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!
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.
... instead of the people who would really know.
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.
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.
In some cases digital is exponentially better - paparazzi work comes to mind, so does newspaper sports photography (think about fields where lots of photos are taken with quick turnaround needed - a sports photographer shooting the night game has maybe 1/2 hour after the game to develop 20+ rolls of film and pick the right 2-3 shots, digital helps a lot there).
In other cases digital, even the highend, $12000+ digital backs for hassie's and large formats, doesn't yet match the quality of 120 or 8x10 film. (while your eye might not see the difference, someone who is experienced will)
Also, digital usually doesn't handle the extremes too well - a 30 minute digital exposure on digital cameras doesn't compare to a 30 minute film exposure. Last i checked the latitude of film was still much better than digital too (the range from white to black that the camera can capture).
To say digital is really really good these days would be accurate, and i'm actually waiting for my digital rebel to arrive (it was exactly what i was waiting for, price/performance wise). But there are things digital still can't do, and places where film is still cheaper (a decent 4x5 and film for it is purchasable by me, but a digital back for that camera means i don't eat for a decade).
Digital Rebel is 22.7 mm SLR. Canon 1Ds is 35 mm SLR. But 1Ds is not 'low-priced'. It costs $7,999.
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!
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'm with you on everything but latitude. You really start to see the difference between digital and film on anything longer than about 10 seconds if you look carefully. I can take decent shots up to maybe 1 minute, but forget 5 minutes, much less 30. No star trails from digicams.
Latitude is not so bad for digital. In principle a CCD digitized to 12 bits, as most cameras do, is capable of 12 zones. B&W film gets about 8-9 depending on the emulsion. Color print film is somewhat worse and slide film has almost no latitude (Velvia is about the worst on this, but its color saturation is so beautiful that sometimes it's worth all the hassle of lighting to get those colors!). When you actually go to print the image, you can't get better than 8 zones of latitude from any paper I know, so you have to dodge and burn if you're going to fit a 9-zone negative onto paper without losing shadows or highlights.
Of course you never really get 12 bits of latitude from a CCD, but it's pretty typical in my tests to get at least 8 zones, which means that your output device (printer, CRT, LCD) will be the limiting factor. This is much as it is in the darkroom, where you have a hard time finding printing paper that will match the range you get on your negatives.
What's really differnent about digital imaging from film is that the CCD's transfer function stays pretty linear all the way down to black. Towards the white end, it also stays quite linear until it gets very close to saturation. This is a lot different from the sigmoid film curves we've all known and loved since Ansel Adams published "The Negative." This means you have to think out your high- and low-ends more carefully.
About your 4x5, one big difference between view cameras and 35mm is that almost nobody shoots thousands of frames per year with a view camera. The whole point of the camera is to spend half an hour setting up your shot and getting it right in one or two exposures. With 35mm you pay for the digital sensor in a year or less with the savings on film and processing. With the 4x5 you'd be waiting a long time to pay back the film costs. Even more with an 8x10.