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....
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.
... instead of the people who would really know.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
You get better by shooting -A LOT- of film. Ask any amateur or pro that has earnestly tackled the learning curve. So recommending a large format camera is really only suitable advice for someone who is already VERY proficient in composition, metering, lighting, and just plain seeing, etc.
My advice: Get good with a digital. Learn with the highest-quality digital you can afford, with many manual settings. (Thus the importance of DSLRs.) Once you -think- you're getting good, sure, move into large format. You'll be humbled. And it's gonna cost you a bundle. And you won't be able to take many good photos. (Though when you get a -good- one on large format, it's an event you'll remember for decades!) Anyways, I'll bet you keep refining your skills with the DSLR.
bottom line: dont buy a digital SLR, unless you really need a SLR.
I think in part you're right.
You need an SLR camera if you want to:
1) Shoot in dimly lit conditions (i.e. f/1.2 ISO 1600) without a flash and use the results for anything serious.
2) Be able to get a nice, shallow depth of field (i.e. blurred background) with good bokeh (pleasing "blur") for portraits or graphic shots.
3) Shoot wildlife or other "field" shots involving long telephotos or extreme lighting or weather conditions with any kind of sincerity or usability.
4) Shoot action of any kind that might need the likes of continuous tracking focus, zero shutter lag, and the ability to fire off shots in sequence just as fast as you can hit the shutter.
You do not need an SLR camera to:
5) Shoot the kids' birthday parties.
6) Take pictures of your pets.
7) Take vacation snapshots.
BUT... with that said... If you know how to properly use an SLR camera, know something about photography, and you have quality lenses, your results in the case of #5, #6 or #7 will be much better with an SLR than with a point-and-shoot.
Do be aware of the quality lenses caveat, however. Far too many amateur SLR users, film and digital, see the camera body as the "real" investment. They drop $1000 on a camera body and then go to their local camera store and buy a plastic 24-300mm zoom for $80.00 and wonder why the pictures look like they were taken through a dirty window in a rainstorm.
So I suppose corollary to your "don't buy an SLR unless you need one" post is "and don't buy an SLR unless you can afford lenses that will do it justice because a camera body can only capture what the lens shows it."
If you can't afford to spend significantly more on your lenses than you did on your SLR body (whether film or digital), you will definitely get better photos with a Sony digicam.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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).
The big advantage of a digital SLR over a point-and-shoot like the A70 is in the chip. A 10D at ISO 800 looks about as clean as my S40 at ASA 100.
This is a HUGE difference - every photographer (including the type who buy 35mm disposables) will see this difference, while hardly anyone will see a difference between 3 megapixels and 6 megapixels.
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.
I think you've got some stuff mixed up...the crop isn't detrimental to telephoto lenses. A 200mm lens does not become a 125mm lens...it becomes a 320mm! Quite a bonus, if you ask me. But wide angle becomes a pain.
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 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 shot with my cousin's 300mm f/2.8 L IS last summer for a week. She just loaned it to me! In all my experiences with photography, a finer lens I have never used. I may have used more expensive ones, but this thing is built, a pleasure to use, and blows me away! I can't see anybody buying a Sony 828 or any other non-system digicam now. They'd be fools to forego the ability to one day mount a beastly lens on their camera.
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.
I bought the 10D in May, and already have 7000 frames taken. A quick mental burst of calculation: 36 frames of Velvia (my usual film) is $8.00. Development is $5.00. 7000 % 36 * $13 = $2527 IN FILM MONEY SAVED IN SIX MONTHS. I was spending around a grand before per six-month period. This was enough to afford 2 'L' series lenses ON TOP of the cost of the 10D. If you shoot a lot, it is worth it. If you don't plan on putting at least a couple thousand frames a year onto your camera, buy a film Rebel. It'll be cheaper in the long run.
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.
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
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
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
A 1.4x Tele-converter means only half the light falls on the sensor. A 1.6x crop doesn't affect the light delivered to the photosite, only the size of the photosite. The image circle is the same size whether there's a digital sensor there or some film. The film (or larger sensor) will collect a larger amount of light, but collects no more light per square unit of area! There isn't any 'sensor sleight of hand'. What you are thinking of is called pixel pitch. Smaller pixels collect less light, but the 10D has similar pixel pitch to the 'full-frame' 1Ds and performs roughly identically (noise-wise). It's just a crop of the lighted area. You obviously haven't used a 10D - it blows away Velvia for many applications, and maintains virtually noise-free operation up to ISO 800.
"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.
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..
Hi molo. Print them with a professional digital lab. Do not take your CF cards to Wal-Mart or something. We often use Reedy or Miller's. They both do a great job, and have free customized FTP software that let you select what size prints you want, what crops you want for off sizes (i.e., a 5x7 print from a 2:3 aspect ratio file), additional features like type of paper, etc, and then upload. Your prints arrive on your doorstep a few days later. You can either have them just print the files as is, (in which case a 4x6 is about $0.35) or have them color correct the files, in which case a 4x6 is something like $1.25. We print "as is", because we've got a Gretag Macbetch Eye-One Photo calibrator, which I know is what Reedy uses to calibrate their monitors, but I don't know about Miller's. Regardless, when calibrated, the color I see on the screen is the color that comes back in my prints. There are less expensive calibrators out there you can buy, or if you can find a friend who has one, have him stop by with it can calibrate your monitor.
Also, I'm planning to buy an Epson 2200 printer which will let you print up to an 8x10. I know pros who swear by them. However, it's probably about the same cost if not more expensive per print, given the high ink and paper costs, than having your images printed at a pro lab. I just want one for rush orders.
Big prints like 20x30 can certainly be made from a 10D JPEG, but we usually rasterize them first with Genuine Fractals. So long as it's a full-frame image and well exposed, you really shouldn't have a problem printing a 20x30. For anything bigger, I'd switch to RAW and definitely rasterize.
Anyway, long story short, find a pro lab. Don't print at Wal-Mart. You can make big prints, too.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.
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?