough thing. Buy too light of a tripod and you are "marginally" better than hand holding (ok, maybe better than that :D ). The other thing in using a tripod, either use a cable release or the self timer. And for the best results use a mirror lockup if your camera supports it. Also look at the max weight of what your camera and future lenses may weigh in choosing the right tripod.

In regards to the purchase of the 350D kit. If your budget allows you may find doing the body alone and adding the 17-85IS from Canon to be a better choice. Said to be sharper, but the IS allows for 2 to 3 stops extra control on the shutter speed. And with a 28-135 35mm equiv. focal length, it is the most lens that many find that meets their needs.

[Chip NoVaMac]

It's either that or I'm making fun of the numbers games that doesn't always lead to any visible difference.

From: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214320,00.html

pixels per inch

In computers, pixels per inch (ppi) is a measure of the sharpness (that is, the density of illuminated points) on a display screen. The dot pitch determines the absolute limit of the possible pixels per inch. However, the displayed resolution of pixels (picture elements) that is set up for the display is usually not as fine as the dot pitch. The pixels per inch for a given picture resolution will differ based on the overall screen size since the same number of pixels are being spread out over a different space. The term "dots per inch" (dpi), extended from the print medium, is sometimes used instead of pixels per inch.

Also PPI could be looked upon as the number of pixels the sensor has at a particular resolution. You have 8MP cameras with with very small chips (tends to very noisy at a given ISO) to something like the sensor size on the 1D mkII which should have lower noise.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Actually I think the Pentax *istD and *istDS fall into the catagory. But I think the 350D will be better.

The big advantage to the Pentax DSLR is the wealth of older lenses that mostly work without a hitch.

[Chip NoVaMac]

True, but its an EF-S lens, which makes it not compatible with film...exactly the "conundrum" that Michael Reichmann states at Luminous Landscape. I might be willing to pick it up if it was only $200, but that incompatibility is a no-go at the $800 price point.

Personally, I don't intend on giving up film, as I'm personally cynical on digital on data archiving robustness for the very long term. What I have (somewhat reluctantly) decided is that 8MP of digital surpasses film at high ISO's, for me this generally means only the longest telephoto work (400mm & beyond), and thus does not apply as the best (IMO) solution for wide angle: my current strategy is to shoot film for WA and a 1.6x-type digital for Tele, and thus, each body can serve as a secondary backup for the other, even though each would be less capable than the other at its focal length extreme.


-hh

Sort of fits with my comment about a backup 35mm body. Though if one wants to have a superwide angle lens it is harder to get something that will work on both. Sigma has the only two that I am aware of the 15-30 and the 12-24 DG. The problem is using filters on these two lenses compared to the Canon 10-22, or any other DSLR specific ultra-wides.

[andrewfee]

Tripods are a tough thing. Buy too light of a tripod and you are "marginally" better than hand holding (ok, maybe better than that :D ). The other thing in using a tripod, either use a cable release or the self timer. And for the best results use a mirror lockup if your camera supports it. Also look at the max weight of what your camera and future lenses may weigh in choosing the right tripod.

In regards to the purchase of the 350D kit. If your budget allows you may find doing the body alone and adding the 17-85IS from Canon to be a better choice. Said to be sharper, but the IS allows for 2 to 3 stops extra control on the shutter speed. And with a 28-135 35mm equiv. focal length, it is the most lens that many find that meets their needs.
Thanks; that's definitely something to consider. Normally, even when holding the camera, I'll use the self timer if it's not something actually needs me to take the shot quickly, that way I can press the button then try to hold the camera as still as possible when taking the shot which usually gives much better results. The 350D is a light camera (compared to other DSLRs from the looks of it) so I don't think it'll need a really strong tripod to support it properly.

I did like the sound of IS lenses, but I had a feeling they'd be very expensive, so didn't actually look into it. It seems I was right, as a quick search showed that lens as being £460. Pricy. More than 3/5ths the price of the body infact.

The body is only £100 less than the body with kit lens and the Canon 55-200mm lens, so it brings the total up to around £1300, which is quite a bit over my planned budget of £1000. (Around $570 US over)

There's only so much of my income I can dedicate towards a camera/lens as it's a hobby, so if I were to go with this lens, it would probably mean waiting at least an extra six weeks before I can afford this equipment.

