Slashdot Mirror
Digital 35mm SLRs?
pipingguy asks: "Canon has released the first(?) 'low-priced' digital 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses with the Digital Rebel. I've owned a few digital and non-digital cameras over the years (and am by no means a photography expert), and most annoying was the lack of manual zoom and focus, not to mention the barely-noticeable millisecond delay between button click and shutter closure. Can any owners of this and other digitals provide some opinions on how this new model compares to the more expensive digital 35mm's and typical $300 SLRs? Is it time to buy?"
This camera looks like a good deal - it's just the Canon D10 with a plastic body and some firmware downgrades. Suppose it's possible to hack the firmware back up to the D10? Also, first post!
I guess it means a digital camera that has the same size and uses the same lenses as the Rebel line of cameras?
Nikon has one of those, D100 which uses the whole line fo AF lenses, it's kind of expensive though!
Ecuador always on my heart....
Any sort of news on this? I'm too lazy to search on my own...
My uncle was a die hard film person... but always enjoyed playing with digital... just never in his studio.
However, in the last 12 months he has converted his entire studio over to digital. His work still looks great... even blown out huge.
Anybody other pro/semi-pros out there made the switch?
Does everybody agree that digital is as good as film now?
Davak
P.S. I own the predecessor to the 10D, the D60, and it is an excellent camera. I highly recommend a DSLR, but be prepared...photograph is an expensive hobby!
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
It is good to see that useful digital cameras are coming down to a price point that everyone can afford.
Could do with a few more links in there guys!
here's one
It's hard to beat the good old Pentax K-1000. I like my digital Canon, but the Pentax just takes beautiful pictures.
... instead of the people who would really know.
What's wrong with a site like dpreview.com for this kind of information? This camera has been out for quite a while already and all of the normal digital camera review sites have done their reviews by now. DPReview even has a forum dedicated to the camera!
Couldn't a google search have found an answer to this without having to 'Ask Slashdot?'
is this what we are talking about? http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/index.html i have used the d1, it des produce great images and the shutter speed is amazing but as with older slrs, its terribly heavy!
who wants to rule the world?
I'll answer it the same way that I answer two common questions:
1. What car should I buy?
2. What computer should I get?
My answers:
1. What are you going to use it for?
2. How much are you planning to spend?
Without knowing the answers to those two questions, then the original poster's question can't be correctly answered. If you're looking for professional, poster-sized prints, then your answer is going to be different than if you're just looking for something to take snapshots during vacations. Ditto if you have a large budget/if you're a broke college student.
Answer those two questions first, and you'll get a more accurate reply.
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
Seeing as the poster appears to not understand that this here Interweb can have links, here are a few that I found in about 30 seconds:
Manufacturer's site.
Review on ImagingResource.com.
The second link kind of answers the question, proving - yet again - that asking Google before asking on Slashdot tends to be productive and smell less of a product placement.
sounds too much like the X10 camera and reminds one of those horid pop-ups?
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
All modern digital cameras have manual zoom and focus, you just need to press buttons instead of turning a ring on the lens barrel in most cases. Several digital cameras even have a mechanism whereby you control zoom by turning a ring on the lens barrel.
Low cost is a relitive term. The Canon Rebel 300d is really the first sub $1k digital SLR. Canon previously has an older model, the 10D which retails around $1500 and was/is considered the real first low cost digital SLR. Regardless, digital cameras have come a long way in recent years with Canon, Fuji, Nikon and Sigma all releasing good solid performers. You still get what you pay for with regards to speed and quality, with top of the line versions like the Canon 1DS running in the $8k range. But for those people interested in dSLRs at a reasonable entry cost the time is ripe. One item to keep in mind is that the frame is cheap.... it's the lenses that'll bankrupt you.
One final thought... dSLRs are not for everyone, prosumer cameras like the Sony 717, Canon G5, Nikon 5400 etc... will meet most peoples needs quite nicely and at a fraction of the cost. As always consider your true needs before buying anything.
I dont see the point in spending less money when the camera sucks. Buy a Canon 10D or a Nikon D100 (the D200 will be out soon). If your really into it, get a Nikon D2H or the 11 megapixle Canon 1Ds.
When a camera hinders your productivity, its a POS. I would relate the 300D to a Canon Reble X or some such low priced SLR that allows you to do.... nothing.
The good news is, it compares very well with a $300 35mm SLR.
The bad news is, it compares well with a $300 35mm SLR.
There are things to be alert to, most notably that the sensor frame is not the same size as a 35mm frame - it's more like APS-sized - so lenses have a 'focal length multiplier' - that is, the same lens is more 'telephoto' on the EOS 300D.
Otherwise it looks like what it is - a cheapish film SLR with expensive digital gubbins (it's the EOS 300V, but digital).
I'm not sure it's the first really cheap 35mm-compatible SLR - the Sigma SD9 has that honour in the UK at least, and is a very well specified camera with the interesting foveon chip.
Major that would bug me: lack of a true spot-metering mode. And a few other minor bits and pieces. It's certainly cheaper than what's gone before from Canon, however, and it looks nice enough.
Me, I started photography seriously with digital cameras (including the sensibly-designed fuji 6900), but I 'progressed' to old fashioned film cameras and scanning of prints/negs/transparencies. It seems to me to be like the linux approach - I can afford a lot of effective and varied film kit (including medium format for quality), I'm learning more, the knowledge is less proprietory, and with the right approaches, film quality still edges digital in things like shadow detail (and in the case of scans of medium format transparencies, outright quality and resolution).
Real slashdot anonymous cowards use film.
"What's the EOS 300D's weakness? Feature set. Canon are caught in a dilemma, they had to have a camera with a reduced feature set otherwise nobody would consider the EOS 10D (or any camera which replaces it). Almost laughably the majority of the EOS 300D's limitations are 'programmed in', that is they are simply software features which have been disabled."
If that's the case, call me when it's been hacked to enable everything.
Many of the consumer cameras are coming along with manual everything now. I've just bought a Canon A70 (an A80 is out now too) which, while just a consumer cam, has manual exposure, ISO emulation, Aperture, 3x optical zoom, 2048x1536 pix (3.2mp), and a bunch of other manual settings. Slowly, as with everything, the pro type features are coming down into the consumer lines. an SLR still has its advantages, but it's certainly worth looking at some of the cameras that are out today at 1/3rd their price.
yeah, you should switch. in the long run, your gonna save money. plus anyone who reads slashdot has some CF cards around dont they? if your not a professional i would reccomend something with fewer MP. with a 6.3mp i think you can get up to 4.3 mg files in raw format, which is kinda ridiculous. i use a D30 and i just love it. but whatever you do make sure to get something where lenses are many and cheap. because they will be the best way to lose money
I'm the owner of a Nikon N80 35mm film camera. I have tried several digitals, but I bought this film camera instead. All my films are developed on CD. I must say the results are good: an example. All the black&whites are shot with 35mm film. The nice thing is, when i'm in the dark room, I can mess around with stuff you don't find in the Gimp nor in Photoshop. I'm a techie... but when it comes to pictures... 35mm film rules if you ask me. The best digital camera is one with exchangable lenzes, but when i comes to photography, i prefer film.
42 + 1 = 42
just use a Large Format Camera (largeformatphotography.info). you know, the kind you see in old movies with the photographer under a big cloth. the film typically is 4x5 or 8x10 INCHES, easily trumping anything you can get from a digital slr.
www.dpreview.com has very good reviews. Lots of in-depth information, and glossaries to explain the terminologies for newbies who want to learn photogeekery.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The image quality of prety much all the digital SLRs is very nice. Including the Digital Rebel. The focus time and shutter lag compaired ot the non SLR digitals is also very good (I have the now very old Canon D30, and while it has more shutter lag then the current digital SLRs it is low enough to get pictures of flying birds, or jumping dogs which I found really hard to do with compact digital cameras).
The digital rebel however suffers from being inteonally cheapened. It still takes great pictures, but if you had intended to use the camera in "manual mode" where you control both the shutter time and the apeature you'll find Canon decided to only put one dial on the camera. You have to switch between the two controls with a small button (there is also no way to assign auto focus to a button other then the shutter button). That's a royal pain if you ever get to a situation where you are smarter then the camera's light meter (and you'll run into them, digital cameras have less exposure latatude then print film, think of them more like slide film).
It also has cuppled the exposure mode and auto focus mode with the shooting mode. They took about 4 things that their other cameras let you set independantly and merged them into one thing and gave you maybe 12 choices, so a bunch of the combinations are not possiable.
Basically if your film SLR is a rebel you won't feel constrained by the digital rebal. If your film camera is an Elan you will be frustrated. If your digital camera is the point and click kind, then you will either be delighted or confused. Or both.
P.S. remember the camera is only the start of the spending :-) Lenses are very important. In fact the Digital Rebel's imager is better then most lenses. If you buy the DR and slap a $400 75-300mm USM-IS f/5.6 lens on it you won't get pictures nearly as sharp as the 300L f/4 lens...unfortuantly that lens costs quite a bit more then the camera. I strongly recomend at least one fast fixed focal length lens, the 50mm f/1.8 is in expsnave (under $100 used I think). It will show you how sharp your pictures can be, and more importantly it will let you get some natrual light shots where most zooms can't.
My first question is: why do you need a SLR camera? If you are just looking for a digital camera, that can do good macro shots, take a look at Sony's Cyber Shot DSC-F717 . The macro shots with this camera are very good. However I personally think the camera is little flaky (could be just me). I also have a Canon PowerShot S50. It is a very good all purpose digital camra. Here are shots from a Canon S50 Panoramic and regular
bottom line: dont buy a digital SLR, unless you really need a SLR.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
As the proud owner of a Fuji S2-Pro, I can say I love the DSLR concept. When I got my first SLR almost 10 years ago, I lamented the lack of a digital SLR and since then had been searching around for a good D-SLR. Last year, they finally came within reach, but I had to save up for awhile to be able to afford the $2000+ pricetag. I can honestly say that i went from taking 60 photos per month with my old 35mm SLR to taking 100+ per week, all without any processing costs. The most important things to consider are: 1) battery life - Your photo shooting is usually limited by the battery life of your camera unless you shoot in super-high resolution or RAW modes. 2) memory size - Buy as big a memory card as youcan afford. Size does matter. I LOVE to take advantage of the RAW shooting modes, but the photos are dozens of MB each. 3) memory speed - when shooting bigger files, you will notice the speed of your writable media. You can fill up the buffer of modern DSLR cameras fairly quickly in rapid-shoot mode (unless you have a Nikon D2 with the 40-shot buffer). But overall, I prefer Nikon lenses (Nikkor is really nice), but Cannon is quite nice too. And for the price you can't beat this new DSLR. Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
The advantage to one of the digital SLRs versus pro-sumer models is no shutter lag. My 10D is very quiet and takes the picture when I press the button, not several ms later like my Olympus 3040 used to do.
As the proud owner of a Fuji S2-Pro, I can say I love the DSLR concept. When I got my first SLR almost 10 years ago, I lamented the lack of a digital SLR and since then had been searching around for a good D-SLR. Last year, they finally came within reach, but I had to save up for awhile to be able to afford the $2000+ pricetag.
I can honestly say that i went from taking 60 photos per month with my old 35mm SLR to taking 100+ per week, all without any processing costs.
The most important things to consider are:
1) battery life - Your photo shooting is usually limited by the battery life of your camera unless you shoot in super-high resolution or RAW modes.
2) memory size - Buy as big a memory card as youcan afford. Size does matter. I LOVE to take advantage of the RAW shooting modes, but the photos are dozens of MB each.
3) memory speed - when shooting bigger files, you will notice the speed of your writable media. You can fill up the buffer of modern DSLR cameras fairly quickly in rapid-shoot mode (unless you have a Nikon D2 with the 40-shot buffer).
