Best bang for buck good photography digital...

[dieselcruiserhead]

Subject says it all.. For last few years been using only point and shoot digitals. Some of which (especially the Canons) have been fairly decent. That said, finally looking for a good photography quality digital, something with separate body and lens, something good and tough. Something that will maybe capture the essense of where I was!

I do not mind used if it will hold up. Trying to do it fairly cheaply (maybe the initial body and lens for $500 to start) or something like that.. We'll say for discussion purposes, no more than $1000 total if new.. Without doing all the reviews yet, etc, what would you guys buy or recommend? We have a lot of good photography stores around here, and people buy/selling/trading locally as well on some of the local web sites... I actually got my great point and shoot Canon used off one of these sites...

Also, I have a ton of compact flash cards and I know they at least were professional grade digital photography a few years ago... So I might prefer compact flash.



Also, second question. Though digital is different, I imagine apature, light settings etc are all fairly similar to film, correct? Can digital be a whole lot different RE light settings versus regular old film?

[articulate]

That said, finally looking for a good photography quality digital, something with separate body and lens, something good and tough...Trying to do it fairly cheaply (maybe the initial body and lens for $500 to start) or something like that....



Also, second question. Though digital is different, I imagine apature, light settings etc are all fairly similar to film, correct? Can digital be a whole lot different RE light settings versus regular old film?
You're refering to a digital SLR. Just FYI, as that will help you in your searches. Since you're familiar with Canon, the likely candidate is a Digital Rebel, AKA 300D. This would meet your budget and quality criteria (Used. New closer to $1k with accessories). The magic of photography happens in the lenses and with the person behind the viewfinder.


White balance is something you have to be concerned with when using digital. Not so with film. Otherwise, the techniques, f-stops, and shutter speeds are the same.

That might help. Goodtimes (Brian) has a digital Rebel, and he gets some superior shots (http://expeditionportal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=72295&postcount=118).

Cheers!
Mark

[DaveInDenver]

White balance is something you have to be concerned with when using digital. Not so with film. Otherwise, the techniques, f-stops, and shutter speeds are the same.

Good stuff, Mark, but I would suggest that white balance is still important with film. Not so much white balance like in the digital world, but the color temperature of a film will keep colors right in different light. Most film is balanced for daylight (and flash, which is close to daylight), which gives you a serious yellow tint indoors with incandescent bulbs. If you use a film balanced for tungsten, indoor photos with lightbulbs, colors are correct again.

One thing I might also add is that you don't need an SLR to get great photos. P&S cameras do a fine job, but the fixed lens SLR-like cameras can have fantastic lenses that rival or sometimes are even better than a manufacturer's entry level interchangeable lenses. Plus with a fixed lens camera the weatherproofing can be better than an SLR and there is less problems with dust on the sensor. Just wanted to point that out.

[dieselcruiserhead]

If it helps I used manual cameras mostly with standard film, and actually usually prided myself on good pics with standard 35mm film. . I actually have a film Rebel so probably wouldn't be too hard to make the transition...

[dieselcruiserhead]

Here is one of my favs from this last weekend... I feel like it really doesn't have the crispness and clarity that a camera with a better lens would offer.. Particularly of the background. There are a lot of factors that could effect this, but basically the point is the camera is the weakness here, there is no physical way this camera could take a better version of this picture I feel like. So, this is sort of what I am after...

I "feel" like I have good camera technique usually :D

[goodtimes]

As Mark indicated, I use one of the original digital Rebels (not the XTi---which I do not like BTW--the body is smaller than mine, and it is harder to hold on to, IMO). You can find a Rebel with a EF 18 - 55mm lens for just over $500. They use the CF cards, and batteries last a long time (I typically get over 300 pictures before recharging mine).

This camera has all the basics...6.3Mp, shoots RAW or JPEG, takes all the canon EF and L lenses, TTL light metering, shutter priority, aperture priority and manual modes (plus the automatic modes), Depth of Field preveiw, exposure compensation, white balance adjustments, blah blah blah.