Is it really worth it to go with this lens? I get the feeling that it probably is, as later down the line, I probably will want to get an IS lens anyway, and it's got a nice range from 28-135mm; I doubt I'd actually need anything that goes higher than that.

[absolut_mac]

Actually I think the Pentax *istD and *istDS fall into the catagory. But I think the 350D will be better.

To be honest I haven't checked out the Pentax digital offerings of late, and nobody seems to mentioning them.

Having said that though, their film cameras were always good value for money, but they just couldn't seem to get their marketing act together i.e. only those who used them knew that they were good.

[MacManDan]

[snip]
I did like the sound of IS lenses, but I had a feeling they'd be very expensive, so didn't actually look into it. It seems I was right, as a quick search showed that lens as being £460. Pricy. More than 3/5ths the price of the body infact.
[...]
Is it really worth it to go with this lens? I get the feeling that it probably is, as later down the line, I probably will want to get an IS lens anyway, and it's got a nice range from 28-135mm; I doubt I'd actually need anything that goes higher than that.

The thing about lenses and bodies is that you will keep the lenses for far longer than the bodies, especially in today's digital age. The bodies will change ~18-24 months, but lens technology has remained mostly stagnant in that same time period (Canon's IS, USM, flourite and UD glass are relatively "old" inventions, with the first lenses with these technologies appearing about a decade ago). I could be a bit off base on their age, but I hope you get my point - the lenses will long outlast the camera.

For this reason, consider your lenses as an investment. You also want to make sure you get high-quality lenses that will let the body shine. The camera can't produce details that the lens can't provide. Buying a great body and a crappy lens just doesn't make any sense. I once heard this analogy (I forget where): consider the body of the camera as the CD player, and the lens as the speakers. You can purchase a terrific $1,000 cd player with all the bells and whistles, great DA converter and terrific sound quality, but if you pair it with a set of $10 speakers, you are not letting it perform at its full potential. Might as well get the $10 CD player and the $1,000 speakers.

A little extreme perhaps, but don't be afraid to purchase a cheaper body so that you can buy a nicer lens. The lens is the eye of your camera.

Just something for you to consider. :)

Edit: oops, I almost forgot my recommendations: I'm a 20D user so I can only help out on the Canon side, if you decide to go that route. The 50 1.8 and 28-105 3.5-4.5 II are both stellar lenses for their price. Definitely a great way to start out your kit - and even though the 28-105 doesn't have IS, it performs very similarly (perhaps even better) than the 28-135 and yet is about half the price. I started out with those lenses and I'll tell you that the 28-105 is a tough & compact .. survived all sorts of stuff I threw at it (snow, rain, little kids..)

[Jeromie]

the 28-105 is a tough & compact .. survived all sorts of stuff I threw at it (snow, rain, little kids..)

You threw kids at the lens?! :eek:

[Moxiemike]

I've had an interest in photography for some time now, and have been planning on getting a new camera for a few months. (I'm stuck with a cheap 3.1mp camera right now)

I had initially been looking at something like the Powershot G6 or the Powershot Pro1, but I think that if I bought one of them, I'd end up wanting to buy something better in 6 months time, which is why I'm thinking of getting a D-SLR.

Admittedly I don't know a huge ammount about "proper" photography right now (I've been reading up on it lately, and have just read all of Canon's "Digital Learning Centre (http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/)" which helped) and it looks like I could pick up the basics pretty quickly.

I'm wanting to get something that will be able to expand with me as I learn more about using the camera, which is why I don't like the idea of buying a fixed-lens camera. (or one with a very limited selection)


I'm thinking of saving for a month or two and spending a max of around £1000, and was wondering what was the best way to spend my money would be? (if something cheaper is recommended, I would be able to get it sooner, which is why I'm asking now)



What I'm currently looking at is to buy the new Canon EOS 350D Kit (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0007R6CHQ/qid=1108838192/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/202-8259825-3782253) (£800, only £50 more than the body) with a "Sandisk 1GB ULTRA II Compact Flash" card (£90) and I'm sure I read somewhere that as a starting lens, other than the kit one, the "Canon EF50mm f/1.8 ll Lens (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00005K47X/ref=pd_sr_ec_ir_aps/202-8259825-3782253)" is the best money you can spend, at £80.

