Slashdot Mirror

It IS nice to be able to go to 1.8 sometimes, for those narrow depth of field shots... Makes for great portraits sometimes. I almost exclusively use a $70 lens for what I do (portraits), but if you want to do wedding photography, landscape, etc, be prepared to spend ALOT more. The $70 Canon 50mm prime 1.8 is an anomaly-- a great, cheap lens. You won't find many of those... http://www.rupertphotography.com/

May I suggest the 50mm f1.8 lens from Canon. At $70 it is a remarkable lens--- its generally the lens I used almost exclusively, as most of what I do is portrait work. You will be amazed by its sharpness.
http://www.rupertphotography.com/

...a digital SLR has a shallow depth of field, which means it can be more difficult to get everything in focus. Not true at all. A SLR makes it easy to control depth of field, and (on many models) see the effect of depth of field.
And it doesn't matter how much control you have if your lens cannot stop down that far. With DSLR, plan to spend as much (probably more) on lenses before you realize the benefits.
http://www.rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

...Not to mention the $$$ you'll sink into a decent flash! Its funny how many people I see using SLRS strictly in program mode.

http://www.rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

I'm glad you said this. The Digital Rebel is a great camera, but the kit lens isn't all that great. If all you ever want to use is the kit lens, you'd probably be more satisfied with a prosumer 8mp or something.

If you're going to go SLR you should be serious or not do it at all. The benefits of SLR aren't noticed unless you know what you're doing and have some money to spend on glass....

http://www.rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

"Megapixels: You almost certainly don't need more than 4."
Maybe not, but why not go ahead and get a 5mp camera. More cropping room, better enlargements, not much of a cost difference these days.

http://www.rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Because 1.3 mp doesn't look that great, even at 4x6. It looks okay for snapshots, maybe, but not as good as a 4+ mp that you can now get for around $200. Of course, I am nitpicky about my photos. http://www.rupertphotography.com/ http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

If you're going to point and shoot, don't spend the extra cash on a DSLR. If you're not going to invest in lenses, don't spend the extra cash on a DSLR. If you don't want to post-process, don't spend the extra cash on a DSLR. So many people want DSLRs but don't really know why. http://www.rupertphotography.com/ http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Sorry, as much as I wish it were better, Gimp just pales in comparison to Photoshop. Its too bad, really. http://rupertphotography.com/ http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

http://rupertphotography.com/
http://fromthemorning.blogspot.com/

Anyone who can afford this camera can probably also affort L Glass, so it doesn't matter.

[Rupert Photo]

I am small time (very small time). A camera like this is for National Geography and ESPN photographers- not jokers like me. I really don't need this much power anyway, at least not for what I do. Heck, even to my eye, at 8x10 or even 11x14, I can't tell the difference between a 6mp and a 1,000,000,000 mp image. They both look great.

For portrait photography, I don't need to shoot 6, 8, or 1 gazillion frames per second- a slower camera is fine with me.

Someone working for, say, Sports Illustrated, still only needs 300 dots per inch (or less) in print. These people aren't so concerned with megapixels, but noise, crop factor, and frames per second are a very big deal to them.

I would be willing to bet that probably not even many wedding photographers would invest in this camera just yet... But who knows. Its a lot of money, and self employed photographers typically don't make very much.
[Rupert Photo]

Despite the crazy high price of this camera, these developments and competition that is causing them, are driving down the prices of great DSLRs (and digicams in general).

You can buy a better 6mp DSLR today for about $800 than what was even available at $20,000 4 years ago. Pretty amazing. I suspect that within a year or two we will be able to buy a full frame DSLR for $1,000 or less. It used to be cameras didn't change that fast. Now with digital, things are changing as fast as with computers...

[Rupert Photo]

Ah. That's right. A quick search at dpreview.com would have shown this. I can't wait for the first sub-$1000 full frame sensor DSLR. I bet its not *that* far off in the future. Maybe 2 years? Whaddya think? This competition with the DSLRs is great.

[Rupert Photo]

Probably not... But the good news with digital is competition is heating up, and great cameras are coming down in price as fast as computers have. Even this high-end competition affects the low end. You can buy a better 6mp DSLR today for about $800 than what was even available at $20,000 4 years ago. Pretty amazing.

[Rupert Photo]

Yup... I think DSLRs will soon render medium format a thing of the past.

[Rupert Photo]