But overall, I prefer Nikon lenses (Nikkor is really nice), but Cannon is quite nice too. And for the price you can't beat this new DSLR.
Stewey
There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
First, I'll preface by saying I'm a professional photographer. My wife and I shoot weddings & portraits, and a magazine photo here or there. We use the Canon 10D, which goes for $1500. It's got a 6.3 megapixel sensor, and we have no problem blowing up a large-fine JPEG image to 20x30 or even higher.
The digital rebel has the same sensor as the 10D, and the same digic processor, and you can find them for $800 or so. A LOT of the features are the same. The white balance settings, the shutter speed options, flash compatibility, metering modes, 7 AF points, etc. The main differences are in the buffer, and the construction. The rebel can only do about 2.5fps and a maximum burst of 4 shots, instead of the 3fps for 9 shots the 10d can manage. Having handled the rebel at the local camera store recently, I can also testify that the body does not feel NEARLY as durable as the 10D. The 10D has a magnesium alloy body that feels solid, and seems like it could take some punishment. I think the rebel was more plasticy. Eh.
Still, if you're an amateur photographer who wants an SLR I have to say the rebel is the way to go. It's got almost all the features of the 10D, but for a lot less money. Digital will completely change the way you shoot, too...I never ever ever want to go back to film.
Oh, and some other companies have cheap SLRs out there...Fuji has a cheap DSLR, and I think Olympus or Sigma or somebody does, too, but I've never been impressed with any of their products, or their lenses (Sigma lenses are horribly soft) and I only shoot Canon, so I can't really comment on those.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
http://steves-digicams.com/cameras_digpro.html
This is a great camera website. Click on the name of an SLR camera in the list to get a review, specs, sample images, etc... This website also has other reviews of other types of X megapixel digicams as well.
Loomis
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
Digital Rebel is 22.7 mm SLR. Canon 1Ds is 35 mm SLR. But 1Ds is not 'low-priced'. It costs $7,999.
Her sister owns a Canon Rebel 35mm camera, and my wife has been a die-hard film person. In the last week, she hasn't touched our 35mm camera.
The digital rebel can use all the lenses, filters, tripod, flash, etc from her 35mm, takes amazing pictures, and is SLR. (she wouldn't touch a non-slr camera)
The auto-focus is great, the shutter speed is better then any other digital camera we've played with (and very adjustable). Manual focusing gives her all the control she'd normally have.
It snaps shots a little slow, about 4 in the first two seconds, then one a second after that, but for a digital at 6.3mp that's not too shabby.
In my opinion, this is *THE* digital camera to buy right now... and at the rate I'm going at, I'll need to buy a second one since my wife won't let me have time with ours.
You can find a decent review of it here.
bit lysdexic, are we?
...at work and it's just amazing. As others have said, the new digital Rebel has pretty much the same guts.
The 10D (and Rebel) are both ~6 megapixel cameras. While this doesn't sound much better than other run-of-the-mill prosumer digicams like, say, a Canon Powershot S50, the actual image quality is much better.
I'm not familiar with the real nitty-gritty technical details, but the 10D's sensor is a LOT bigger than the little sensors in other point-and-shoot cameras, which means that there's a lot less noise. The 10D also has a different type of sensor (CMOS) than most other digicams, which use CCD.
But, yeah, I wholeheartedly recommend the 10D or Rebel. My 3-year-old 3-megapixel Toshiba feels like a piece of crap in comparison.
I bought a 300D the other day and I absolutely love it, just waiting for pay to clear to buy a bigger zoom lens :)
examples of photos I've taken with it...
800x600's
Following are full 6.3MP images (3072 x 2048 pixels)
here here and here
For all the information you could ever want to know about how the new 300D/Digital Rebel compares to the other DSLRs that are out there just go check out photo.net. There is a full review of the body, plus lots of discussion about it in the forums.
Your second question, about whether or not to switch to digital, is not a question that we can answer for you, especially with the amount of information that you gave us. Both film and digital have their respective advantages. Both will continue to exist for quite some time. For a well thought out examination of film and digital photography, see Ken Rockwell's article on the subject.
What most people don't realize is that digital and film have been working together quite well for some time now and that the digital revolution has already made a huge impact in the printing phase. Lightjet and Chromira machines enable the highest quality prints and Fuji Frontier machines create good quality prints quickly. The quality of these prints is not just the resolution, but the color reproduction and tonality as well.
What it all comes down to, though, is not the equipment. You have to be in the right place when the light happens. Mastering light is far more important than having a certain kind of camera.
--joshHistory has the relation to truth that theology has to religion-i.e. none to speak of. - Lazarus Long
Digital cameras are still relatively expensive, compared to their film counterparts:
Basic compact ~ $300 vs. $50
Basic SLR ~ $1000 vs. $300
What you gain though, especially once you leave the basic end of the market alone, is a fast, self-guided education in photography.
I bought the Sony DSC-V1 (a $600 higer-end compact). By that point, you're getting in to a camera which can just point and shoot but also lets you manually adjust apperature and shutter settings, add on flash units, etc. And the thing is, if you have any kind of an interest in photography, you will start playing with those settings.
I'd borrowed a film SLR from relatives in the past. I blew through about a dozen rolls of film and had next to no idea what I ended up with.
With digital, I blow through about fifty shots in a half an hour, reviewing each one as I go and, with the LCD review screen, learning a little bit more about how to improve the next shot. Then I end up ditching the thirty or so that didn't work and repeating. By the end of a session, I know I've got shots which really captured the depth of field I was after, that framed the subject well, that had the balance of light across the scene that I wanted, and so on. I've also probably stumbled on a couple of shots I didn't even expect.
Most importantly though, I've learned to take risks that I would never have done with film. While my wife drove tonight, I was shooting the sunset almost as fast as I could get shots off. I would never have even tried it with film - what kind of idiot would use an unstabilised setup in a moving vehicle on San Diego's bumpy freeways? With digital, it didn't matter. Worst case, I wasted a bit of time, blanked the memory stick and recharged the battery. As it happened, I got the most incredible sunset image I've taken yet.
You can get the same education with film, from an instructor. No doubt an instructor can teach you many things you'd never have learned by yourself. But a simple question for the slashdot readership: Who taught you the software you use professionally? I'm guessing the typical slashdot-type much prefers tinkering with things and finding out for themselves and that's where digital offers itself much more freely than film.
It's more expensive to start. Once you start adding camera accessories and good photoprinters, it gets expensive fast and it works out about the same to print (save you only print the perfect shots, you can review on the computer or LCD). What it does though is give you much more freedom to explore with faster feedback. To me, that's been worth every penny and it's worth the several thousand I'm budgeting for in several months time as the freedom and education of cheaper digital has convinced me I want to try more and more still.
Why cant they make a digital SLR for $300 like they can for film SLR ? (standard changable lenses is the goal in my book) My bet is patents on stupid things. There are real inovations in digital cameras, but I have a good one (Cannon A40 2MP) for $300. Why cant they just do the same in the SLR form. Has to be stupid patents.
If you can afford the Canon 10D and you're a serious amateur photographer, you should consider buying one. If your heart aches for the 10D but you can't afford it (like me), the Digital Rebel (300D) is a perfectly acceptable compromise.
I've had mine for nearly two months now and I'm completely infatuated with it. It's a very sturdy camera and the quality of the images is just unbelievable. I've had some very sharp looking 18x24 inch posters made from pictures taken with my 300D and they are comparable in quality to posters I've had made from drum scanned 35mm slides.
If you want to see some sample images, please feel free to look at the recent additions area of my site. All of the images except two (Govt. House) were taken with the 300D.
My contact info is on my site. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any specific questions about the camera.--====--
"Photography is my one recreation and I think it should be done well." -- Lewis Carroll
A rule of photography is to shoot as many as possible. One shot may be useful. With 10x8, this is the reverse direction from digital, being about the most expensive negatives around. Sure you can photo-edit these by hand but would you want to?
Something that I have done with webcams on a couple of occasions is modifying them to support telephoto SLR lenses, which then allows it to be screwed into the mount on a telescope for webcam astronomy.
Basically you replace the film plane for the lens with the CCD sensor.
The same applies for a normal non SLR camera. You have to *sacrifice* the digital lens and either get a mount from an old manual body, or get a sacrifice the manual body.
I haven't done it, but with 3-4 Megapixel cameras the norm, it should be cheap enough to have a good attempt at hacking it.
In case anyone was wondering how cheap is cheap, this site lists it at $899. Thats still to expensive for me.
Now that the Digital Rebel is on slashdot, surely firmware hacks are on their way. Heck, it's only a matter of time before someone is running a linux server on it. But seriously...something that has not been mentioned is the included lens. The digital rebel comes with a specially designed 18-55mm zoom lens. The kit with this lens is $999. DSLR 101: in most digital slrs, the image sensor is a little smaller than a 35mm negative. So when you use a lens built for a 35mm camera, the focal length is effectively multiplied by 1.6, as the edges of the frame fall outside of the sensor and get cropped. So the included 18-55mm lens is equivalent to your typical 28-90mm zoom lens that comes with film rebels. It is also specially designed for the rebel and won't work on the 10D. A lot of people may point out that the 10D is better and only few hundred dollars more, but people should remember that the cheapest canon lens that is equivalent to the 18-55 is the 17-40L...at $799. So Digital rebel kit = $999, 10D "kit" = approx. $2299. That's not a small price gap. Of course, if you never shoot wide angle, it doesn't effect you.
Surely the image array isn't 24x36mm?
Click, click... no, it's 22.7x15 mm. Roughly comparable a half-frame 35 mm camera.
That means that no lens is going to have the same coverage on this camera as it does on a 35 mm camera.
Canon says "Focal length conversion factor: Equivalent to approx. 1.6x indicated focal length compared to 35mm format." Your 50 mm. lens will act like an 80 mm; your 35 mm like a 56... and if you like to use a 28 mm on your film camera, you'll have to shell out for an 18mm to use on this one.
It works in your favor for telephoto lenses, though.
It also means that for the equivalent angle of coverage, this camera will have a greater depth of field. Nice for some things. Not so nice for others, e.g. portraits.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I was seriously considering the 10D for astrophotography in part because of the ability to have the mirror lock up 2 second prior to exposure when using the timer. So I wonder whether that feature is one of the things that the dumbed down 300D/digital rebel has lost?
-- Instant Karma's gonna get you! [320848 = 2*2*2*2*11*1823]
The 300D is my first exeriance with any of the Rebel line, and I have to say that the missing features annoy me. I want another command dial, custom functions, a better viewfinder, and better autofocus. Indeed, every time I use it I compare it unfavorably to the EOS 3. Then I dump the CF to hard drive and am happy as a pig in shit. I'm going to save the cost of the camera in development alone within a year. I could have afforded a 10D ($500 more w/no lens) however, the 10D doesn't do the EF-S lens and I really wanted this lens. It's performance is okay but the 18mm end makes wide angle shots possible with a DSLR. I can't afford wide enough glass to use a 10D, so features or not, this lens addresses a major issue for me. The Depth of Field preview is nearly useless to me, I just look at it in the LCD to see if it matches my intentions. On the plus side, being able to change the effective ISO rating on demand is awesome.
Compared to the CoolPix (older versions), I love the 300D. The coolpix feels like a toy and it's hard to use it while quickly adjusting Apeture/Exposure, and of course, no manual focus at all. These things may not matter to most. (and I imagine they don't.) I've been told most SLR owners have the lens that came in the kit and nothing else, kind of a waste if you don't want the interchangable lens.
I expect the 1.6 focal length multiplier is going to be great for wildlife photos and other long work. I'm *really* enjoying the camera.
-- Res
Most digital SLR's have a focal length/angle of view conversion factor of approximately 1.6X compared to full-frame 35mm film format. The Canon EOS 300D SLR is no exception to this. As far as i know, Canons only full frame digital is the 1Ds.