From looking at various sites, it seems that the 350D is perfectly suited for someone like me who wants to get started with an SLR, as it has full-auto settings, partially auto settings, and a full-manual mode.

Is this the best option for me to go with, or (within that budget) could I be spending my money better?

You know, the D2h with it's price drop, might be a decent idea. Cameta Camera's in NY has some good deals on ebay, and they ship worldwide.

D2h with 18-70dx, 1gb 80x CF card, case and CF reader, brand new, $2319.95 USD (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43456&item=3875671084&tc=photo)

D2h with 18-70dx lens, $1899.99 (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=43456&item=3876968962&tc=photo)

I currently am shooting with a D2h, and the results and image quality are OUTSTANDING. The color is excellent, Auto White Balance works VERY well, it's fast, and has a program mode and some good options for jpg that should get you some awesome results straight from the camera (I shoot it with RAW+JPG and the jpgs are VERY close to the raw).

And don't worry about 4mp, i've enlarged my D2h photos up to 24x36 with no problem. Plus you get a ROBUST camera body, it's the best feeling body around, built like a tank but not heavy, you get the 18-70dx which is ~28-105 on your DSLR, and EVERY (and i mean EVERY) crucial camera control is accessible with a slight movement of the finger. The 11 AF points are incredible, fast and grab lots of detail, even in low light, and for long exposures, noise is non-existant.

It's really the best buy at $1999, formerly $3200 until Nikon slashed prices. I think you'd be VERY well off with this camera, and it's able to be set up in a manner that allows for P&S type shooting, but will grow with you as you learn the machine. It's definitely a great choice if you're thinking about learning about photography.

If you think the D2h might be in your range, let me know via PM or email and i'll answer any questions you might have. Like chip said, you don't want to underbuy and with the D2h at $1999 and these deals from Cameta... I think it's worth a strong look. And that 18-70dx included is a GREAT lens. If i were on the fence between the 20d and kit lens vs. the D2h + 18-70 i'd be in for a VERY tough decision.....

[MacManDan]

You threw kids at the lens?! :eek:

Better than the other way around, I figure :p

[-hh]

And don't worry about 4mp, i've enlarged my D2h photos up to 24x36 with no problem.

True, you can do this without much "problem", for its only a couple of keystrokes in Adobe Photoshop to tell it to do such an IMO bad idea.

The only real question is if the photographer is going to be happy with the results of such an enlargement (as Mike was here). This ultimately depends on the personal preferences of the person viewing the image.

The Physics based approach easily finds that a scaler enlargement to 24" x 36" from a 4MP sensor means that each pixel gets enlarged to roughly 1/64th of an inch in size. This is a bit less worse than 70dpi, which means that the image is roughly equivalent to the "coarse" grade newspaper photo, athough you've helped it out by better paper stock...its probably going to be roughly equal to a glossy paper advertising section.

OTOH, if you want "movie poster" quality, you need to roughly double your dpi's up into the "good quality offset lithography" level of print qualty, which is a data density of 133-155 lpi. Do the math to see the implications for how many MP this actually requires (hint: 2x linear x 2 dimensions equals ...).

This really is a subject area that is very open to personal preference. Personally, I don't generally merely want my prints to "look nice" from the far side of a room, but I want them to stand up to scrutiny from ~2ft away too.

For example, I have an 8x10 print hanging up that I took when my wife & I first got married. It was taken with ISO 400 film and the "obvious" grain in it absolutely drives me up the wall, and I would take it down in an instant and *burn it* if not for the fact that my wife adores the photo, looks right past its shortcomings and will not allow me to take it down...different strokes for different folks.


{the Nikon D2h is} really the best buy at $1999

Overall, there's a reason why this camera is being heavily discounted.

And since very good PhD-style 4MP cameras exist for $200, I'd have to disagree that its effectively worth an extra ~$1800 for the SLR form factor. Granted, I do agree that some features are worth something...simply not that it represents "$1800 worth" of value-added.


If i were on the fence between the 20d and kit lens vs. the D2h + 18-70 i'd be in for a VERY tough decision.....

