Slashdot Mirror
Seeking a Decent Digital SLR Camera for Beginners?
lancomandr asks: "I'm interested in getting into digital photography. I have looked at many tutorials and buying guides but there are so many digital SLRs I have no idea which ones to even start considering. I want to be able to make decently large prints, I'd like to get a decent amount of use out of it before upgrading, I want good battery life and durability is key. All of you photographers out there, any suggestions? What did you buy when you started?"
Start with the Digital Rebel. It's really the only camera in its class.
Try http://dpreview.com, they are the best resource around. Marc
4 MP, RAW capture mode, Microdrive compatible, 3x optical and 3x digital zoom, very usable interface. My one complaint is some chromatic abberation, but most non-SLR cameras have pretty small lenses, so its hard to get around. 4MP RAW output is sweet, and with the 'dcraw' application, you don't need the Win32 crapware that comes with the camera.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
This is the only "entry" level digital SLR. Plenty of features, low price point, excellent camera.
You don't have all the professional features of a canon d10 or nikon d70 or higher, but you want an entry level right?
I'd say go with canon because they've only changed their lens format once. Much better chance of being able to get good used equipment/sell your use equipment when you want to upgrade.
I'm saving for a d10 myself.
You can get a Rebel for $900.
You can hack it to be 10D for free.
You can buy a $200 Muvo and swap out the 4G microdrive.
More importantly what you need to do is read a good book on photography. I found this online tutorial particularly interesting when I first started out. I spent a year making poor shots when it dawned on me what I was doing wrong. Depth of field is sooooo important.
the HP 945 digital camera is great... 5.3 mp 56X zoom and got all the aperture and Tv setting you want. It retails for about 499 CDN and has a great support deal.
You can get the attachments for lenses and such, but digital SLR cameras dont need that stuff... anyone who says more lenses make a digital camera better is stupid. Light hits the CCD and the computer on the inside does the junk needed for those different shots. You gotta remember that these are just light capturing computers. Canon does not make computer... HP makes great computers. And they all get their lenses and ccd's from the same spot, so you make the choice.
while(1) { fork(); };
I have a rebel. Battery life is awesome, and im pretty sure its just as good as the nikon. Since the sensor is only used when actually taking a picture (no live preview), and the lcd is almost always off, and the battery is large, you get hundreds of shots off a single charge.
large prints - its 6 megapixel. And its very noise free, since the sensor is physically very large. Beats the 8mp point & shoots by a ways.
costs a bunch tho, because youll probably want a longer zoom fairly quickly, and a large CF card (1gb or 512mb), and possibly a flash and tripod. Id budget an extra 500 to 1000$ over a rebel or d70 kit. If you go for a canon 10D you need to budget more, because it doesnt come with a lens, and theres no cheap equiv to the rebel kit lens for canon. (to get the wideangle, after the sensor crop / multipplier).
the sensor crop / multiplier is great if you want tele, but sucky for wide. Since you need extra wide lenses. its 1.6x for canon (18mm lens ~= 28mm lens). i think its similar for nikon.
I know you're asking for an SLR, but you might wish to look at the Minolta DiMAGE Z1/Z2.
It's SLR-form-factor and has easily accessible manual controls (though manual focus is with the cursors, rather than a focus ring like the Sonys). The built-in lens is, iirc, 350mm-equivalent, but fast enough at wide-angle settings that I've gotten some good low-light work out of it.
Personally, I'm rather frightened of digicams with removable lenses. Unlike a 35, where dust that enters winds up on the removable film, I don't see where the dust would go. My digi-SLR-wielding friends refer to them as "selectable lenses," in the sense that you pick it on purchase.
But I'd strongly recommend at least playing with a Z1 or Z2 before you make your purchase. Some of the features, like the 60fps LCD, are awfully hard to appreciate until you actually see them -- and then it clicks. I have a Z1; the Z2 is apparently lower-noise and with some firmware upgrades like real-time contrast histogram.
(The lower-noise part blows me away. A lot of the shots on my website, starting with the upright bass and below, were 30s-1m exposures in near darkness. Not too bad, for a CCD.)
When digital gets to 10MP, then try experimenting with digital SLRs, in the meantime forget it.
That's assuming that by decent size prints you mean 8x10 or larger.