I use both a digital (Olympus C3030 Zoom) and a film SLR (Cannon A1). These are both nice cameras however, the digital is really a "snap shot" camera while the A1 is of pro quality. Both have their unique positive attributes and both have their own inherent limitations.
If I'm after a specific photographic shot of something I'm going to blow up to 11 x 14 or bigger, I'll definitely shoot it on film. I may very well use the digital to help determine exposure, aperature and such. The digital gives instant feedback for getting that perfect photo.
I have a ton of Canon C-Mount lenses from 28mm to 1000mm as well as filters and such. The problem is that none of these Canon lenses will work with the newer Canon cameras. Thus, I continue to use the A1 body.
I've also used the A1 for many years and **KNOW** the camera. I know exactly what it will do and won't do. I'm still learning on the digital camera.
The bottom line is that I'll continue to use both film and digital cameras for a while. The resolution and features on the best digitals still don't compare to the capabilities of film.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
I have owned the Canon D30, D60, and now own the 10D. These are all great cameras and make it possible to do things that you would never be able to do with a traditional 35mm... such as routinely taking 300 photos and saving the best 10. No matter what anyone says, the best way to improve your photography is to take more pictures.
I would recommend skipping the D60 if possible, it was kind of a premature upgrade after the D30. The 10D is the true successor to the D30. My wishlist at this point is the same for all digital cameras: better low light performance and dynamic range - this is the last place that film has digital beat, more pixels of course, and a faster performing camera... they are a bit slow in reviewing big photos.
I highly recommend the D60 and it goes well with the Epson 2200 photo printer... You won't believe it the first time you do a 13x19 print at home and it looks like a professional print.
- Pat
I was nearly ready to buy the Canon 300D, but I don't have any Canon lenses (what lenses I do have are for an Olympus OM-2). After talking to friends, I decided that for what I need, a 'pro-sumer' would probably be a better fit. The Minolta A1 is probably the best availiable at the moment, but I plan to hold out and see how the Panasonic FZ-10 turns out (released in Japan today, US mid November). It'll be a 35-420mm 35mm equivalent, with a F2.8 Leica lens all the way through the range. Also has image stabilization, which should allow shooting at maximum zoom without a tripod. It is only a 4MP camera, but with a MSRP of $599, it is very tmepting.
With the 300D, I'd need to carry 2-3 lenses (need a range of 18mm-300mm for the Canon to get the equivalent range), and to get them at F2.8 with image-stabilization, that's easily $2k in lenses (and probably quite a bit more). For the money, the 300D is probably the best DSLR on the market, but the question is whether it is what you want.
I'll wait till the reviews come out for the FZ10 before I decide, but for the price, this is probably a better camera for me.
Info on the FZ10 (what is availiable so far at least) can be found here
There's not one camera for everyone, but you should think about what you need it for, decide what you are willing to spend, and decide how much paraphanelia you are willing to lug around before choosing to part with your $$$ (It probably helps if you have a load of Canon lenses already though).
Focus ring. Not all digital SLRs have them, but no digital consumers have them. It's one of the great features missing in my opinion.
The dream reveals the reality which conception lags behind. That is the horror of life- the terror of art. -Franz Kafka
-- 'cept thanks. I would've never thought to think about that.
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
I wish I could blow $7,500 because the Canon EOS 1Ds makes me drool everytime I hold one at the camera shop. It has a full 35mm sensor and firewire. Oh, so pro! The Digital Rebel is really nice but the $500 more for the 10D is worth it. Think of it costing an extra good lens.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Caveat: I've not used the Canon, I'm basing my opinions on reviews only, so E&OE. If you're new to SLR photography, this Canon is a nice place to start if you use it with the EF-S lens. If you're adding this digital SLR to your existing Canon kit, then you may find it difficult to cope with the 1.6x field of view crop: the sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame, so you need a 22mm lens on the digital SLR to get the same field of view as a 35mm lens on a 35mm SLR. Putting it another way, your expensive 200mm zoom becomes a heavy 125mm lens on the digital SLR
So, in that respect, if you have an existing lens collection that you're comfortable with, I'd go for a digital body with a full-frame 35mm sensor.
You'll notice that your worries will change from "do I have enough film?" to "do I have enough batteries?"
Regarding "how many pixels are enough?", people seem to think the sweet spot is between 8MP and 16MP, but with digital photos you don't get grain (but you do get noise), so I personally think 5MP is a decent starting point.
Penultimately, the default sharpness in Sony, Minolta and other digital cameras seems to be a tad too sharp: I routinely dial back the in-camera sharpening algorithm and do any sharpening outside the camera.
Finally, if you just like the idea of lots of pixels and quite a wide zoom range, you may want to at least hold the Sony F828, which is an 8MP camera due in November or December. I've played with one and, as a 707 owner, I like it a lot: like many others with this series of cameras, I tend to shoot using the camera back display, holding the camera like a TLR.
I got the D300 for my wife. She took photography in school and has always wanted a dark room, but that's not an option in an apartment. We love it. This is my first SLR I've really used. We're getting great pictures with the kit lens and I'm already looking to expand.
For $999 (w/ lens) it's a great deal. It has an excellent CMOS sensor and is easy enough for even me to use. While $1K isn't "cheap", it's very inexpensive for what you get. For us the cost upgrade to the D10 (body only) just wasn't worth it.
It depends on: your camera and that media that you use. I use the Olympus E-10 with a SanDisk Compact Flash 128 Card and it works wonderfully. The transfer speeds are what you need to look out for. If you are taking 2280x1024 TIFF quality pictures, don't expect to be snapping them off at any high rate of speed. So it's like regular photography. Don't be a shutterbug and just click away, you need to set your sets up, and maybe snap 1 or 3 pictures, but don't try making a still frame movie either. Good Luck.
It is what it says it is. It's a Canon EOS Rebel camera that happens to be digital.
First of all, there is nothing 35mm about the 300D. It doesn't have a 35mm sensor.
And that among other things leads to the camera being actually quite expensive.
The 300D comes with a lens that lets in very little light. If it is possible for there to be a good $99 lens, this might be it, but you'll end up throwing it away anyway.
IF you buy the 300D over the 10D you save $600. But you'll blow through that $600 very quickly on lenses.
Unless you were already an interchangable lens fan, you'd be better off buying a higher-end all-in-one camera like a G5,F717 or even DSC-V1. Because with those, you are done once you buy the camera (and memory).
The built-in lens on the Sony 717 (or 828) lets in 6x as much light at nearly all focal lengths as the 300D bundled lens. That makes a big difference in your pictures. And if you want to replace that lens you're looking at about $350 worth of lens and you still don't have the telephoto capability of the good all-in-ones.
With a 300D, count on buying about $1000 worth of lenses. A little less if you don't want a long telephoto (buy everyone seems to). And count on throwing some of those lenses away when dSLRs really go to 35mm sensors.
The 300D is not a good reason to switch to an SLR/dSLR. If you already had one and want to go digital, it might be for you.
My son just bought the digital rebel. His hobby is taking photos of aircraft. He posts them to jetphotos.net. It works out great to not have to make prints then scan. Also, having lots of pixels helps capture details that were lost with his 3 Mpixel Kodak. The much smaller time between button press and picture capture also helps with fast moving objects.
As one other person mentioned, using a digital is a great way to learn by trying. He gets feedback immediately instead of waiting for the drug store to process. This way he can see that what I tell him is correct (He's a teenager...what more can I say?)
Finally, if you use mail order, be careful. Some of the places sell gray market models and don't have a U.S. warranty and are missing various accessories. Also if you order on the internet, they will call you to "confirm" the order, but in reality is a high-pressure attempt to sell you accessories and warranties. There are several sites that rank the vendors...be sure to take a look before ordering.
Although we're still exploring all the features, we're very pleased with it. Unless you're a high-end pro, you might hit your limitations before the camera does.
Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? --Abraham Lincoln
After dealing with other companies and horrible customer service, I was nervous about sending it. Canon passed the test for me. I will be buying their DSLR cameras in the future...if I can afford it! But at least my investment in lenses won't go wasted, I will be able to use them on the future models.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
While I love digital cameras, there are a few major pitfalls that you need to be aware of if you plan on ditching the versatility afforded to you by an SLR camera.
Bulb photography (holding the shutter open for a long-exposure shot, very useful at night) is very hard to find. Even if you do find a digital camera with long-exposure support, the amount of time a non-cooled CCD can continue to accumulate light before the picture turns into randomized mush is limited.
Low-light photography in general is very hard to do, regardless of bulb support. Most digital cameras are pitiful at dark shots compared to a film camera.
Remote shutter buttons are also hard to find in digital cameras, although I admit I'm not sure about the new Canon one in particular. You'll never find a film SLR that doesn't support them. They eliminate almost all jitter when shooting on a tripod. Very important for those super high quality shots.
Random and weird software I've written.
If you have a lot invested in Canon Lenses the digital rebel is the way to go if you just want to get started. Between my father and I we've had about 20 digital cameras (mostly highend "prosumer" cameras.) and the digital canon definately has the most bang for the buck. Ifyou just want to learn, the basics and get a feel for manual photography, I suggest scouring ebay for an olympus e10, it has all the controls, and takes great pictures. The drawback is it does not have an interchangable lens. Though for learning, and everyday use it is almost an advantage, (you can still get macro and zoom and wide angle attachments, and you don't have to worry aout your CCD getting dusty,which is still a major concern). The other thing i like about the older e10/e20 is they don't take proprietary atteries, so you can affordably pack spares, and can pickup extras at the corner store in a pinch. Overall I recommend spending as little as possible for the features you want when starting in digital photography, because it is still a relatively new industry, and as such MAJOR improvements come almost every year,so even if you buy the top of the line (which i did when I got my e10) you'll be itching for more fairly soon. So start inexpensive and get a good feel for exactly what you want, check ebay for prices and resalevalue, so if you change your mind you know what your options are. Also as mentioned several times before goto dpreview and check out the extremely thorough reviews. You'll have a much better idea of what you want/need after spending a few hours there than after reading the comments here. -MS2k
5 years ago I bought an N70 body and two Nikon D and ED lenses. The results on film were spectacular. The money spent on the lenses was obvious compared to the camera I had before THAT (Canon A-1 and a Tamron crap lens.)
2 years ago I bought a Nikon Coolpix 775 (2mp camera) after running a good 200-250 rolls of film in three years, I dropped to 2 rolls in a year, and one roll last year. The 775 doesn't have the resolution or speed of the film setup, but the benefits suclike instant feedback and instant white balance correction far outweighed the drawbacks.
A few weeks ago I decided to cut bait and sell the film rig. I would have liked to keep the lenses and buy a DSLR body, but for Nikon, you can't touch anything for less than $1500, and I didn't have that kind of money.
Enter the 5400. The 5000 series has ED (Enhanced Dispersion, the same glass the film camera had) is SEALED (no dust on the CCD from changing lenses), had 35mm equivalent 28-120 zoom, and is quite a bit faster than the 775 was. The fact that it's a 5mp camera is something I'm STILL getting my arms around.
It takes STUNNING macro shots: http://www.millerville.cc/macro.jpg
(yes, it's sideways, I didn't want to add any noise by jpeging a jpeg)
The best news was, the net cost was $300 after trading in the film rig, and this camera is MORE than adequate for the pics I take. So, sometimes it helps to take a step back and REALLY evaluate the kind of photography you're shooting.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
In my humble opinion, DPReview has the best technical Digital Camera reviews.
i tal-rebel.shtml
(Remove the space in "digital," the posting form keeps adding it.)
Luminous Landscape has the best "using it in the real world" reviews.
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/dig
I've been using a Canon D60 for about 14 months, and haven't been tempted to touch my film SLR since the first time I tried the D60.
a 2D camera, now if it was called the 11D then that would be something...
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Plus, people who are mildly interested in cameras develop a liking for a particular camera, and having to switch to a new one is an akward progression.