If you normalize the price, its a bit easier of a decision:

a) Nikon D2h + 18-70mm lens is $1900 (from above)
b) Canon 20D + "kit lens" = $1350

or you can upgrade the Canon lens a bit...

c) Canon 20D + EF 28-135mm IS lens is $1300 + $400 = $1700
d) Canon 20D + EF-S 17-85mm IS lens is $1300 + $700 = $2000

Considering just these, they're either cheaper or comparable to the Nikon, and since the 20D has twice as many pixels, may be the edge even when the price is the identical.

Granted, there's still other feature elements to sort out to decide what they're worth, but each brand has its particular strengths and weaknesses. However, for the most part, these difference will matter only to the more generally advanced photographers who have already sorted out what sub-specializations within photography they're interested in, which doesn't apply here to the OP.

Similarly, even though the lens we're suggesting is a "better quality" lens, if we really had any alledgedly specialized needs, we also wouldn't be picking a general purpose lens for either brand...QED!


-hh

PS: when you don't use Ebay for prices on the Nikon, the D2h goes for roughly $2000 and the lens for another $300. Caveat Emptor.

[Moxiemike]

True, you can do this without much "problem", for its only a couple of keystrokes in Adobe Photoshop to tell it to do such an IMO bad idea.

The only real question is if the photographer is going to be happy with the results of such an enlargement (as Mike was here). This ultimately depends on the personal preferences of the person viewing the image.

The Physics based approach easily finds that a scaler enlargement to 24" x 36" from a 4MP sensor means that each pixel gets enlarged to roughly 1/64th of an inch in size. This is a bit less worse than 70dpi, which means that the image is roughly equivalent to the "coarse" grade newspaper photo, athough you've helped it out by better paper stock...its probably going to be roughly equal to a glossy paper advertising section.

OTOH, if you want "movie poster" quality, you need to roughly double your dpi's up into the "good quality offset lithography" level of print qualty, which is a data density of 133-155 lpi. Do the math to see the implications for how many MP this actually requires (hint: 2x linear x 2 dimensions equals ...).

This really is a subject area that is very open to personal preference. Personally, I don't generally merely want my prints to "look nice" from the far side of a room, but I want them to stand up to scrutiny from ~2ft away too.

For example, I have an 8x10 print hanging up that I took when my wife & I first got married. It was taken with ISO 400 film and the "obvious" grain in it absolutely drives me up the wall, and I would take it down in an instant and *burn it* if not for the fact that my wife adores the photo, looks right past its shortcomings and will not allow me to take it down...different strokes for different folks.




Overall, there's a reason why this camera is being heavily discounted.

And since very good PhD-style 4MP cameras exist for $200, I'd have to disagree that its effectively worth an extra ~$1800 for the SLR form factor. Granted, I do agree that some features are worth something...simply not that it represents "$1800 worth" of value-added.




If you normalize the price, its a bit easier of a decision:

a) Nikon D2h + 18-70mm lens is $1900 (from above)
b) Canon 20D + "kit lens" = $1350

or you can upgrade the Canon lens a bit...

c) Canon 20D + EF 28-135mm IS lens is $1300 + $400 = $1700
d) Canon 20D + EF-S 17-85mm IS lens is $1300 + $700 = $2000

Considering just these, they're either cheaper or comparable to the Nikon, and since the 20D has twice as many pixels, may be the edge even when the price is the identical.

Granted, there's still other feature elements to sort out to decide what they're worth, but each brand has its particular strengths and weaknesses. However, for the most part, these difference will matter only to the more generally advanced photographers who have already sorted out what sub-specializations within photography they're interested in, which doesn't apply here to the OP.

Similarly, even though the lens we're suggesting is a "better quality" lens, if we really had any alledgedly specialized needs, we also wouldn't be picking a general purpose lens for either brand...QED!


-hh

PS: when you don't use Ebay for prices on the Nikon, the D2h goes for roughly $2000 and the lens for another $300. Caveat Emptor.

