Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- From: All Things Mopar <nunofyour@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 16:45:23 -0500
Today no-spam2@xxxxxxxxx commented courteously on the subject
at hand
Lots of good comments there.
OK, let me tell you a little more about my needs and camera
background.
After many years of using a 35mm compact camera I decided
to step up and get an SLR, so I got a Canon EOS-300 kit
which included a lens (28-90mm If i remember correctly).
The reason for stepping up to an SLR was basically to get
more control; such as focusing (with my compact camera I
wouldn't know if the auto-focusing had worked properly
until I got the pictures developed, with the SLR I could
see it right away).
Keep in mind that with a DSLR, you will be seeing what the
lens sees, /not/ what the sensors see. So, focusing can be
problematical, including AF lock and apparent vs. real DOF.
And, judging exposure is a crap shoot, depending on ambient
lighting and how you have the LCD set-up. I never really know
if I do or don't have minimally acceptable pictures until I
get home, so I shoot way more than I need, being that digital
is "free".
Of course, stuff like lighting etc. was
something I still couldn't see the result of until the
photos were developed. I bought lots of books about
photography in order to take good pictures, but really
never got round to learning it properly. Shooting a full
35mm film, then trying to remember the different settings
several weeks later by looking at the prints can get pretty
confusing, so I've just ended up using the basic, auto
settings and experimenting a bit in difficult situations
(bright snow or sand, night landscape etc.), often with
poor results, which disappointed me when I recently came
back home after an extended holiday -places I likely won't
ever return to :-(
Well, if you get more serious about this than I am right now,
you'll try to learn RAW as quickly as possible, as, broadly,
you can "reexpose" and "redevelop" in the "lab". I really
can't do that with JPEG.
So besides the disappointment of some of those photos I've
had to pay loads of money to get them developed, and on top
of that I would like to share a lot of them with friends
online, which is a real hassle to do when i don't have a
dedicated negative-scanner and scanning the prints give
less than satisfactory results.
One real beauty I found with my Rebel vs. two EVFs is far
longer battery life. An EVF effectively has a small LCD on all
the time and just eats batteries. But, it is far easier to
make a judgment on exposure, focus, and even composure than a
DSLR - in my experience.
So.... a digital camera would be ideal for me. After having
bought the camera I won't have to spend any more money for
developing and I can take as many photos as I want! :-)
But I want *good* photos, and when I'm visiting places I'll
most likely never return to, or occasions that won't happen
again I don't want to end up with a camera that is so
limited that it can't take a satisfactory picture. that's
why I'm thinking of a digital SLR of some kind, but i don't
want to pay more than I need to.
As for the Canon lens that came with my EOS-300; well, what
can I say? It's seems like some really cheap crap that
Canon threw in the box just to make it a complete SLR
system.
There is wide disagreement with any kit lens. I personally
think it is worth what I paid for it - $100 - and I use it
occasionally with the puny built-in flash for old-fashioned
candid snapshots. It keeps size, weight, and obtrusiveness to
a mininum.
However, I quickly determined that the kit is neither what I
wanted for sharpness and detail and didn't have the zoom range
I wanted. So, I went for the Sigma next, but found it to be
soft, albeit /very/ flexible. That led me to $2,200 worth of
Canon glass, which is truly outstanding. The big downside to
the longer zoom is that it is huge (to me) and weighs a
staggering 33.6 oz. That, combined with the body and external
flash, means I sometimes have to haul over 4 1/2 pounds when I
go to a museum.
If I manually focus and touch the lens it becomes
unfocused. Seems like the mechanism wiggles sideways a bit!
So I don't see any reason for buying a Canon SLR just
because of the lens.
Actually I feel a little negative to Canon because of this,
but perhaps other Canon cameras/systems are better for all
I know.
However, I've been looking towards Nikon. From what I've
heard (and get confirmed in this thread) it's either Canon
or Nikon.
Factor in what you've read, as I did, but don't base your
decision solely on the opinion of others or even lab testing.
That said, I reached the same conclusion you have.
I don't really know what's out there, but from what I've
found out so far, if you want a budget digital SLR it's
either a Canon EOS-350d or a Nikon D-50, right?
Are these any good, or are they just cheapo junk?
Suggestions?
So, you're not at all a newbie, except maybe for digital.
If you want to go Nikon, I'd strongly suggest you spend the
few extra bucks and get the D70s. Two more mega pixels, more
up-to-date. I am not a Nikon expert, but the D50 is an entry-
level camera that you'll likely quickly outgrow it. I get the
international model numbers mixed up, so forgive me, but isn't
the 350D the Rebel XT? If yes, it's Nikon competitor is the
D70s, not the D50.
I have no particular axe to grind with any manufacturer. I
investigated Nikon, Canon, Konica-Minolta, Sony, FujiFilm, and
Olympus, maybe a few more that I have forgotten.
Based mainly on reputation for ruggedness, features,
ergonomics, and lens quality (which you said you also valued),
it quickly boiled down to the D70s and Rebel XT. I've already
elucicated why I chose the latter.
Lenses I have, besides the 18-55 kit lens, are Canon L-glass
17-40 and 24-70 and Sigma 18-125. Each has its purposes, and
both advantages and disadvantages. If I were true to the goal
of maximum image quality, I would go with multiple primes, but
time doesn't permit the rapid changing of lenses in the field,
so I bring one or two of the last 3 lenses, and sacrifice some
sharpness and detail in order to gain flexibility.
I won't dwell on my situation, just quickly illustrate it to
show how important it is for you to buy what /you/ think is
best for fitness of purpose: I shoot cars, cars, and more
cars, at outdoor shows and indoors in museums. The challenges
vary, obviously, but one is common: at the same time, I need a
wide-angle and a moderate tele. The former when I physically
cannot move farther away and the latter to grab detail shots,
signs/captions, feature details, etc. When I have room to move
farther away, I prefer to shoot at 85-105mm equivalent in
order to gain the foreshortening effect that I think shows the
proportions of cars more accurately, without the apparent
perspective distortion of a wide-angle. And, for the record, I
have Canon's excellent mid-range 420EX external flash.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"Go ahead, make my day", Dirty Harry in the movie "Sudden
Impact"
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- From: darkfield
- Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- From: Dr. Boggis
- Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- References:
- Newbie to digital SLR
- From: Johannes D. Pedersen
- Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- From: J. Clarke
- Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- From: no-spam2@xxxxxxxxx
- Newbie to digital SLR
- Prev by Date: Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- Next by Date: Re: Lens recommendations?
- Previous by thread: Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- Next by thread: Re: Newbie to digital SLR
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