I'm still wiping up the drool after seeing one of the 600mm f4 L-series lenses. I know Leica have their fans but I'm totally in love with Canon's lenses. Even the (relatively) cheap f1.4 50mm is superb (optically, though it isn't weather-resistant like the L-series).
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Very similar, but not the same. As per Canon, the die is smaller (though the sensor size is the same) and another technological process is used.
The so called "focal length multiplier" is misleading. A more accurate description is Field Of View Crop Factor (1.6x) So, you don't get that flattening of foreground into background like telephotos, using a normal lens, nor the distortion and darkening on the edges of the frame. Of course, the lens that comes with the camera takes this into account. You get a 18-55mm S type lens instead of a 28-70mm lens, which extends further into the camera body than a standard EOS SLR, making the lens seem shorter and better balanced.
No mirror lock-up :-( .. I do copy work sometimes and would appreciate a complete lack of vibrations.
Huh...really? I didn't know the 10D had such a feature. I assume that's so that the mechanical motion over the mirror doesn't shake the camera? If that is the purpose, are you sure it has that much of an impact, even on a tripod?
I checked around on my 10D and I couldn't find any such feature...not even in the custom functions. Where did you find this documented?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I've had two consumer digital camera - Canon Powershoot S110 and S400. I bought the S400 last year (wanting more the 2 MegaPixels of the S110). Same form factor as the S110 (the reason I bought the S110 in the first place).
The S400 has ever bell and whistle that a power user could want. Fully automatic, or manual mode (ISO speed 50-400, exposure control, etc.) and movie mode limited by only memory card size.
But during while at Niagra Falls, I found myself wanting my Rebel SLR camera. There were times I wanted a wider angle to take in the lanscape, I wanted aperature control so I could get a deeper depth of view, and one shoot that I though that would look good slightly out of focus. I couldn't do any of the with my S400. The kicker was that I was trying to frame a shot of sea gulls flying around in the gorge. The zoom of the S400 kept overshooting. By the time I got it set right, the shot was lost.
So after I got back home, I went out hunting for a Digital Rebel body. I absolutely love it. It couldn't suit me better. I like to a lot of exposures when I shoot photos. (I burn a lot of film.) I got the Battery Grip which allows two batteries. So I should be able to full up my 2 1Gb Microdrives before I exhaust the battery. That should be around 600 shots using JPG. And with a laptop and an AC inverter handle the only limitation of the amount of free space on the hard disk.
The biggest difference/annoyance is the cropping factor. The CMOS sensor isn't as big as a normal 35mm film frame. So you wind up with a 1.6 cropping factor. So the 18mm-55mm kit lens that comes with the Digital Rebel turns into a roughly a 25mm-90mm lens. It a big factor when shooting ultrawide shots. With the smaller sensors, you can't match the angel of view you can achive with a film camera.
Non-full frame sensor pretty much requires very sharp lenses. So you either need to buy lots of fixed-focal lenghth ones or you need a few Canon EF "L" series zooms. I own two very good "L" zooms, EF 24-70mm f/2.8 ($1125) and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (image stablilized, $1400 used but mint). I'm also planning to add ultra-wideangle zoom to this (from $700 to $1300 depending on my next year's financial situation). As you can see, the price of the body isn't the main expense here.
I have a digital rebel. I got it about 4 weeks ago. I've been nothing but pleased with it. There's no delay between shutter and picture, the mirror clicks like a regular SLR. It also writes to memory quickly (4 photo burst before it needs to catch up, plus it'll shoot 3 shots/second). I've got a 40x Lexar 512Meg card (holds about 170 full-size pics) and I think the fast card makes a difference.
One note: since it's a genuine SLR, there's no LCD preview like on non-SLR digitals. You have to use the viewfinder. It does show the picture after you take it and it'll playback really nicely. There's also a great feature that senses the orientation and sets the EXIF flag so pictures are auto-rotated for portrait. Very handy.
I used to have a Rebel-S and all my old lenses (telephoto, macro) work perfectly with the new camera. One suggestion: get the lens with the camera ($100+) since the digital modifies effective focal length by 1.6. So the 28mm zoom lens that comes with most other SLRs is actually around 45mm, which is too narrow for most stuff.
My friend has a Nikon D100 which he got about 5 months ago and he's tried both mine and his and doesn't see that much difference (at least not $500 worth). If you like the feel of a traditional SLR and want the control, then in my opinion, the Digital Rebel is the best buy.
Find me in ~/.sig
I'm waiting for the technology to mature a bit more before I take the plunge into digital cameras. I've read about the Foveon technology but it doesn't seem to have made it to the mainstream market. Is there a future for Foveon?
The Canon A60 and A70 are great cameras and take excellant photos. Although I keep mine mostly in Auto mode its nice to be able to play around with the manual settings and see how well you can do. Afterall its digital if you blow it just delete it. :)
If Anyone is looking for a highly rated, affordable, and easy to use 2-3MP camera get a Powershot A60 or A70. In the 2-3MP range these are some of the best consumer ones out there.
btw don't take my word for it, feel free to check out all the digital review sites. I've yet to read a bad review of them.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
pipingguy asks:
Canon has released the first(?) 'low-priced' digital 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses with the Digital Rebel. I've owned a few digital and non-digital cameras over the years (and am by no means a photography expert), and most annoying was the lack of manual zoom and focus, not to mention the barely-noticeable millisecond delay between button click and shutter closure. Can any owners of this and other digitals provide some opinions on how this new model compares to the more expensive digital 35mm's and typical $300 SLRs? Is it time to buy?
It is time to buy. Consider 35mm film at $10 per roll to purchase and develop per 25 frames. That's $.40 per frame. I've shot over 5,000 frames with my EOS 10D since I bought it in March (7 months). That means that I've already paid for the camera ($1500) and $500 worth of accessories (512MB CF 30X Card, USB2 Card Reader, extra battery, 550EX Flash, etc). In the money I will save over the next 6 months, I don't know what I might buy (photo related or otherwise).
You might be happy with the 300D's cheaper price and amazing feature set for its price, but I am happy with my 5,000 photos that I took with the 10D, which has the same sensor and better feature set.
The tradeoff between waiting for the next big release and buying the best now is the opportunity cost of taking all the photos. I shot 6,000+ photos with my first Digital before I bought the Elan 7, and replaced the Elan 7 ($350) with the 10D ($1500). They are identical cameras in features, except for that I've already paid off the 10D in film costs.
I wouldn't purchase a Rebel class camera because from my experience with a digital P&S, I know that I would become unhappy with the limitations. But don't take my word for it, go to www.DPReview.com and look in the 300D forum.
Don't consider just the price of the camera. Consider also what you will need to get the most out of it. Consider that you will need to buy a DVD burner and DVDs to backup the 1-2 GB of files you can shoot in a weekend. Or consider that you'll buy a 20GB portable storage device so that you can hold 3000 photos on a 10 day trip. USB1 of the camera won't do. You'll need a USB2 card reader. Don't forget that your computer probably isn't as good as it needs to be to process the hundreds of megs of files you dump into it in anything close to real time.
For $900 of camera, you need a lot of additional devices to make sense of all the data it generates.
most of my shooting has been art, though i have always been interested in resolution, or at the opposite end a lack of it. digital is great for many things and i would now consider it an equal to film in many ways. btw, i have worked in digital pre photoshop 1.0... so, ;P
but, i am looking for another camera system, and will either go with the leica 8 or 9, or another hasselblad. both take digital backs! save your pennies! the eos may be a great body, and they do have nice lenses, but if you have ever shot with leicas or zeisses, you know what lense quality will do. even nikons, the near best in may ways, cannot compete with a truly great lense.
and, how exactly do you shoot black and white with digital. you have to print at some point, even if it is simply to do it. i am not printing ciba's any longer, but a ciba print has got to be the coolest thing ever. you'll want to lick them! think down the road ten years, because that's how long you'll have this sytsem.
hell, my mind is made up... the hasselblad... but, that leica is so damned nice! grrrr.
I am a digital SLR convert. I waited until last year to switch from my EOS1-V to an EOS D60. I feared losing the control and feel that I had learned using the 1-V. Now I wish I had switched sooner. Some things to note about switching to digital:
1) The timing between shutter and button release. Digitals have a slight delay compared to most film SLRs. It takes some getting used to.
2) Printing. I take mine to a Ritz camera store and have them printed using the same chemical process that a C41 negative would be printed with. The prints run $0.39 for a 4x6, only take ~1 hour, and will last much longer than prints from an inkjet.
3) Buy a version of Adobe Photoshop. Nothing makes a photo look better than a quick blast of the unsharp mask. People will ask how you manage to take such sharp and clear photos. Cropping and color balancing can also work wonders.
4) Batteries! When your battery is low, your digital camera will respond much slower! Storing files will have a noticable delay. Buy a few extra recharable batteries and keep them handy.
5) A quality lens can go a long way toward attaining more professional looking photos. I'm not talking a cheap 70-210 zoom. Spend a little bit extra and get something with a GOOD APERATURE. Or better yet, make use of your new SLR abilities and get two! A handy 50mm f/1.4 and an expensive 70-200mm f/2.8.
6) Think about an external flash. Using the built in flash is okay, but you will get red-eye and more noticable shadows than if you had an external. Plus the built in flash can really drain your camera's batteries!
The bottom line? Merely switching to digital is not going to give you instant ability. It can make learning easier (instant-grat is so nice), but nothing takes the place of practice and knowing your camera. Laying out the cash for a good lens is an important step in my mind, but might be a little much for most hobbists. Join a club and borrow some lens from other members so that you can see the difference between an average and a quality lens.
- There is no sig.
I've had a Canon 10D for a few months now. The camera is absolutely superb -- I even have a 36" x 48" print of one of the shots I've taken with it hanging on my wall, and it impresses people when I tell them it was shot digitally.
That being said, I've found one major drawback: sensor dust. On one trip, I shot an image at F/22 that had a lot of blue sky in it. When I got home, I discovered little black specks and what could only be a hair showing up in the image. Cleaned the lenses and the mirror, took another sky shot, same problem.
It turns out that the dust and dirt is on the sensor. I haven't had it cleaned yet (I hate to part with it for that long, and unless I'm shooting at high F stop settings it doesn't show up much), but rumor has it that doing it yourself is a big no-no, so I'm unwiling to try it. Plan to have this camera cleaned every few months if your'e in to serious photography.
In other words, you'll end up with higher maintenance in return for your phenomenal photos.
Personally, I'm happy with it -- but if you're picky and don't like having it cleaned a lot, you're in for a disappointment unless you're *really* *really* careful not to get dust in it.
--ZS
-- sigs cause cancer.
DCRP Review: Canon Digital Rebel
A mirror lock up feature is extremely useful in situtations using a long lens with a small aperature and a long exposure. Locking the mirror up prior to exposure eliminates any vibrations that are created by the movement of the mirror. The vibrations of the mirror movement may also cause problems extreme close ups such as macro shots, copy stands, and microscope mounts.
Canon has never been good with backwards/forwards compatability or interchangeability in its cameras.
Nikon has been far better in the ability to not only use one lense across multiple Nikon bodies, but also with the bodies of other manufacturers.
If you decide to go Canon, you are most likely stuck with that family of models and bodies, whereas a Nikon lense could be used on next year's models, or the year after.
Consider that when deciding how "cheap" it is.
Now: Should you buy a digital SLR? That depends, I think, on how much you will shoot and what you will shoot. The two biggest advantages of a DSLR over a film SLR are immediacy and cost. The disadvantages are a focal length multiplier (in the case of the Canon EOS-300D/10D) and a high initial cost.
As with all digicams, you can see your results instantly, allowing you to check the shot and retry it if needed (and possible). One note though: a DSLR is a true SLR (single-lens reflex) so unlike a regular digicam you can't shoot using the LCD -- you'll have to use the viewfinder just like the rest of us. It's better for framing a shot anyway, trust me.