A couple of things to mention, that you fail to. Your "PhD 4mp camera" which i'm assuming you mean a P&S cam, has an infinitely smaller sensor. IMHO, a professional SLR sensor, which the 20d (or the d70 for that matter) is not, has a better quality picture. The photosites react differently in a pro camera. I don't know all the science, but i can see a HUGE difference in the photos from my D2h when compared to my D100 or my 10d samples.

To compare this camera to the 20d is a bit preposterous, on price alone, because it's not REALLY a pro camera-- it's a comsumer camera with LOTS of pro features. The d2h more solidy would compare to the 1d or 1d mkII, the latter is only availble new for ~$4500 and the former used ~2200.

The OP wanted a camera that they won't outgrow, hence trepidation with buying a powershot or coolpix, and with good reason. The FOTM is that the Nikon offers a pro body, with pro build and a LOT of features that would give this person a lot of room to grow. And with a price of $2000, it'll hold it's value should the buyer decide in a year that 4mp isn't enough and they want to buy a D2x (or a 1d mk II even).

If the poster plans to shoot their kids sports games, a D2h trounces the 20d/d70 line of cameras, simply because it's AF is world class--fast and accurate, and the BIG viewfinder is an added plus, along with being able to do 8fps. If they're looking to do family photos at holidays, etc, iTTL is reason alone to look at the Nikon series, as iTTL is a fantastic system, on both the D2h and D70. Nikon's pro metering is fantastic too, offering spot metering (something the 20d doesn't do as far as I know. I know the 10d didn't and the DRebel mk I didn't do it, only the pro canon's) which would be helpful if you're shooting available light in say, a concert hall for a child's recital. It also has an excellent and accurate matrix meter and the classic center weighted metering, the matrix plays WAY nice with iTTL. FYI, the D70 shares MANY metering characteristics with the D2h. ;)

Sure, all of these are theoreticals, but if the poster wants a camera to grow with, the D2h wouldn't be a poor choice at all. And I doubt they will enlarge to huge sizes, but as i've said, without interpolation software, i've done enlargements to double truck size for some various magazines i'm published in and the results are stellar.

I'd say if you go this route (DSLR ANYTHING), definitely spend time learning photoshop, it's essential, canon or nikon.

So based on MP alone the 20d kicks the D2h's arse on paper. BUT, in reality, the feature set, the 2.5 LCD (though a little inaccurate), the metering and iTTL make it really a good competitor to the 20d. You can't go wrong with either, but I think that the D2h deserves some consideration-- and many won't, simply because they go into Ritz and see Rebels, D100s, D70s, and 20d's. They don't get to see the "pro" offerings.

So many won't take into account the D2h which is priced in the "pro-sumer" range, and is a serious candidate.

That said, I don't think Canon has any right selling a $199 body with a $80 lens for a grand, 8mp or not. I don't think Nikon has any right selling a $250 body with a $200 lens for $1299, rebates notwithstanding.

Hopefully, Nikon comes out with a D50 (rumored) which would be a 6mp d70 style cam that would start, with a 28-80 equivalent DX lens for $599. Now THAT'S where we need to go re: pricing of DSLRs, which is could be a whole other thread.

Lastly, given the quality of pro sensors with the D2h/1d/D2x/1ds series, it'd be better for the poster to get an accurate 4mp, sharp, colorful, and in focus than get 8mp with a slower af causing you to miss keepers, which might not be as sharp or suffer from back focusing (which seems to be a common problem with the consumer level DSLRs). I know too many canon owners who have to send their lenses in for adjustment. Same with D70 owners.

I'd give a serious look to the D2h, you'll never want to touch a "consumer" level camera again. I love my D100 but sometimes I don't even want to pick it up-- it's a bit of a downer after using the D2h. And I think the D100 has the most robust feel of the prosumer cams i've used (10d, Rebel mk I, D30, Fuji S2, D70) and i'm sure it's on par with the 20d and i'm sure it crushes the rebels. (which it's universally agreed that the build quality is less than, um, robust, by many pros and prosumers alike).

[Dave00]

If you are serious about your (digital) photography the SLR is the only way to go. Even the most pro "prosumer" models are difficult to override and do not deliver the flexibility of shooting styles and lenses. Also, if you want to shoot RAW, as far as I know none of the non SLR cameras have it right yet. (Plus given how cheap Canon DSLRs are now the price is not such an issue.)
[...]