I was not very impressed with this camera until I spent a day with Mr. Brady who was kind enough to show me a few things. A few months later, you see the results in the post that Mark was kind enough to link to. I'm still learning...and have a long way to go...but this $500 camera will out perform me for a long time....like Mark said, the magic is in the lens and the guy/gal holding the camera.

Of course if you really want to blow your budget....you can get one of these (http://www.pictureline.com/products/13841/Hasselblad_H3D-39_Digital_Camera_Kit/)....:sombrero:

[dieselcruiserhead]

How is the repeat photo speed of that camera, out of curiosity.. IE can it take a bunch of pictures in a row fairly easily and quickly?

[Robthebrit]

I have an original digital rebel, well looked after with an EFS18-55 and an EF 75-300, remote control, HD Batery, CF card etc that I would be willing to sell if you are interested. I don't use it since getting the 5D.

PM me

Rob

[goodtimes]

Relatively slow by todays standards (still much faster than I need, YMMV)

IIRC ~2.5 FPS.

Here (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=9430) is Canons sales pitch.

FYI, there have been several changes over the last couple years (dRebel-->dRebel XT-->dRebel XTi), all with resolution increases and other minor tweaks, then of course the 10d, 20d, 30d....and of course the 5d, 1d (all increasing price as you go)....but once again, the nice thing with the Canon cameras is that the lenses all work with your next "upgrade". So all you have to replace is the body if you decide to step it up a notch. This makes a used lower end body all the more attractive if you don't think you want all the latest and greatest gear (and the price tag that goes with it).

[articulate]

One thing I might also add is that you don't need an SLR to get great photos. P&S cameras do a fine job, but the fixed lens SLR-like cameras can have fantastic lenses that rival or sometimes are even better than a manufacturer's entry level interchangeable lenses. Plus with a fixed lens camera the weatherproofing can be better than an SLR and there is less problems with dust on the sensor. Just wanted to point that out.
Excellent. And I would like to point out that getting great photos with a P&S requires some knowledge of how to adjust exposure and depth of field, which I wouldn't have learned if it wasn't for my SLR. Odd.

It's kind of a cycle: We thought we needed a spectacularly big and expensive camera to make nice photos, only to find out that great photos come from simple settings and sweetass light (direct quote from the F'n Guide to Magic Boxes that Make Pictures).

Lens quality is another issue, yes, but many consumers are sharing photos via email and the web where anything wider than 1000 pix is obnoxious to view anyway - superior lenses are moot, but nice nevertheless . . . in my opinion of course. Talk about a tangent . . .

Anyway, what mega pix are the Digi Rebels handling now? I could probably click that link, but I'm in edit mode. That's my excuse.

[dieselcruiserhead]

Rob thanks I am PMing you now...

Dumb questions and I should probably know, but what does SLR even stand for? I started perusing this site as well.
http://www.ritzcamera.com/slr-digital-cameras-pg1_price.htm?bct=t13031003%3Bcidigital-cameras-and-accessories

Don't have the extra funds to act now but would prefer to research well, use the P&S for the shot and projects.. Oddly quality on it seems to be going down.. But nothing lasts too long with dust and abuse in the shop...

[goodtimes]

SLR = Single Lens Reflex (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/camera.htm)

[Scott Brady]

There are some nice compacts too.

http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/media/img5752.jpg

I am going to buy one of these soon:
RAW capability
10 MP
208" Display
Leica lens quality
$600
Specs (http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1258.pdf)

We need a smaller camera for shooting locals and on treks, etc. I am not suggesting this is a better option than a DSLR with L lenses, but with the right photo techniques can produce professional images.

[grouch]

I am still sorting out my D40, there is a lot to it. The pictures it takes are spectacular. I love this thing but that won't mean a whole lot, I am a full on newb with this photo stuff. I did a lot of research and pretty much everyone said to do the D40 for an entry DSLR.