A good all manual SLR (yes there are some around, especially used ones, which will save you lots of money) will last for YEARS on one set of batteries (my Dad went 22 years on one battery a while back, my best is only 12 years on 1 battery).
Plus, lenses can be had cheap by all the people bailing out of film who don't know any better. If you chose the right system to go with, you can take those lenses forward to digital later too. (Nikon and Canon come to mind, but I think Pentax as well). Or any T-mount lens can be brought forward.
I own a Rebel myself and it really is a great camera. DPreview is a good place to read the reviews and check out the forums. You might see a lot of people complaining and such about not having some advanced features and the like. For me personally, I bought this to learn with and understand more about photography, and so far some of those advanced features I have not really required. There may be a point where I do, however, for now, this camera has everything that I want. Plus, with firmware hacks, that can even be changed. The thing to remember is that after you start getting in to lenses, which Canon has a great reputation for, then switching the body becomes somewhat more trivial since you will not have to have switching costs as you will be able to utilize those lenses again and again (unless you completely jump ship and switch everything). I myself will be very unlikely to do that because the camera is great, lenses are great, and you know that Canon is going to continue to put out high-quality stuff (not saying Nikon or anyone else isn't...) Just my .02
If you want an entry level digital camera, you're going to have to stick with point and shoot type camera.
As everyone else has pointed out, the Digital Rebel is the cheapest digital SLR, but at $900 it's not exactly what you'd call entry level. I have the 10D, and I know several people that have the Rebel, and for the money, the Rebel wins hands down. So, if you're going to get one, get the Rebel, and put some money into some really nice lenses. Don't plan on upgrading any time soon, the Rebel hasn't dropped in price since it's been out, and the 10D has actually gone up in price. For a while the 10D couldn't be found anywhere, every place was out of stock.
Also note, with the Rebel, it's a very popular camera. So when you have trouble figuring something out, there's a lot of people available to help. And then there's the firmware hacks, whi ch you should already know about.
Disclaimer: I don't work for them but I do run into them in the kitchen.
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
The Nikon D70 and the Canon EOS-300D ("digital rebel"; whatever, Canon) are pretty comparable camera bodies, but the kicker is the lens. You can buy either one with a bundled lens; the 300D comes with a crappy lens, while the D70 comes with a very respectable lens.
Definitely get the D70. If you get the 300D and find you enjoy photography, you'll want to replace it in a year or two. If you get the D70 and find you enjoy photography, you'll be happy with it for much longer.
And because the D70 is newer, the resale price will be better if you decide to bail out.
I write in my journal
Again, you said you were in the market for a DSLR, so the size shouldn't matter that much ... and if you are just starting out, something to consider. BTW, both the Canon Rebel and Nikon D70 are *the* entry-level DSLR's and will shoot GREAT pictures ... and hopefully by now, it is obvious that big pixels are better, so the 6MP on those camera's are better than the 8MP on the Sony ... although in non-noisy situations, I think you'd be hard pressed to tell much of a difference in prints.
Hey, if you are feeling rich, grab the Canon Mark II which among other things can shoot 8 frames/second with a 40 frame buffer - WAY cool to just mash the shutter button on that baby! ;-)
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
You may not need an SLR. You can get fully-manual digital cameras for less than half the price that take great pictures. I've been very happy with my Canon G3 (4MP). I haven't touched my analog SLR since. I will get a DSLR eventually, but as an amature, it just doesn't make sense at the moment.
The digital market is still relatively new, and big camera companies have DSLR prices pretty high in order to recoup R&D costs. Film cameras have been around for the better part of the 20th century and are tried and true.
Also, when you upgrade to a digital SLR in a few years, you can keep the film one around just in case. One more thing to keep in mind: some old school cameras (Nikon FM3A, older models) can be used without a battery, so battery life is not an issue. Good luck!
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Because the non-SLR digitals fit a much larger segment of the market, the SLR digitals have been really slow to come down in price. The Nikon D-70 has tempted me, but I think I'm still willing to wait another round, since we're talking $2K once you add in a couple/three lenses. Lenses is where the 'real' investment tends to be in the high-end camera space. I've got a couple of Nikon (type) lenses (both manual focus) which isn't a big investment, but unless you're willing to dump all your gear in a few years to switch, or you don't expect to continue to invest in expanding your camera system, you probably want to decide on Nikon vs. Canon on the basis of all their gear rather than just the price difference of a single camera body.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
"SLR" stands for Single Lens Reflex. This means that light passes through the lens, off a mirror and/or CCD, and into your eye. It means that there is no parralax error due to you and the camera seeing your subject from different angles. It doesn't necessarily mean you have the ability to change lenses, nor does it mean it's a "professional grade" camera. It doesn't even have to be much more complicated than your average point-and-shoot, though I'm assuming you want to be able to grow as you learn.