Really the Canon S400 has been great for most photography - some absolutely amazing outdoor shots. And it's so easy to take alongThe drawback has been in low light. In the past few days, I've been reading alot about the difficulty of low-light shots on digital cameras. One huge difference between DSLR's and non-DSLR's (even the high end "prosumer" ones) is the size of the sensor (CCD or CMOS). Apparently larger sensors are in general much more able to gather light in dim settings, and the lower pixel density allows for less noise, even at higher ISO's.

Thus, even if you want to use just automatic settings, you still need an SLR to get great pictures in low light. (Versus using film for low light situations.) It's interesting that there is yet to come to market more of a Point-and-shoot or even Prosumer non-SLR that has these larger sensors.

Dave

[Dave00]

Without altering the image at all? :D I like that. Everything done in Photoshop alters the image. It may not be visually apparent but I assure you, the image has changed. :)
Not sure what you're saying here. Assuming lossless saving, altering the dpi (without changing the number of pixels) doesn't alter the image, per se, but only the way it is displayed.

--D

[-hh]

A couple of things to mention, that you fail to... I don't know all the science, but i can see a HUGE difference in the photos from my D2h when compared to my D100 or my 10d samples.

If you had researched the hard science on the sensor size technology, what you would have found is that sensor size fundementally affects the noise ratio, which is what also generally prevents higher ISO speeds on the smaller-sensor cameras. Considering how "darn good" ISO 400 & 800 is getting on the DX-sized sensors, for generic "general purpose" photography development and learning, sensor size variation within the SLR form factor is pragmatically becoming a non-issue for this particular factor.


To compare {the D2h} to the 20d is a bit preposterous, on price alone, because {the 20D is} not REALLY a pro camera...

To compare the D2h to other Pro cameras is also a bit preposterous, as its huge 30% price cut is a warning that Nikon is afraid that it may be failing in its intended market segment...ie, they're continuing to have their lunch being eaten by Canon, both on the consumer and the Pro market.


The OP wanted a camera that they won't outgrow...

Which in simplest form means a replaceable lens and full manual control overrides. Nothing more...not even that it must be digital.


The FOTM is...a pro body, with pro build and a LOT of features that would give this person a lot of room to grow.

Classically true, but this rule of thumb doesn't apply in areas where rapid technology change is present.

The "invest in...for room to grow" paradigm is most optimally applied here to those technologies that do not have high rates of change, which here means film bodies, optical lenses, strobes, tripods, film, filters, ball heads...eg, pretty much everything except digital bodies and Flash Media cards.


And with a price of $2000, it'll hold it's value should the buyer decide in a year that 4mp isn't enough and they want to buy a D2x (or a 1d mk II even).

Instead of making a claim that flies in the face of the essence of Devorak's Law, why not simply give B&H a call today, ask them how much they'll offer to buy a used D2h for today, and report that nice quantitative number? FWIW, I'd be surprised if it was significantly higher than $1500.


Sure, all of these are theoreticals, but if the poster wants a camera to grow with, the D2h wouldn't be a poor choice at all.

Personally, I'd agree with you if the absolute top-of-the-line dSLR's topped out at 6MP sensors and no significant change was expected for 4-5 years. Unfortunately, at 4MP, the D2h is a feature set oxymoron.

FWIW, I don't want to make it sound like I'm being a Nikon-hater. The facts of the matter are that I also own a Nikon system and I have twice as much invested in it than I do in my current Canon system.


-hh

[Chip NoVaMac]

The price drop on the D2H was/is to help clear out inventory for the upcoming D2Hs.

[-hh]

The price drop on the D2H was/is to help clear out inventory for the upcoming D2Hs.

Some would say that it is being superceded by the D2x too, but this point really only adds to the discrediting of Moxiemike's claim that the D2H is going to retain its value over time: the D2H superceded the D1H a mere 14 months ago, and the D1H now sells for ~$1000 on Ebay, which pretty strongly infers that the D2Hs and D2x are going to drive the residual value of the D2H down quite strongly over the next 12 months.