The focal length multiplier (1.6x in the Canon case) comes in handy if you're shooting through a 200mm lens -- it becomes equivalent to a 320mm lens. It's a bitch if you want to shoot wide-angle, though, as a 28mm lens becomes a 45mm equivalent.
The initial cost of a DSLR is high -- you've got a much higher cost to buy the body, and you've got to buy a memory card. However, the more you shoot, the more cost-efficient it becomes. Excepting the cost of lenses, which is the same for both film and digital SLRs, the cost after buying is 0. Film development isn't cheap, particularly not if you shoot thousands of shots a year.
So, if you're seriously interested in photography, it's worth it. If you're just shooting the occasional vacation or family event, it's not worth it. My D30 and 10D (had to buy it after I broke the D30 on vacation, but I wanted it anyway :) have served me well over the last 2 1/2 years, and I haven't looked back.
One final caveat: many people upgrade their photography hardware and expect things to magically become better. Pros do not have access to magical make-photos-good-now equipment that us mere mortals lack (though perhaps there's a Photoshop filter I'm missing?). To take photos like Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell takes talent, practice, and loads of patience. Good equipment can help make the task easier, but there is no magic pill.
I've been using a pair of Nikon SLR cameras since I took a photography class in college and got to use my parent's circa 1970 Nikkormat cameras. The "new" one was built at a point when auto-shutter speed was a novelty, but you still had to set the aperture yourself; the other one is fully manual. Learning photography on equipment like this really made me come to enjoy the balance among shutter speed, focal length, etc, and even if I'm just poking around I'd rather work with something like than any modern point & shoot.
On the other hand, I've got a little digital camera now, and the convenience of it does have a lot of appeal. I took this camera to take pictures of a Man or Astroman concert a few years ago, and it was very educational to be able to "shoot from the hip", get instant feedback on what was & wasn't working (hint: at a rock concert, there's plenty of light, so don't bother with the flash, and have fun with any camera shake you end up with). The picture quality might not be as great as film, but the flexibility is a gift in itself.
That has led me to start looking around for a new pair of SLRs, one film, one digital. Ideally, I'd like to be able to have the same set of lenses that could be mounted on both a film & a digital camera body, and since I've been happy with Nikon, I'd like to get their gear. But damn it's expensive -- the "low end" D100 lists from $1400 to 1700, and the high end ones -- which in some areas seem to have lower specs than the D100 -- can be more than double that price. Yow!
I've been told that Nikon compatible kit is sold under a variety of labels, including Fuji, but I don't know enough about the compatibles to have made any decisions yet -- and from what I've seen, they're just as expensive as Nikon anyway. Does it make sense to go with someone like Fuji, or is the quality any better with "genuine" Nikon? (I'm a few decades behind on this stuff....)
I think the thing that scares me off so far is the durability, not just in terms of how rugged or useful the equipment will be in the future, but in the value. For example, the Nikon D1, from 1999, could do roughly 2.6 megapixels, as does the current D1H -- but that's barely a third of what the D100 can do, and the price is double the D100. Why that is isn't entirely clear to me, but it is clear that 2.6 mpix isn't a particularly big number anymore, where 5 mpix or 6 mpix point & shoot cameras are available for just a few hundred bucks.
++++
So there's the thing, in a nutshell: should it be assumed that the long term valuation of digital cameras, including digital SLRs, will have a trend like computers, in that you can always get a lot more capability for a lot less money than was available a year before? Or will these digital SLRs retain their value & utility better, the way the 30 year old traditional SLRs I'm using are still useful instruments today? I'm ready to get some of this new equipment, but the depreciation seems like it's going to be so steep that it still seems worth it to wait for at least a couple more years.
++++
At this point my hunch is that whenever Nikon upgrades the D100, I'll end up getting either the replacement model, or I'll try to find a closeout or second hand D100 hoping for a decent discount on it.
</rambling>
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
At ISO 1600 it's a bit noisier than the 10D at 3200. The 10D has 'real' MLU as well as delay MLU. I have used my 10D on starry skies with the 50mm f/1.8 II to great effect. I want the 35mm f/1.4 L next.
The camera I want will:
It would be nice if it:
I guess I can dream for:
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You might as well ask when that feature will come to the film Rebels. I'd assume never. It is just another way they seperate their "consumer" bodies from their "pro" bodies.
You ask is it time to buy? Nope. Time to buy was a year or two ago, not because the cameras then were as good as 35mm film (they weren't, though the 1Ds is and in many ways the 10D/D60/D300 are close). But because the digital experience would change the way you to photography.
For a long time I advocated "shoot on film, but shoot like crazy because you will have to shoot a lot of film to match what you will pay in depreciation on your digital." That stopped being true a while ago.
Asking "Is it time to buy" is like asking, "Is it time to get a PC now?" Well, there are people buying their first PC today, and perhaps it is right for them as late adopters. But the truth is that even though today's PC is much better than yesterday's, and a digital camera will come out much better than the Rebel 300D in another 2 years, it is still time to buy, as it was time to buy 2 years ago.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
I worked at a small town film lab during my high school years (2 years ago). I got into photography with the wonderful minolta x-700. I had an assortment of wide angle, telephoto, and fisheye lens that were not too expensive. I got film and processing for free and I usually had time to tweak each print to my liking.
I haven't gotten into digital photography as an art form (yet) because I guess I'm too much of a purest. There is something about the light particles/waves hitting the silver hallide emusion that takes me back. Watching the film come out of the developer was always fun. The best part, however, was watching the prints come out of the printer still hot.
When most people drop off their film, they do not know how each photo can be tweaked slightly to make it look a lot better. Most people drop their film off at a walmart 1 hour and get some inept pseudo technician to run them through the machines. So I can see how people get this empowerment of editing their photos in photoshop.
There are several things I have not seen digital cameras handle. One of which is my favorite, reciprosity failure. This allows incredible color shifts that occur when you leave the shutter open for a long time while still properly exposing the film. Few digital cameras have the bulb feature, exept for very expensive ones. Bulb allows you to capture star trails and make water falls look like ghosts sliding down rocks. These are emotions and experiences that people who make the switch to digital would probably not encounter.
If you want to take snapshots and the occasional wanna be photographer of some flower in your garden, then by all means try digital. You may save yourself a few bucks. But if you want to get completely engorged in real photography, keep taking pictures on real film. And I still think there is a lot more technology and innovation in kodak film than kodak cameras (I own both).
As for an answer to the parent, try it out. Go to a local camera store that carries that camera and check it out hands on. See how it feels and works. I've sold a lot of film Canon Rebels and I always thought they were chincy and too plasitiky. So in that respect, I'd stay away from them. If you want to get into photography and don't think that you must go digital, invest a couple hundred dollars in a nice used canon ae1, nikon f1, or minolta x-700. It will take a little more effort to make a good picture, but it's so worth it. And make sure you take your film to a good place, trust me. I've worked at these places and it makes a HUGE difference. You have no idea how a place like walmart or cvs can save on time and money that local shops won't
but frankly, I'd rather ask Slashdot on this question ;)
I really like dpreview, rely on Phil A. to have in-depth reviews, etc. However, it's a narrow site. This is not to say that all the people who take part in the discussions are themselves narrow, but if you ask on Digital Photography Review whether digital photography is ready to replace film (at least in SLRs: it's easier to "prove" -- as in argue convincingly -- that this has happened already with point-and-shoots), the responses might be even more polarized than they are here.
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Since Feb. of this year I have taken 8k photos with my D60, compared to around 400 film photos. here are my observations:
NOw, with respect to your question.
Unless you are a serious photographer, you will "waste" your money in a D60 instead of a 300D. The reasons are many:
But on the other hand, there is one reason why I would buy the 300D:
Photographers will always tell you that the camera does not make the photographer. Also, that you should invest your money not in the camera, but in the glass. That is why the EOS SLRs do such a good job. Mount a 85 1.8 on either one of these babies and see for yourself!
There is something funny about this. In the past, owning a Leica was a dream for many, because of its price. Now even a Leica looks cheap compared to some digital models. These days I am not affraid any mo
I picked up the Rebel for 2 basic reasons:
1) It has very low shutter lag and will allow me to capture those cool moments. My old point/shoot digital would take eons to focus and most 'precious moments' shots would be lost forever.
I've been playing with the Camera most of the evening and have found that lighting conditions play a big part in shutter lag. Less light=more delay. Overall shutter lag is low and results in excellent performance.
2) My wife can use it. Lots of automatic everything on this camera. She can pick it up and take great pictures of our kid with the the touch of one button.
The Digital Rebel has less manual/creative settings that the D10 - but for my needs it's great. Very happy so far.
And as for turning digital over film - I've never looked back. The advantages and convinience of digital far outweigh any perceptions of image degradation.
Hope this helps,
Mario
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.jsp?cat=1&grp=2&p roductNr=25203PDP
It's got build in 802.11b, does 8 frames per second (up to 40)! And it's a Nikon.
That's a common misconception. A 1.4 crop means only half the light falls on the sensor. It only seems free becuase of bit of slight of hand in the way sensor sensitivity is measured.
Digital sensor elements are activated by photons. More photons, less noise. However, ISO numbers are based on photon *density*. Shrink the sensor while keeping the optics the same and fewer photons reach the sensor. The noise level goes up but the ISO number stays the same.
Thus, the noise level that can be achived at ISO200 with full frame, requirers dropping to ISO100 with a 1.4 crop.
From the reading I did on DPReview, I believe the Rebel lacks spot metering - so the metering capabilites are not the same. Actually most of the differences come in the form of software limitations that are seemingly meant to make you buy the 10D.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hi, I'm an amateur. I don't have a lot of contact with pros, so I was wondering if you could tell us about how you print these digital shots? And how does it vary from the 4x6s to the 20x30s?
Thanks,
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
At the high end shows, Canon always has a booth were they loan out a variety of cameras. Let them copy your DL and a credit card, you can borrow it for free for a day.
The Experimental Aircraft Association show in Oshkosh in July is one, I've got great pix from the last one. They set up at some consumer electronics shows.
I ended up buying a G3, for me the SLRs (either style) is just too heavy for what I do. Besides, the Kenko lenses work just fine with the P&Ss.
My wife (emphoto.com) is a pro-photographer, so we follow all of this very closely. She's using Canon 10D and D60 bodies, but the EOS Rebel looks like a great camera, especially for the price.
I run a photo sharing site that quite a lot of pro photographers use, and they've taken a lot of test shots with them already:
Garden
Test shots
Botanical Center
Botanical Center #2
Sunset
Night Shots
A Wedding
Westminster City Park
dpreview also has a great review, as always.
Don
my smug mug is on smugmug
Here's a good business plan
1) check out the specs reviews and samples at www.dpreview.com
2) Once you've narrowed your selection down go to www.yahoogroups.com and check out a few lists relating to your camera model. If you subscribe to a list, get it as a digest so that it doesn't clutter your inbox.
3) decide whether or not to buy locally. If you locally you can get problems fixed quicker. If you buy online, check the vendors rating at http://www.resellerratings.com/ to avoid ending up with reburbished or gray market crap for $500 off retail.
4) get on some more mailing lists, and see what others are doing.
5) win some photo contests with your new found skills.
6) PROFIT!
No attempt is made to expand on this acronym, no link is provided.
Next up on "Ask Slashdot": What the fuck is SLR ?
In terms of quality, these digital SLRs are comparable to, or even better than, film. And given the cost of film, they are cost effective, too.
The problem is: they are not 35mm cameras, the sensor is smaller than 35mm film. That means that you get a focal length multiplier and are more limited on the wide angle side.
If you want a drop-in replacement for a 35mm camera, you need a full-frame digital SLR. Or, alternatively, get a non-SLR digital camera.
how do all these dslr fair when you are hiking for
2 weeks ?