In the lower class of Digital SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses, you've got the Nikon D70 and D100, the Canon Digital Rebel, and a few cameras by Sigma and Fuji. These cameras (bodies with interchangeable lenses) will allow you the most flexibility, options, and quality. However, they are also much more expensive, starting at about the $1000 mark. For the moment, I'll assume this is the area you're looking at.
First off, the Canon Digital Rebel is not the only camera in its class. Nikon just released the D70, which seems to kick the Rebel's ass. I spoke to Nikon Digital Support (800-645-6689), and they said the memory buffer was so fast that you could pretty much keep shooting continuously until you ran out of space. Compared to older models that would only do "burst mode" for up to five seconds, that's quite a feat. The D70 is only about 3 frames/second, but the D2H can do 8 frames/second for five seconds before the buffer gets full. Of course, the D2H is about $3K, but I can dream. ;-)
Second, you are not limited to (and may not want) a camera with interchangable lenses. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8700 are pretty decent (the latter being 8 megapixels!), and the Canon PowerShot Pro1, G5, and S1 are also options. One definite advantage the cameras without interchangable lenses have is that they are going to be much smaller and lighter.
As per several recommendations already posted, definitely check out DPReview. Great site, lots of info, full testing, sample shots, menus and interfaces, etc. Think about what your priorities are. How high of a resolution do you need? 6 megapixels is plenty for an 8x10. (4 can actually get you by.) If you aren't printing anything larger than that, you're fine. Do you care if there's a proprietary battery, or do you need the flexibility of "standard"-sized batteries? (AA, AAA, etc.) Do you have a preference for media type? (I prefer CompactFlash, as it tends to give the best cost/size ratio, and the card size options are larger.) Do you need lens interchangeability? Do you want it? Regardless of what you want *right now*, where do you want to take your photography eventually? Make sure your camera choice now will not limit your goals later.
Personally, I'd lean more towards the larger SLR bodies with interchangeable lenses. They're bigger, heavier, and *can be* more expensive... though this is by no means true any more. However, the options you have are incredible. Of course, you may well just be leaving the camera in automatic mode all the time, which makes those options useless, overpriced oversized, etc. However, if you *want* those options later... you may not have to "upgrade" anything other than your lens options. Now that
I just got a Fuji S5000. 10x optical zoom, and has all of the manual controls available if you want 'em. $400, Best Buy had 'em for 10% off with no shipping.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
There don't seem to be THAT many dSLR's out there, and they are all pretty expensive. The best deal, I think, is the Rebel. The Nikon D70 is also good (much better bundled lens, *slightly* lower picture quality, more expensive), but I am a hard-core Canon person so Rebel it is.
That's something else to consider: once you start buying add-on lenses (which you will, if you get serious, the lens is the most important aspect of the camera), you are "locked-in" to either the Canon or Nikon system (forget the other brands, these are the only ones to think about). So you might want to factor that into your decision.
You might also consider buying a cheap used film SLR, and learning on that for a while (develop your film to photodisc, nobody will know the difference). Then when the dSLR's come down to the more sane $500 or so level, you can switch over, and be amazed at how much better it is than film (I love sheet film but I'll be so glad when 35mm is finally dead).
You said you wanted to learn "digital photography" rather than "photography" so you probably don't want to waste your time with film, but it's part of photography so you might want to consider it. Many of the film cameras are built like tanks, and the less features the better if you want to learn photography.
For instance I usually set my Digital Rebel to all manual. I can manaully focus on still objects just as fast as the autofocus, because that's what I'm used to. I actually learned on a 1970's-era Yashica rangefinder (non-SLR) camera, then got a Canon EOS, and have been on that path ever since. You might want to have that kind of control over your camera, especially with exposure.
I have a DR and love it.