Nevertheless, my overall general concern with recommending this camera is that it really is a specialized camera: its target audience is the newspaper sports photographer whose images from the football game are almost never going to be enlarged to more than 5x7 at 85lpm, but its more important for him to get an 8fps burst to get the best possible image of the catch/fumble/etc: someone who's willing to give up resolution in order to get higher framerate & focus speeds.

If the OP had mentioned relevant photo interests (kids soccer game, etc) it might be one thing. But he was looking for a more generalized capability, which means that "speed - for - resolution" trade-off isn't likely to be appropriate.

Besides, this "buy speed" paradigm only applies when you also have the cash to buy the top-of-the-line professional grade lenses. On the Canon side, this would suggest lenses such as the 75-200mm f/2.8 IS "L", (~$1700) and/or the 400mm f/4 IS DO "L" (~$5400). Not exactly pocket change for even the serious hobbiest shooter.


-hh

[SoMoney]

I am wondering IF the 350D er... Rebel XT uses a similar IrCut filter as the new 20DA since they were both anounced at the same time.
It was first rumered that the 20Da had NO IrCut filter however I read that it uses a Narrow(er) band filter.

Is there a way to find this information out?! Camera manufacturesr never publish the iRcut filter specs.




If you're interested in either infrared photography or astrophotography, Canon just announced a modified 20D, the 20Da (I assume the "a" stands for astro). The IR filter that's built into all cameras has been removed in this cam. You can get an external filter that does the same thing (blocks IR light). With this filter on you can use the camera like a regular 20D. Then you can get a filter that blocks visible light but allows IR to pass and get some great IR shots :D

...of course, you'll have to wait a long time, as it's only available in Japan right now...

[vtprinz]

I am wondering IF the 350D er... Rebel XT uses a similar IrCut filter as the new 20DA since they were both anounced at the same time.
It was first rumered that the 20Da had NO IrCut filter however I read that it uses a Narrow(er) band filter.

Is there a way to find this information out?! Camera manufacturesr never publish the iRcut filter specs.

The 350D shouldn't use the same filter as the 20Da. If there's even any IR filter at all in the 20da (I thought they completely took it out), it's a specialty filter for that camera. BUT you can always modify the camera to completely take out the IR cut filter :)

I know several people that did this to the sony f828. It's not cheap though.

Check out www.maxmax.com

[vtprinz]

Keep in mind that all cameras have some compromises, so no one camera is going to be best at everything. A good photographer will learn the strengths of the camera and work around its weaknesses i.e. any photographer worthy of that label will get excellent results, whether shooting with a Kodak Brownie or a top of the line Hassleblad. Digital makes it painless and easy to shoot thousands of *practice* shots without wasting film and processing charges.

With enough practice, your camera should just become an extension that you don't even think about, hence the importance of chooing one that you're comfortable with.


Exactly. It's typically the amateur or hobbyist photographers that think they need bigger and better cameras to get the right shots (not trying to take any potshots here). The hallmark of a good photographer is to be able to get the shot regardless of the quality of the camera. Hell, I've seen some amazing stuff using oatmeal box pinhole cameras.

Don't get too overcome by specs. Once you learn your tool (which is all the camera is, a tool for the artist) the photos will come. You're the biggest player here, not the camera.

[SoMoney]

Nope!
They "changed" the IR Cut filter to an IR Cut low-pass filter. The ones included in the current model DSLR's are too aggressive! With the new narrow(er) band filter in place, the 20Da is usefull for regular day shots aswell as Astrophotography.

----------Translated Text from canon-sales.co.jp/camera.eosd/20da---------

The EOS 20Da adopts the infrared cutting low-pass filter which has the structure which laminates infrared cut-off filter and 3 quartz plates where optical axial direction differs. The among these, as for the infrared cut-off filter in order to achieve the optical quality of celestial specification, with naked eye the H alpha bright line which almost cannot see (*) transmissivity it has improved in approximately 2.5 times that the " EOS 20D ". Because of this, it can photograph also the red nebula and the like where in the former digital single-lens reflex camera it could not catch, without using the special filter.

Wave length of the *H alpha bright line is 656 nano- meters. (1 nano- 10 100000000分の 1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


The 350D shouldn't use the same filter as the 20Da. If there's even any IR filter at all in the 20da (I thought they completely took it out),