I currently have a pentax that needs no batteries to function
it only needs a battery for the light meter and if you
shoot enough, you know what settings you need anyway
if these things dont need 50lbs in batteries I might consider it.
The latest Rebel is mighty tempting, I know. But it still has a CCD that's close to 1/2 the area of a normal 35mm frame. Marketing types try to tell you this is a "focal multiplier" and convince you're getting more zoom for your buck, but what you're really doing is sacrificing versatility. You'd have to spend about $3000 on glass to get anything near wide-angle capability with this new Rebel. So forget about those landscapes. Personally I'd rather spend half that at the outset and get the superior body, the D10.
:)
The second thing that annoys me about this camera is it has been "dumbed down" for no good reason other than to keep the D10 marketable. The only real difference between it and the 300D are some extra control dials and the viewfinder; electronically they're almost identical. Canon knows that a thumb-dial isn't good enough to convince buyers to spend twice as much on the D10, so they just ripped out all the 300D's custom functions. Gutted them. Even though all the electronic capability is their. I don't know about you, but something just bothers me about buying a product that's been lobotomized. I'm half hoping someone will find a way to flash update the 300D with a 10D bios, or something, like they use to do with those HiPoint software RAID controllers, Lite-On CD-Rs, graphics cards, etc.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
An advantage of digital I've not seen mentioned yet is the speed with which you get results. You take shots, you plug the camera into your computer (or yank the card from the camera and put it in your card reader) and - boom! - there are your shots, all ready for printing, messing about with in Photoshop, sending to friends etc etc. No dropping a roll off at the lab, waiting, going back for it, scanning, ordering prints etc etc.
Now, I know this is only really important for some classes of pro photographers, but as a 'casual' photographer I have taken more pics with the Nikon 950 I picked up cheap a year ago than in the previous several years with the Canon film SLR that's gathering dust on the shelf over there, and the instant gratification of digital is a big part of the reason.
A related advantage is that you can review your pics on the camera's LCD immediately after you've taken them, and eliminate total duds straight away.
A downside, so I don't come across as shilling too much for digital: if you're travelling, with no way to dump images off your camera's flash card, you're stuffed when you reach the capacity. With film, you just buy more rolls; the equivalent 'buy more and bigger cards' gets spendy quickly.
I'm saving up for the magnesium-bodied, Japanese-made Canon 10D over the plastic-bodied, Taiwanese-made 300D, but I'm fully aware I may just be being a hardware snob.
"Professional" reviewers of photographic equipment are almost always far too positive. Among other things, they usually depend on getting free loaners to review, and if they trashed a camera in a review, they might not get more free loaners in the future. Some of the digital cameras I have had have been real duds, yet they all received reasonably good reviews.
And then you have the analog traditionalist nuts, the photographic equivalent of the people who claim that vinyl and tubes are higher quality than CDs. You can have a 48Mpixel camera and they'll still claim that some random 35mm film beats it.
And what does it matter anyway? Digital is just different from analog. If you have the money, give it a try and see whether you like it. If you don't have the money, don't even get started.
what is that supposed to be? either it is "35mm slr" or "digital slr", but not "digital 35mm slr". this made my day - slashdot posting something as wrongly titled as this. haha!
check out the D100 forum on Nikonians site for good feedback on the D100.
http://www.nikonians.org/
I'd doubt the would as the 300D is targeted at the EOS-300 (film equivalent) beginner market. As such I'd doubt the Mirror lockup function will appear for it.
I've been playing with my D30 for astrophotography for a while now and I'v have been slightly dissapointed with the results, but I've not had enough time to play with it, so the quality may be partly me.
The imager on it seems to be more sensitive to light pollution especially in the red wave lengths, so I need to sort out a filter - hopefully then the image quality will improve.
I'd advise the 10D, but that said on ebay there are D30/D60's going for a nice price, D30's are going for around 500 quit, D60's around 700 second hand. [sorry don't know the current Stirling/US$ rate]
Java gaming nut - http://www.retep.org/ or for the rail http://uktra.in/
You got to remember that the Digital Rebel (called EOS 300-D in Europe, and Kiss in Asia) is not a digital 35mm SLR. It's a small-format SLR. What this means, is that the CMOS-sensor in use is far smaller than a traditional 35mm film. At the moment, the only SLR which got a TRUE 35mm image-sensor, is the Canon EOS 1Ds, which got a 11MegaPixels CMOS sensor at 35mm. The EOS 1Ds also cost $7000+.
So what does this mean? It means that your sensor will be more prone to noise than a bigger sensor will be. But the sensor in the Rebel is the same as for the 10D, and short said _EXCELLENT_! At higher ISO-settings you will get little noise, but more than you would if the sensor was a 35mm. Heck, compare this sensor against the (much (physical) smaller) sensor in point-and-shoot cameras. You will see that this sensor can do ISO-800 with as little Noise as most point-and-shoot's can do at 100 and 200. It's amazing..
Also, it means wide-angle will become hard (expensive). The sensor in use is 1.6x smaller than a 35mm, and this means the perspective you get from a 50mm prime, will equal 80mm. This is obviously not a bonus. But Canon thought.. How can we make this sound good? Yeah, let's just say it's a 1.6x telephoto-converter which you can use without losing aperture! Great, so Canon makes us believe that their small-format sensor actually is something good. It's not. You don't get additional telephoto. You will get a crop from a 35mm sensor, and if you blow this and the same image from a 35mm up in the same dimention, it will look like it's magnified 1.6x times. And indeed it is. It's magnified! This is like a digital zoom! You will just stretch the crop to the correct size. So don't get fooled by the 1.6x tele-factor.
One wide-angle this makes things very expensive. A 24mm wide-angle becomes a 38.4mm, and to get a true 24mm you have to get a 15mm (non-fisheye), which is indeed expensive.
But the rebel is surely a great camera, beating the H*LL out of point-and-shoot models. I ordered it myself, but canceled the order and got the Canon EOS 10D instead, which use the same sensor (same 1.6x whatever-factor) but is more solid built in a magnesium body, and overall a better quality-camera, but at a higher price.
People tend to forget that a Film SLR doesn't depreciate as rapidly as a Digital and with good hardware like a high resolution negative drum scanner, you will get a picture quality that far exceeds a Digital. Technology is still far away for when digital surpasses film in sheer quality and resolution especially for the professional photographer. Digital's advantages however are that you can freely experiment taking photos without worrying about wasting film and developing provided you don't print most of your pictures (could get expensive printing). Still, a point hasta be made. Do you plan on being a "shutter bug" or no? I remember reading an article somewhere that if you don't plan on shooting in the thousands of pictures a year then your digital camera may not be worth it.
They have the same chipset and sensor after all..
Essentially, you the image you see in the view-finder is actualy through the lens.
Its amazing to me how many people slam the D Rebel because its not a 10D. What do they expect for the price difference? They should be comparing the D Rebel price to high end compact digicams which makes the D Rebel an unbelievable value.
That said, if you can find a 10D within $200-300 of a D Rebel, I would spend the extra money.
Mirror lockup is available with CF 12-1. When this function is set, the first press of the shutter button locks the mirror up. The second press releases the shutter for exposure.
Coupled with the TC-80N3 remote release, you can time exposures up to 999 seconds without touching the camera.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
I have been shooting with a Sony DSC S70 for over 3 years and I have been so happy with it and its Carl Zeiss lens that I have dragged my feet when these new affordable digital SLRs started showing up. A friend of mine bought the 10D (which is way pricier than the Rebel Digital) and showed me some of his sample shots.
The added exposure and shutter control are obvious. The exposure is dead on target and very little noise at high ISO. He got two lenses so he deffinitely took a hit in the wallet, but at least you can notice the difference. The evening shots are simply gorgeous.
A week after he got the 10D, he met a photographer that was using a mix of film SLRs and Rebel Digitals. *His* samples look as good as the ones off the 10D. My friend was pissed because he spent over a grand above what the other photographer did and their pictures were pretty much identical.
I would love the Rebel Digital but my DSC S70 still has some kick left on her, and I got used to carry it (I used to carry a Nikon SLR and two lenses) so I don't know if I am going to grab a Canon G5 or the Rebel.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
The only true "35mm" DSLRs are the ones with full-frame sensors. Check prices, and you'll see that we're nowhere near a $1,000 35mm DSLR yet.
If one takes care of the negatives, images stored on film could last decades. One would be hard pressed to find a digital media storage method that has that kind of confirmed longevity.
For those of you who might already own Pentax-compatible flash units, optics, etc...don't forget about the *istD, which is now (finally) shipping. I've just obtained one and, aside from a few very minor glitches, am delighted with it. More info at Pentax's website.
To me that is the first question that needs to be answered. I still shoot all film and here are my reasons why. 1. To purchase a digital SLR(I have an EOS Elan II now so I want something similar if I switch to digital) I would probably buy a 10D which runs about $1500. 2. I would need memory cards to hold all the pictures I might take. Since I would shoot in the highest quality setting( I paid $1500 why would I shoot at a lower quality. I'd buy a lower quality camera if I wanted to to that) which would mean I'd buy 1 gig of memory, let's say that is $200. I've spent $1700 to get into a digital setup. I currently shoot around 3 rolls a month. I shoot consumer grade film because the quality is really very good. I develop at a higher end place because I believe it is better. I spend around $14/roll to buy and develop. So I spend round $50 a month on my hobby. I can continue to shoot film for 3 years for what it would take to get me into a similar digital setup now. So for me to reap any savings costs I'm looking years into the future before I'm any where near break even. I also look at true development costs. I can shoot a roll of film and drop it off. With digital I can't really see the quality of my shot in the 1 1/2" inch screen on the camera so I'll have to either upload the pictures to my computer and judge which ones I want to print or spend the time at some kiosk deciding which ones to print. That also adds time costs to shooting digital. I have many friends who shoot digital and love it and I see the quality in their prints. For me there is just too much time and money involved right now for me to make the switch. I'm also not convinced the cd's I save my photos on will either work or be accessible in 25 years. I'm am convinced my 35mm negatives stored in a firebox will be around and printable in 25 years.
Digital versus Film. Such the debate has been on going for a few years now. Which one is better, which has the higher quality, etc etc etc. In the post is asks is it time to switch? I will say this being a photog. If you are going to switch to digital photography and are heavily into photo-editing to the point where you actually bought Adobe Photoshop (versus pirating it) then I recommend getting a Digital SLR camera. I would wait to see what Canon or Nikon will throw out next. As if they throw out something better, the current Rebel is going to drop a bit in price. (Save yourself some money)
The most expensive thing in photography isn't the camera. It is your lenses.
Now if you aren't the heaviest photo editor but want to get into digital and leave film behind you, then go get one of the compact digi cameras like the Elf. It will suit your means just fine.
As for all you film buffs out there who refuse to switch, don't worry, film isn't going anywhere. It may get used less for conventional purposes, but film still has its use. Believe me, I know. If you are worried that Digi cameras are going to surpass film. Don't worry, they will. It is just a matter of time till Digi cameras take better quality pictures than 35mm. But if you are the serious Photog, you always know there is medium format followed up by Large Format.
I hope any of this advie helps. Oh and my N90s will never ever hit Ebay. It is too cherry of a camera to just throw it up for sale. Now if it was an Elan II then sure, then again I am not a fan of the Eos lineup at all.
If you are serious about an SLR, you probably are going to invest many thousands of dollars in optics. This is where you pretty much want to choose a lens system and buy a camera body that will work with the lenses you want to buy. The two major choices are Nikon and Canon. As another poster has written, Nikon doesn't have anything in the range of the Digital Rebel, but at $1500, the D100 is not a bad buy. Both Nikon and Canon DSLRs are getting great reviews. I've got a D100 and am perfectly happy with it, but Canons are fine as well. As to different models within a given brand, the more expensive bodies tend to have better autofocusing and metering and more flexibility in exposure modes. You'll find that autofocusing on low-end DSLRs (<$2000) is like AF on low-end film SLRs (<$800): slow and sometimes inaccurate, but generally quite adequate if you're not shooting sporting events through bit telephotos.