The kit lens adds $100 to the retail price of the camera (body alone lists for $900) and you can't come anywhere near as wide a lens as the 18mm-55mm (times 1.6 crop factor = 28-88 effective field of view) for anywhere near that price for either system. It's not available outside of the kit except from scalpers on EBay.
The thing I love most about the DR is that it takes a picture immediately when I press the shutter button. Every other digicam I've used has had a second or longer delay after pressing the button. This makes a huge difference. (I assume that the other DSLRs we're discussing also perform this way and that the alternate non SLRs do not).
With the hacked firmware, the DR is very close featurewise to the Canon 10D. But, most of the added features are pretty esoteric. I wouldn't flash your camera until you need one of the additions (I haven't flashed mine).
One other exercise to try: Compare prices of the various full kits you're considering. Include whatever (if any) extra batteries, extra lenses, a flash, etc that you want. Canon lenses are supposed to be somewhat less expensive than the Nikon versions.
Finally, find and play with each of the camera's you're considering. Find out which one feels best in your hands, which one has the buttons in a logical place, etc.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm
He does a good job of telling you what really matters. If he has a bias, it's towards Nikon. BUt that's beside the point. His focus is photography, digital or film.
And I'm pretty sure that if you asked him, he'd point you towards the Nikon D70.
Of course, the hackability of the Canon 300 is pretty tempting, but it's not really the point. You can take fantastic pictures with an SLR or a point and shoot. Those extra features aren't going to make your pictures better. Shooting a lot of pictures and honestly evaluating them is what makes your pictures better.
I've done that, and I have a truely bueatiful 20x30 hanging over my fireplace - shot with film. Detail is in it that you can't capture with digital. The reflections in the water of the railing, for example.
For example: I have an 8x10 on the wall next to me. (Film based print). I scanned that image at about 5MP a while back and it is a great shot. However, I noticed some small blobs on the one edge. Since it is an underwater shot, I assumed backscatter. Later, I had the film 8x10 printed. Not backscatter at all! A school of tiny fish is plainly visible in the print.
I also had a shot optioned for printing by a national magazine. At 5mp, it could not be scanned. It would only show a bunch of colored blobs. The subject? The Space shuttle Columbia - night launch, lit only by the flames. (At 8x10, the orbiter is about 3 inches tall, along the 10 axis. The full shuttle about 6 inches tall.)
I once ran into a "professional" photographer doing an ad shoot. She asked if she could borrow a 24mm lens from me. I said well, you would have to use my spare body and flash as well, due to lens mounting differences. She declined, because she didn't know how to use a manual flash - but she was a professional!
So, your wife's customers may be happy, but that doesn't mean that the shots are great.
Kodak is NOT getting out of the film industry. The review you mention says they are dropping about 4 or 5 specific films. Well so what? They are replacing them with new ones that are better. It's called progress.
As for you cost comparisions. Whoops, you messed up there.
>I've taken 5000 pictures with my digital camera.
>Development costs: $0
>Experience: priceless
>What if I had a film camera?
>5000 pictures / 24 pictures per roll ~ 208 rolls.
>208 rolls at $8 for developement = $1666
>Experience: Chapter 11 bankruptcy
Hmm. First, if you are shooting that much film, then use 36 exposure rolls. Or bulk load. But at 36 exposure rolls, your "cost" goes to about $1000, instead of $1666. Plus 8$ a roll? Where are you getting robbed for that much?
Anyway. You forgot that in order to get print from your digital camera, you need a printer. For the sake of arguement, lets assume on that prints from the camera, to save costs. Printer: $100-$150. Paper to print only 1000 prints (assume that you "throw" away the others) $160. Ink for your printer: $200. So far for your 5000 shots we are at: $460
Now lets add in storage of the shots (remember film is stored on negatives or slides, included in your $1000 estimate). Lets see 200 frames per CD(3MP?) 25 CD @ 2$ per = $50 more. And how about The computer and CD writer to support it?
Lets see, without the computer we are at $510. No that big a savings anymore, is it?
Forget the LSR - not exactly a beginner camera. I researched extensively and finally decided on a Canon Powershot A80 and I couldn't be happier. Easy to point and shoot or go creative if you feel like it. The quality of the pictures is also amazing. Camera goes for around $300.
First of all, do you have any experience in photography? If so, have you ever had a film SLR, or point and shoot?