[paulj]

I moved from manual SLR (Pentax before built in lightmeters) to P&S film to P&S digital and back to digital SLR (Pentax ist DS).

A difference between P&S digital and DSLR that didn't really hit home till I bought mine is that the photo sensor is used differently. With most P&S the sensor works all the time, sending a signal to the screen on the back. When you shoot that signal is diverted to full processing and the memory card. The optical viewfinder is secondary, giving you an alternative way of composing the picture.

With a DSLR, the sensor is used only while actually taking the picture. The rest of the time, the image is directed to the optical viewfinder, which is your primary tool. The screen on the back is used for menu items, and to view the picture AFTER you take it. That is, you don't preview the picture on the screen.

The lack of preview is not much of a disadvantage, since you can easily adjust settings (white balance, exposure etc) and retake the picture. An advantage is the DSLRs typically have good battery lift, despite the fact that their sensors tend to be larger than on P&S digitals.

With some DSLRs it is possible to use lens that were sold for film SLRs. With an adapter ring I can use 40yr old lenses on my Pentax. You can also use filters. For scenery shots, a polarizing filter is particularly nice, improving the contrast between sky and mountains.

paulj

[Scott Brady]

I have never met a professional photographer (outdoor, wildlife, expedition) that shoots with Nikon. Are there any on this board?

What would be the advantage of using a Nikon over a Canon.

My concern is that nearly everyone I travel with shoots Canon DSLR, so if I need a memory card, or a charger, or a battery, or a wide angle, or a macro someone will likely have it.

Nothing againts Nikon, but I have never read a review or researched lens performance where the Nikon had any advantage. How does Nikon handle weather proofing, cold/wet weather performance, seals on the lenses, etc.?

Is it just a Nissan vs. Toyota thing; both good and comes down to personal preference or cost?

[flyingwil]

I have never met a professional photographer (outdoor, wildlife, expedition) that shoots with Nikon. Are there any on this board?
I think Tony D. (tdesanto (http://expeditionportal.com/forum/member.php?u=1098)) is using a Nikon:
7713

[bigreen505]

Disclaimer: I have experience with the Nikon D2x, D200 and Canon 10D, 20D, 5D, 1DII, 1Ds and 1DsII. Don't assume than any of this is applicable to any other cameras because I have no first hand experience with them.


I have never met a professional photographer (outdoor, wildlife, expedition) that shoots with Nikon. Are there any on this board?


I work with several and came very close to moving to Nikon, but ultimately decided Leica was a better solution for what I wanted. I only had one real complaint about the current Nikon cameras, but it was a deal breaker for me.



What would be the advantage of using a Nikon over a Canon.


Nikon flash system is still worlds better than Canon, Nikon offers pro-level bodies in much smaller, lighter packages, the ergonomics are much, much better than Canon (though the 1DIII looks better), the bodies are much less expensive and you have an option for real manual focus lenses that work seamlessly with the camera as opposed to requiring stop down metering like is required using manual focus lenses on a Canon.

Also, I think Nikon files are nicer straight out of the camera and require less work than Canon files. There are lots of reasons but it comes down to personal preference. Generally, if light weight with durability, flash system, ergonomics and bang for the buck in a pro-level camera are what you need, Nikon wins.




My concern is that nearly everyone I travel with shoots Canon DSLR, so if I need a memory card, or a charger, or a battery, or a wide angle, or a macro someone will likely have it.



I'm not sure that memory cards count, but everything else you listed seems like a pretty valid reason for YOU to shoot Canon. Heck, the ability to borrow lenses would be enough of a reason for me.



Nothing againts Nikon, but I have never read a review or researched lens performance where the Nikon had any advantage. How does Nikon handle weather proofing, cold/wet weather performance, seals on the lenses, etc.?

Is it just a Nissan vs. Toyota thing; both good and comes down to personal preference or cost?