In the long run, you are likely to spend a lot more money on lenses than on your camera body, so it's worth thinking carefully about which line of lenses you want to commit to. If you end up in five years with several thousand invested in Canon or Nikon lenses you will be pretty much be locked into that brand. For this reason, I would focus on the long term and maybe pay several hundred dollars more for a body from one brand than I would for another if I liked the lenses better (or already had a substantial investment in glass) from that company. If you don't have a lot of glass already, Canon makes great lenses and lots of other companies make EOS-compatible lenses, so you would do fine with the Canon body.
As to cost, a $1500 digital SLR is about equal to a $500 film SLR and the Digital Rebel is probably about equal to the lowest-end Canon Rebels. What's worth considering when you weigh these costs is that film is not cheap if you take a lot of pictures. My estimates is that if you just buy good color negative film and have a decent lab process it and burn it onto CD (no prints), you are talking about something like $0.50 per frame, more if you want high-resolution scans of your negatives. I shoot about 5,000 frames per year, so at this rate eliminating the film saves me something around $2500 per year.
As to image quality, the current crop of DSLRs, even with their APS-sized sensors (18x24 mm instead of the 24x36mm film format) give you enough resolution to do about 7x10 inch prints at 300dpi (that's the standard for magazine printing) and you can really go somewhat larger (12x18 or so) with enough quality that you'd be quite happy to hang the print on your wall.
If this camera has a body like the SLR rebel, which is to say plastic, it's not worth nine hundred bucks. The rebels are okay cameras but I finally picked one up (as in physically) the other day - The Rebel Ti mind you - and the build quality is nonexistent. I wouldn't trust the 35mm SLR rebels to last at all, but they only cost a couple hundred bucks (note: Buying one used would be ridiculous) so I'd say they're still a pretty good buy given that they come with a little macro/zoom lens, and they have a dashboard in them so you don't have to keep taking your eye away from the viewfinder when using their slightly-unusual controls (as compared to a traditional manual SLR.) But I certainly wouldn't spend $900 on a plastic digital camera, even one with interchangable lenses.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There are a lot of diffrent types of digital SLR cameras. They are not "digital 35mm SLR" cameras, they are just digital SLR. They are the primary camera for all of the photo journalism community and I have been using them for about 7 years now.
It's just fun to watch the uneducated masses attempt to talk about something they have no clue about.
I didn't see anyone mention the Nikon DSLR camera. I'm a big Nikon fan (I own the CoolPix 5700) and am thinking of buying one of the D100 in the next year or so. If you really want quality and are willing to spend the extra money, I'd highly recommend the Nikon line of camera's. I've had nothing but good luck from them.
14 MP, but lots of noise. Less useful information captured than the good canon, according to some test I read (photo.net?)
Even the recently-released A80 has spot-metering. The Digital Rebel is crippled. *sigh*
I'm saving my money, and am waiting to see how the F828 performs. If sony can keep noise down and generally improve upon the F717 (continuous shooting would be nice, sony!), I'm likely going for that.
Alternately, I'm hoping for a price war in the SLR world. I might even pick up a used Olympus E10/20, which are really nice cameras, appart from the unchangeable lens (MP count is not so important for me -- quality of delivered pixels matters more).
The super-zoom panasonic is nice (that I just like the design helps too), but if you get a canon lens-mount camera, their IS series of lenses will keep you happy (and not TOO poor ~$500 IIRC).
I've also noticed that I rarely use all of my 3x zoom on my ultra-compact Canon S400 (love it! Would like it even more with a few manual controls, tho), so an ultra zoom is not my cup of tea. Different strokes... (If I had an SLR, would probably just put a prime lens on it and carry a zoom for occasional use)
Maybe it's worth waiting for a Foveon-chipped camera with a 35mm-equivalent exposure area? The only one on the market now uses the X3 chip, which is basically a 25mm, and has a 1.7x multiplier..
Maybe the next generation?
There were several discussions about this on dpreview, and a very interesting example of the effects of mirror shake (sorry, no time to look for them right now). The short story is that the 10D can do mirror lockup and the 300D apparently can't.
Unfortunately the physics dictates that the noise of the Sony F828 is not going to come close to that of the Canon Digital Rebel or 10D. The sensor is just too small to get similar noise levels or low light performance.
The pixels of the sensor on the F828 are smaller that those on the Canon DSLRs, so they can't collect as much light and noise is going to be higher.
The D1x and D1h don't have the megapixels that the D100 has, but they have much better metering and autofocus modules, as well as better capabilities for burst photography.
The D100 lets you shoot 4 frames and then you have to wait a minute for it to write the frames to the CF card.
The D1x lets you shoot about 8 frames before the buffer fills, and the D1h lets you shoot something like 40 frames. This matters to some people. These two cameras also have a much better & faster autofocus module, which I don't need but which can make a lot of difference for someone shooting a footballer through a 300mm lens.
Also, if you plan on shooting under physically rough conditions, you might want a rugged magnesium body that will survive dropping and getting water splashed on it. The D100 is fine for people like me or you, but if I were a professional journalist a plastic body might not take the beating a pro's camera is subjected to in the field. At the same time, if the picture's going to end up on newsprint you don't need 6 megapixels to get adequate resolution.
So you and I are better with something more like a D100, but for the pros there are good reasons to drop 3-5 grand on a rugged high-performance camera.
As to long-term valuation, in 5 years I expect my D100 to take as good pictures as it does now. I haven't sold any of my film cameras and probably will not sell the D100 when I eventually buy a new body, so what's the problem with valuation?
http://www.dcviews.com/press/Panasonic-DMC-FZ10.ht m
But doing some digging around I find that you are correct. It does indeed do F2.8 throughout it's complete range. Wonder how they have managed that ?
I have to ask though, do you actually need F2.8 anyway. The two reasons for wanting an aperture that wide are for getting a very shallow depth of field and for taking shots in low light.
If you want that shallow a depth of field then you probably want it for portraits or the like. In which case going the Canon route you could pick up a cheap EF 50 F/1.8 for $150 or so, which would give you an even tighter depth of field.
If you want it for low light use then you need to remember that the Canons have very usable 800 and 1600 ASA modes (they have less noise than most of the pro-sumers at 100 ASA). This means that you easily gain an extra 3 stops, so an F/4.5 on the Canons will equal the Panasonic's F/2.8
You could therefore get very close to the range you want with the EF 24-85 F/3.5-4.5 plus EF 75-300 IS F/4-5.6. This would get you close to the wide end (38mm Canon vs. 35mm Panasonic) and give you 480mm (at 35mm equiv) image stablized at the long end. You could get both of these good lenses for under $850.
If you really need the extra 3mm on the wide end then you could go with the 18-55mm kit lense and the EF 75-300 IS. That would leave you with a gap between 55mm and 75mm, but that is hardly the end of the world and you could fill it later.
I have both the 24-85 and the 75-300 IS and they are good lenses. The 75-300 is a bit plastic, but you have to consider that it is under $500 the other 300mm IS lense from Canon EF 300 F/4.0 L IS is $1500 or so, which makes the 75-300 a bit of a bargin.
Argh. I just typed in a whole post and lost it. *sigh*. Here goes again...
:) Also, don't expect the entire image to be tack sharp f/4.5! I'm not saying you don't know this stuff, but lots of people have made the jump to the 10D and complained about poor images when in reality it was one of the above two issues.
:) Before you know it you'll need a camera bag, a tripod, a big CF/microdrive, a copy of Photoshop, extra batteries (www.sterlingtek.com will save you a ton; I have two, they rock), and on and on and on. It's an expensive hobby, but it's a lot of fun!
I have the Canon 10D, the older sibling to the new Digital Rebel. I love it. I won't rehash what others have already posted and had modded up, but here are some additional thoughts.
The Digital rebel doesn't have any of the items that concern you. As with any other SLR you can do manual focus, manual aperature, manual shutter speed, or let the camera do it. You can add an external flash, and you can swap lenses. I switched from a old Canon film SLR, and love my new digital world.
Here are some other random thoughts:
1) Remember that the digital Rebel really is an SLR, so you'll need to be a bit more knowledgable about things like shutter speed, camera shake, and depth of field. Don't blame the camera when you take a shot at 1/20 and it's all blurry from camera shake
2) Just the camera won't be enough
3) You'll want more than one lens before you know it. Check out the Lens form at www.dpreview.com to find some good suggestions for inexpensive starter lenses to build your collection. Of course, if you have a wad of cash, by all means get the L glass *grin*.
4) Costco is a great place to print out your lovely digital pictures. They'll do 12x18" prints for $2.99. What a steal! 4x6" prints are only $0.19. The quality is incredible, too. The best part is all Costco printers are profiled by www.drycreekphoto.com, so if you have good colour calibration for your monitor you can ensure your prints will look like what you want before printing.
In short, yes, now is a good time to buy. Get the Rebel, and enjoy!
Neil
No use to go too much beyond your eyes resolution. Just like 96Khz/24bit audio is most likely all you need.
Digital photo are of CD quality now - close to perfect, but not quite for an audiphile.
More important limitation is the dynamic range, not resolution. Even 20x24 camera platinum negative is nowhere NEAR the dynamic range of you eyes.
But the end is near. Rather soon our eyes and ears will be the final limitation.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
But is this mechanism really needed on a digital camera with a good LCD viewfinder? Doesn't it just drive up the cost and complexity of the camera? Also an LCD viewfinder has at least one great advantage over the optical one, since it shows you how the final image would be exposed. I can't really see any merit of an optical solution if the LCD resolution and quality gets good enough.
So, in short I think the SLR in "SLR" is overhyped. Give me a digital camera with good manual adjustment possibilites and exchangable optics, and I would be happy!
Canon's Website has driver downloads for Windows XP and Mac OS X. But what about Linux?
But I also have a Canon F1, A1, AE1 Program, Pentax K1000, Voitlander 6 x 6, and a Lomo LC-A. I find myself using the 10D more than any of my film based cameras.
However - I have NOT given up on film.
First, the 10D is not a 35mm frame. Yes, the images that come off it are the same size as PhotoCD (not pro, but still...), and they do look mighty purdy, but in some ways you are loosing image resolution a bit - not much, mind you, but you are still loosing it over what you are going to get on film.
To my eye Canon has got that whole "digital looks too much like video" thing licked. When I was shopping a few years ago there was not a camera out there that did not blow whites out and make them look flat. Even my Sony F707, which is only two years old blows the whites out. And so does the images I have seen off the 717. I have yet to see whites blown out on the 10D other than when I want them to be blown out.
But this all still gets down to cost. If you want a camera to shoot 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7, you still need to stick with film unless you have the buckage for one of those super expensive backs for the Mamiyas. And if you want to buy a 35mm digital that actually takes a image 35mm across, you again need to spend quite a few bucks on something like the EOS 1Ds. Those things ain't cheap.
However, if you are looking at the Rebel digital, I don't think you can go wrong one bit with it. The only thing it lacks over the 10D is buffer memory for doing rapid pictures and a magnesium body. It is the same camera the rest of the way.
You are going to be able to take pictures that you most likely will not be able to tell apart from film. I still need to do a blind test, but from what I have seen on the images I have taken, I can not tell a difference at all. They look gorgeous, and most importantly, they look like they came off of film. I love the way film looks, and this camera does it.
I have sitting next to me an enormous 4' by 5' (or something obscene like that) photographic print made in our Sensitized Products lab (I work for Fujifilm).
You're right. They're incredible.
+++ATH0
I couldn't believe it myself. I basically use that feature all the time as a crude meter to measure exposure for different areas of a photo if I am being careful about exposure (I am too lazy/cheap to buy a dedicated meter). I didn't think they EVER made a camera without that feature, I would not have thoguht to check if it was missing!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You are correct, there goes one of my points. I thought there was some limit in metering... come to think of it I think you get only one of the metering modes on the 10D.