:)
:)
:)
I'm a big one for learning things the hard way first. You can pick up a used 35mm SLR for next to nothing and you can learn how to be a good photographer far easier than you can (IMHO) with a digital camera. A lot of times people forget that photography is about taking good pictures, NOT playing with cool toys on the computer.
It's pretty cool to be able to instantly see how the image will turn out, pop it into the gimp or photoshop, adjust the color/balance/shadows/levels, etc, but having to wait a week to finish up a roll of film, get it back from processing, and having to imagine what the image will look like when you take it will make you a much better photographer. The key to taking pictures that aren't 'snapshots' is to be able to know what it will look like before you take the picture. Digital takes this away from the end user a bit and you end up just taking pictures of everything and ending up with 99.9% crap.
end rant
Regarding the purchase of the d-slr, if you have any existing lenses the choice is pretty clear. The D-Rebel takes any canon EOS lense, and you have a wide variety of choices for lenses (including image stabalized lenses). The nikon D70 takes any nikon lenses. The *ist-d will take any pentax K/KA mount lense.
If you have no lenses then it's a matter of what system you like (remember the body is a throwaway, you'll be investing in lenses if you get into it and will upgrade to a better model eventually and you will keep on using your lenses. If you're budget minded you probably will be looking at the d-rebel and you can eventually upgrade to the next step up. If your budget is a bit bigger you can look at the nikon or the pentax.
When I went through this I ended up buying the pentax *ist-d, at about twice the cost of the d-rebel. It's the smallest d-slr out there, and is light and fits in my hands nicely. It's more comparable with the canon 10d from what I understand, and having several pentax lenses already made the choice a bit easier. Of course, now I'm looking at buying more lenses to replace my older manual lenses, but that's the nature of expensive hobbies like photography and computers
One of the best pieces of advice I got about choosing a d-slr was to find something you're comfortable with. If it's too big or too small, or the menu or controls aren't intuitive or easy to use, you won't use it as much, it won't be taken with you everywhere, and will end up collecting dust. If you can spend more *with reason*, do. Don't (IMHO) settle for say, the d-rebel if it feels too big in your hands, or if you're going to do sports photography and need the bigger buffer in the d-70.
Remember, you'll be saving your money for lenses
Here's a great review/comparison of the two cameras.
. as p
:)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page20
The 300D is more commonly known as the rebel.
Pick the D70 if you want
1) A wide array of old lenses to choose from. (And I've heard that it's often more important to pick your lens than pick the body)
2) To take a lot of consecutive photographs. With our D70, we can take pictures at 1fps until the card fills - we aren't bound by the buffer like the Canons are. This is true for both compressed and RAW photos. (You need to make sure your memory card is fast, though.)
3) A lot of other things that I'm not going to list off the top of my head.
Either of those cameras is good, though. At my skill level (and possibly at your skill level, given the way you asked your question) it's hard to go wrong with either of these cameras.
and the price has come down.
As for printing shots, you can bulk load film too. A roll of 100 foot slide film is about $30. That will make ~850 frames of slide film. Processing it yourself you can get chemicals for much cheaper than the above. Also, with slides (and even prints) you only print the shots you want (get a loupe for god's sake - an expensive one is $8.)
Finally, if you shoot film, you will learn quickly, which shots are going to be crap - and not shoot them. So you will only shoot 2000 say.
Digital lends itself much to easily to what we call "machine gun photography" Shoot 50 shots in a burst to get one good one. The film shooter will shoot 3, and get it.
DSLRs tend to have really long battery lives - like more pictures than you can fit on a microdrive. Since they CAN'T use the LCD as a viewfinder, they don't, and that's what eats most of the battery on 'normal' (non-SLR) digital cameras.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
Grandparent says:
My dad has been into photography for over 20 years and is pretty good at it.
Poster says:
I'm interested in getting into digital photography.
So, "into" seems be the applicable word here, and the grandparent('s father) seems more "there" then the poster. I think you are reading into it more than is prudent.
The "More" you get includes an 18-70mm (roughly equivalent to 35-100mm due to the size difference from 35mm that the CCD is) ED lens. Thus, you pay more for a "kit" than for the base camera body. Here is the D70 body alone, and as you can see it's only $999. (About $99 more than the Digital Rebel.)