Well, that line pretty well sums it up. I would trust a Nikon D2x in any condition that I would trust a 1-series Canon. The D200 is not quite at that level, but definitely better than the consumer level Canons (10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, etc.). From what I have been told the top plate is sealed, but not hte back.

Where does Nikon have an advantage? The files out of the camera are better and need much less work, flash performance, ergonomics and speed/ease of use, Nikon cameras are smaller and lighter while still being virtually bomb proof (the D200 will survive a fall from tripod height to concrete). Nikon's 10.5 mm fish eye is a gem of a lens, very small and inexpensive. I think the cameras are more transparent to use than Canons.

What's wrong with Nikon? To me the biggest issue is I don't like how easily Nikons blow highlights and I think they are ugly when they go and the transitions are not smooth. The worst is localized overexposure, when only one channel is clipped, like when the red clips on someone face and the result is big yellow blotches. Sorry, I expect more. The D2x sensor has very small and dense pixels, in simple terms it really beats up lenses. It can make a great lens like the 180 f2 or 70-200 VR f2.8 really sing, but the 12-24 is virtually worthless. None of the Nikon lenses have external rubber seals, but none of my Canon lenses did either and I never had a problem even in some very extreme conditions. Also, while Nikon's VR technology is great, it is only on a couple lenses.

I'll keep my Canon comments brief as you are pretty familiar with them:

Pro:


There is a lot of information in the files, even if it takes a lot of work to get it all.
Weather sealing
Drive and focus speed of the 1D series (not the 1Ds)
Telephoto lenses are excellent by any standard


Con:

Files require a lot of post processing work to really make them sing due to a combination of the Digic-II processor (can't wait to see what the new Digic-III does, the Digic-1 was great) and the very heavy anti-aliasing filter.
Weather sealing is irrelevant if construction quality is poor.
Canon ignores the issues that result better pictures for numbers that make for better marketing.
Fast AF is irrelevant if I can't get the camera to focus on what *I* want to be in focus.


I could go on for pages about both systems, but I think this enough to give you some ideas. The truth is they are just tools, both systems overall have strengths and weaknesses and despite the fact that some people view the choice like a religion (similar to Campy and Shimano in the cycling world) they are more alike than different.

[Scott Brady]

Weather sealing is irrelevant if construction quality is poor.
Canon ignores the issues that result better pictures for numbers that make for better marketing.
Fast AF is irrelevant if I can't get the camera to focus on what *I* want to be in focus.
[/LIST]


Have you seen any documentation on the poor construction quality that you could reference? My 20D has been beyond durable, with hours of rain, -40, drops, hundreds of miles of vibration, intense dust, etc. without even a hint of failure. The L lenses are the finest durability and sealing of any lens I have compared.

To me, cameras are like trucks. Give me the best reliability and highest quality with a good value, and lots of room for mods (lenses).

[Scott Brady]

Again, I am not saying Nikon is a bad camera. Heck, it might even be better than Canon.

However, in all of the outdoor photojournalism I have done, not once have I noticed a Nikon in use. There has to be a reason for that... Just not sure what the answer is.

[detailbarn]

There are some nice compacts too.

http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/media/img5752.jpg

I am going to buy one of these soon:
RAW capability
10 MP
208" Display
Leica lens quality
$600
Specs (http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1258.pdf)

We need a smaller camera for shooting locals and on treks, etc. I am not suggesting this is a better option than a DSLR with L lenses, but with the right photo techniques can produce professional images.



So I finally deceided to pick up a new camera and this is the one I choose. Did some searching and found it for $509.00 ok great went to buy it and read a quick review found out it doesn't have an optical view finder. Does anyone think this is a problem. It struck me as one at first but only because I've never had a camera that didn't have both view finders. Any thoughts?

[goodtimes]

I don't think I have ever used the optical viewfinder on any of the compact digitals (point and shoot) that I have had.

Conversely, I have never used the LCD on my digital SLR to compose a picture....

:)