I was thinking about a 10D but bought a Sigma SD9 instead, which is a great camera for what I like shooting (mostly landscapes and artistic shots).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...read the reviews. There must be half a dozen informative ones out there; a few of them have been linked already by others, and those that have been linked will probably reference the other reviews (many of the review sites do this). Determine what capabilities are important to you. If the Digital Rebel has them, it just might be the camera for you.
I've owned a Digital Rebel for about a month, after owning a couple of compact point-and-shoots (still use one of them) and a couple of "prosumer" SLR-like digicams (and, yes, a 35mm film SLR here and there). The Digital Rebel is the camera I had been waiting for: under $1000, autofocus performance unmatched by any non-SLR digicam, as well as the real depth of field control and low noise characteristics, courtesy of the (relatively) large sensor size.
Yes, there are other cameras that do more, but they also cost more. Again, whether you need a camera to do more is up to you. Unfortunately there are the snobs out there who think you should ignore the Rebel and get the 10D or something else, regardless of what *your* needs are. Relative to the 10D, probably the most significant limitations of the Rebel are the less rugged construction, smaller buffer, the limitations on setting single-shot or "servo" autofocus (they can be set but only in combination with other modes), and the lack of flash exposure control (unless you use a flash that allows you to set FEC, such as the 550EX). If any of the above are important to you, the Digital Rebel may not be the camera for you. But if you can live with its limitations (the only restriction that I find limiting so far is the inability to set servo AF in, say, aperture priority mode) it's a very rewarding camera.
So again, my advice to you is to read the reviews, consider what the camera can and cannot do, and decide whether it will meet your needs. Get your hands on one (they don't seem to be in short supply) and take some shots. I can't promise you'll like it, but if you're already familiar with SLR cameras and don't have the most demanding of requirements, you just might decide it's the camrea for you.
Cheers,
Jeremy
"... the digital will be completely saturated with dark noise"
In the first place, ordinary digital cameras are not necessarily designed for very low-level light level work. Digital CCD detectors which are designed for night photography can perform well.
In fact, astronomers nowadays use digital CCD detectors as their standard imaging equipment. A long exposure is taken to detect very faint targets, with the telescope automatically tracking the apparent movement of the stars. Film is generally considered obsolete for professional astronomy, and film is even being displaced for amateur astronomy by digital methods. Digital detection provides detection of fainter objects, and more accurately quantifiable results, than film.
The so-called "dark noise" from the 2 hour exposure may in fact just be the background light of the sky. The digital camera, since it detects fainter targets, can detect this more readily than the film camera can. Especially near cities, pollution and artificial lighting spoil the darkness of the night sky (that is why you can't see many stars near a city). Large telescopes are located in very remote high altitude sites to counteract this problem.
Ahh, now that's a good point. The digicam I've got now -- a three or so year old Olympus D-360 -- needs a good five seconds to warm up for each shot, and isn't ready to take another for another several seconds. This makes the thing nearly useless for taking any kind of deliberate pictures of moving objects. As long as the lead-in time isn't too bad, I could deal with times like you describe here.
Sort of along the same lines, it seems like most of the cameras -- except maybe Sony models and possibly some of the high end ones -- use only USB for the transfer interface. For some of these high end cameras, where the image sizes are presumably going to be pretty big, a faster bus like Firewire seems worthwhile. I seem to remember the D100 having USB1 only, and no Firewire; not sure about the high end models.
On the other hand, there's something to be said for being lightweight. My old cameras & their lenses are all metal & glass, and carrying around a bag with the two cameras and three or four lenses can be pretty heavy after a while. I can't help but wonder if a ruggedly built plastic camera body might make a welcome difference in that department.
Touche.
I guess what I'm getting at is the accumulation of little things that bug me about my current low end digital point & shoot camera, and how much they are going to be a factor on a contemporary (yet reasonably affordable) digital SLR. Like the USB transfer speed. Like the ceiling on how quickly you can take photos. Like the capacity of a reasonably affordable memory card -- I'm not totally opposed to lugging around my iBook when taking photos all day, but the less often photos need to be downloaded the easier things will be.
Or -- maybe most of all at this point -- like the fact that the smaller "negative" on the low end d-SLRs means that a standard 50mm length lens is effectively an 80mm length zoom lens, a 24mm wide angle lens is a ~40mm "roughly normal" lens, and to get an actual wide angle lens you'll need a very short lens indeed. The fact that the same glass won't behave the same way on contemporary f-SLRs and d-SLRs bugs me, maybe enough to hold me off until this is resolved in future models.
So I guess I'm not talking about valuation in the sense of "a camera bought today will be half as useful in a year" -- as you say, that's not likely to be true -- but in the sense of "if I wait a year, will I be able to find that much more camera for the same money?" Because at this point I could still wait another year or three before taking the plunge, and I'm not yet sure what qualities I'm looking for that will prove to be the "now's the time" tipping point. More disposeable income might be able to grease the decision, I suppose :), but more tangibly it would be nice to see a d-SLR that works out some of the kinks noted above (and others that I'm not thinking of -- I don't have an exhaustive list of my personal pros & cons or anything).
Still, if I had a few thousand disposeable bucks laying around, I think I could overlook some of these annoyances. But since I don't, at least at the moment, "wait & see" seems prudent for now. In the meantime, maybe I'd be better off getting a more modern film camera body & lenses (I don't think 30 year old lenses are fully compatible with modern gear -- even if the lens mount fits, autofocus won't work for one thing, and exposure may not either).
++++
...damned threads that make me want to spend money. Must resist...
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
I recommend (as someone who sells the damn things) to get a basic film SLR like the Rebel 2000 or Ti, both of which just had a price drop, and wait a year before upgrading the body to a digital SLR.
I've owned a fre SLR's and, not being a pro, but wanting good 35mm shots, always had the camera's on "auto" mode. I understood the affects of aperature, exposure, DOF, etc., but could not really appreciate them with a film camera.
When I got my D60, my world opened up!! The immediate feedback of the digital camera plus the functionality of a "real" camera was absolutely great for me.
I know take many experimental photos and have been having good results that were not practical (for me) with film.
I say the DSLR's are well worth the money. The only annoying thing is the smaller than 35mm sensor (Canon's will make any picture you take look like 1.6 times what the lens says).
As to the background light of the sky question, that's a good idea, but it's not the main difference. I can take any commercial DSLR and shoot with a lens cap on, the viewfinder blocked, and with the camera inside a black bag and get a solid white saturated frame with only 10 minutes exposure or so.
One big point that is irrelevant for the slashdot crowd (and therefore missed) is that the benefits of digital photography are only available to those who can use computers.
This may seem fairly obvious, but when you think about it, this eliminates huge segments of the population. Like my entire family. But more concretely, for many people over 40, for those too poor or indifferent to own a computer, etc., digital photography is not a viable solution.
The vast majority of photographers are not professionals, artists, or students, but grandmothers, or teenagers, or young parents, taking their disposable cameras to Wal-Mart for $3.99 4x6 doubles. For the snapshot crowd, film is far more simple and convenient. Whether or not digital is replacing film, I have serious reservations about whether it should.
I'm not going to buy a digital SLR camera until it runs Linux! ;-)
.....:::[Svante]:::.....
I have the Canon 10D and it only goes up to ISO 1600. Yes, it has mirror lock up and works great. Also goes up to 30 second exposure or bulb with a cable release I think but have not tried it. Great camera!
Neil
I'm quite shocked by the number of formerly dedicated Nikon/Pentax shooters who professed to love their gear and are now rushing out to buy a low end "toy" SLR just because it's digital and costs under a grand. Maybe they're right, maybe it will revolutionise their photography because they can shoot more. Or maybe they're taking a step backwards just for the sake of owning a hyped-up gizmo.
/
If you are the kind of photographer who - at the extreme - likes a nice old manual SLR with a "legendary" prime lens and swoons over B&W, I'd say don't get the 300D unless you're about to radically alter the way you take photos. I.e. If you like to take your time over shots, you want full control and enjoy the film process. If you're a photo nut who wants to carry a camera everywhere and shoot everything to some minimally acceptable level of quality, you'd probably want to marry your 300D after a month.
I suspect many photographers don't actually know what kind of photography they like. They are the people who will spend years thrashing around buying whatever the latest must-have gear is.
The others will probably have decided what they need from a camera and will be prepared to wait until it becomes available in digital at a price they're prepared to pay. If they want digital at all, that is.
To end with some solid advice: unless your desire for this camera is giving you heartburn, I'd wait at least until you see Nikon's response (a "D75" is rumoured for next year) and then choose.
Ade_
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
Do you keep any of your phots on the web? I believe personal shots are a bettet judgement if a camera's quality rather than all the advert shot on company websites.
Some of these pictures on company sponosored websites, are not taken with the camera being sold.
I am a second generation photographer, son of a master photographer, and I want to go on record as saying the Canon 10 D is awesome, it has changed the way I do photography. I, like so many, bought a cheaper point and shoot digital camera, and the shooting delay and iffy quality so soured me that I nearly missed the revolution... I had bought an HP digital and it so negatively influenced me that as a result I had decided to continue with film. I vowed I would never buy another camera built by a computer company, but would stay with camera companies that understood what made a good camera. I had contracted to photograph horse shows, but from past experience I knew that I could not make any money if I had to play the print & delay game and then try to catch up with the customer later down the road, (been there done that) I tried shooting film, and then digitizing it, but the digitizer was too slow and the only profit I gained from the show was an education. I decided I had to go digital like it or not, and there was only one choice that would fit my demands and budget it was the Canon 10 D at the time. I coughed up the bux and ordered mine. My experience started off a bit shaky, I have an EOS film camera and had hoped to use the lens on my 10 D (as the 10D came as body only no lens) but finally found out that some of the older EOS lens would not work with the newer cameras, so went and bought a new lens, and that solved that problem. After that things began to change I discovered quickly that there is no delay... with my camera I can rapid fire up to 9 shots in 3 seconds and after a brief wait go again.... the variable being the size of the file, and the speed of the flash card. the only delay is in the lens AF mechanics, which is faster with my digital and its new lens than with my film slr and lens. A week after I got my camera set up, the new lens, and some quick tests, I had a contract to shoot a horse show, and went off a bit shaky about how things would work out. When I got to the show they announced that because of the summer heat, the horses would show under the shade of the grandstands. I thought oh no I'm dead. With film I would have to use flash to get the tones up, but decided to see what this camera would do... and since it was digital, verification was as close as the computer and printer where I was soon amazed. Besides the lack of shadows, and being able to see the riders eyes under that cowboy hat, the prints were fantastic. You see film at its very best, could only represents about 2/3's of the tones that the human eye can see, while a (quality) digital camera can capture 1/3 more (approx) than the eye can see. The result was brilliance and contrast better than the film camera could do in the sun. Also I might add for those who would be fighting low light, the 10D will go to ISO 3200 giving even more latitude. I have for the most part moth-balled my film cameras, with no interest in them anymore, and this week I will be setting up a 44 inch Epson printer for my big prints an option I only dreamed about in the film era. If you are thinking digital go for it... there is no other brand that that I know of that can at this time touch the price and features of the Canon Rebel digital or even the 10D for that matter, and if you go to the canon web site there information, support and even a class you can take on the Rebel. I like my 10D, it is built heavier than the Rebel, but at least here you have a choice, and only you can determine how much use your camera needs to provide, and thus how much you can justify in the purchase, but thanks to Canon you have that choice. I am implementing the camera into everything from a copy camera to portraits and weddings, and this coming season because it is digital, will implement shirts, jackets, mugs and tiles in the product lines for my shows.. The sky is the limit. Enjoy!!! Heritage Photographics N. Idaho If you have any further questions feel free to ask.... acbcomp@sisna.com Larry