The thing I liked about Nikon originally was that you can use almost any lens with almost any body from circa 1970 and later. However, I have since discovered (the hard way) that Nikon has intentionally engineered OUT the ability to use any manual-focus lens with the less expensive bodies. (F100 and F5 support them, D1 and D2 series do as well, but D70 and D100 do NOT.) You can still *use* the lens, but the in-camera metering system will not function unless the lens has electronics, i.e. is auto-focus.
One item worth mentioning is that, as far as both myself and a Nikon tech could find, the only reason you might want the D100 over the D70 is that there are a few more accessories available for the D100, such as an extended battery pack that also functions as a vertical grip. However, the D70 seems like a great value (compared to everything else available), and if you don't need the other accessories (or want a cheaper lens), you can get it separately.
I'm a Canon user so I'll talk Canon, one point at a time...
"I'm interested in getting into digital photography."
Getting into DSLR at the bottom of the ladder will prove expensive because you'll spend $1000 on a camera/lenses and then a few months later you'll be buying more, more, more.
It's better to spend more to start with and get some good, non-beginner equipment that will last you for many years.
"I have looked at many tutorials and buying guides but there are so many digital SLRs I have no idea which ones to even start considering."
Remember that I'm only talking Canon, in which case your choice is between the Rebel/300D and the 10D.
"I want to be able to make decently large prints"
The 300D and 10D are both 6Mpx and will both print nicely up to A3. The 300D sensor is essentially the same as the 10D but it is produced more cheaply and there is some feeling that the image quality is slightly inferior.
"I'd like to get a decent amount of use out of it before upgrading"
I've used the Rebel/300D and I upgraded to the 10D within a month. I then upgraded to the 1D. I'd recommend the 10D to anyone. I wouldn't recommend the 300D. It's essentially a crippled 10D.
"I want good battery life"
Both the 300D and 10D will give you hundreds of shots on a single battery charge which takes a couple of hours. You can also buy a battery grip which attaches to the bottom of the camera and allows you to use two batteries.
"durability is key"
The 300D is fairly tough but it's plastic. The 10D is metal and tougher. The 1D is designed to survive a warzone, literally.
"All of you photographers out there, any suggestions? What did you buy when you started?"
In six months I've gone from a 300D with a couple of cheap lenses to a 1D with approx $8,000 of lenses.
My recommendation, assuming you don't want to go for the 1D which is the best camera ever made, is to get a 10D with a 28-135 Image Stabilizer lens. That will cost you less than $2,000. You will almost certainly want to buy more lenses over time but you'll be happy with the 10D for several years.
There is talk of a 10D replacement within the year but considering the mess Canon has made of the 1D Mk II my advice would be to buy what's right for you now rather than wait for "the next big thing" that may or may not be any good.
Now you need someone to give you the same run-down on Nikon gear. Don't let anyone tell you that Canon or Nikon is considerably better than the other. Both have strengths and weaknesses.
Briefly...
Canon's strengths: Better telephone lenses, slightly better image quality, good resale value, usually brings next-gen tech out a good six months before other manufacturers, good support, lenses are slightly cheaper.
Nikon's strengths: Reputedly better wide lenses, better flash system, high-end cameras are cheaper than Canon's high-end offerings.
Canon cameras are generally used by fashion and sports photographers and more of these are switching to Canon every day.
Nikon cameras are generally used by photojournalists but Canon is becoming much more prevalent in this area nowadays.
If you have any specific questions on Canon gear then feel free to post them in a reply to this comment and I'll answer if I can.
duh, better telephoto lenses. (The long ones.)
I mostly shoot B&W film with an Canon EOS 3, but when I do shoot digital I use a second-hand EOS D30. They're pretty cheap now. Only 3MP, but ignore that; these are 3 clean megapixels with low noise in the shadows, low aberation in the highlights and faithful colour reproduction. It prints great at 12x8 inches, and will blow away any consumer-level 5 or 6MP point-and-shoot. It's usable fully automatic, or fully manual, or anywhere in between. It takes all EF-mount lenses, which is way better than Nikon's mess of subtle incompatibilities with their F-mount. Absolutely superb bit of kit. One day I'll get a new one, but only when I have to; the D30 fulfills all of my digital needs right now.
Get one of those as your "entry level" and use it 'til you're sure you need something that it doesn't do, then and only then think about spending a serious amount of money. In serious photography, you're almost always better of saving money on the body and investing it in good lenses, which a) make more of a difference to the photo anyway and b) will outlast any body.
I bought a Canon 10D when it first came out (I got the first one a local camera store received) last year. Since then, I've taken over 12,000 photos.
The 10D is by far the best camera I've ever owned, and well worth what I spent on it. However, when a replacement comes out for the 1Ds (full frame DSLR), I will most likely upgrade as there are a few deficiencies in the 10D:
With the current proliferation of DSLRs, and the strong likelyhood of a good rangefinder coming from Epson soon, the decision on what to buy isn't as clear as it was when the 10D arrived on the market. Of course, Canon is probably going to have me as a customer for a long time now that I've bought a dozen or so lenses in EF mount and few Canon flashes.
If you do buy any Canon DSLR, I strongly recommend purchasing the 50mm f1.8 lens. It is inexpensive, but has very good image quality and is very lightweight.
Since pictures are worth a 1000 words:
some photos I've taken with my 10D
As others have mentioned, if you really want to go with an SLR camera, go for the Canon Digital Rebel. I don't own one, but a friend of mine does, and it kicks ass.
What I do own, however, is a Canon Powershot G5. It's not an SLR camera per say, but comes very close. Full control of aperture, etc... and you can get extra lenses for it (telescopic lens, fish-eye lens, macro lenses, etc...). It's a fair bit cheaper than the Digital Rebel, is 5.1 megapixels vs 6 of the DR, but in terms of options and settings (aperture, ISO selection, etc...) it's almost identical.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
See here for a comparison of several cameras from this month's Popular Science.
I mean, sure, there are effects you can get with it that are hard to duplicate with digital (although Photoshop can do just about *anything*), but when it comes right down to it, having to wait to take your film to be processed is a gigantic annoyance when you consider that digital gives you your photograph instantly.
Unless, of course, you happen to work *IN* a photo lab (or a photo company).
+++ATH0
I currently have a small amount of 35mm SLR experience but digital is really more my thing. Looks like the Nikon D70 is going to be what I'm aiming for. I can come up with a grand or two to invest, but I can't do it every couple of years so I'm going to want something that I won't need to upgrade soon (apparently the Nikon D70.) Thanks a lot for the plethora of input everyone!
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
When you are looking at "reviews," don't pay any attention to the ones that have nothing bad to say about the product. This is your first indication of a vendor-sponsored review. Even with the best product, everyone (except the mfgr's marketing dept.) will find something they don't like about it, due to individual tastes and experiences.
What I like about Digital Photography Review is that their reviews are comprehensive, they do repeatable laboratory tests using industry standards (in addition to subjective field testing), and they don't accept payments or gifts from manufacturers.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
The Canon Powershot A80 can be an excellent alternative for a beginner. It's not a SLR however. Read this useful review.
A comparison by of a hacked 300D/Rebel with D70 dpreview link
--
some fallacies from the above threads:
noise performance : 300D/Rebel wins :it has ISO 100, D70 has a minimum ISO 200 . (also; at comparative 300DISO 200 vs D70ISO 200, the 300D is rated more like ISO160 )
the only major advantage of the D70 is its CF write speed/buffer, ie: in raw mode, it can shoot at 1fps continuous until your cf card fills up. so is this advantage worth the extra money?
flaw: D70 NEF/RAW mode is NOT lossless, it is visually lossless, but its just 9.4bits vs canon raw at 12 bits.
d70 forum link
NEF lossy compression
[quote] The decoding curve is embedded in the NEF file (and could thus be changed by a firmware upgrade without having to change NEF converters), I used a D70 NEF file made available by Uwe Steinmuller of Digital Outback Photo.
The quantization is a lossy operation, and converts 12 bits into 9.4 bits' worth of resolution (dynamic range is unchanged). This is a fairly common technique - digital telephony encodes 12 bits' worth of dynamic range in 8 bits using the so-alled A-law and mu-law codecs. I modified the program to output the data for the decoding curve (Excel-compatible CSV format), and plotted the curve (PDF) using linear and log-log scales, along with a quadratic regression fit (courtesy of R). The curve is a gamma correction curve, linear for values up to 215, then quadratic.
In conclusion, Thom is right - there is some loss of data, mostly in the form of lowered resolution in the highlights. [/quote]