How do you choose a Super Fancy Digital Camera? Not one of them little gaffers, but a real beefy one that you have to hit the gym to be able to hold it steady.
What does SLR mean?
Throw out some names of some really good cameras, in the range of upwards of lots of money.
High Five!
Please list reputable companies as well…
Digital SLRs are cool.
There’s basically Canon and Nikon, with everybody else playing catch-up.
Start with a price, not with features. Buy the SLR body and maybe 2 or 3 lenses. IF you have a Canon or Nikon 35mm, you might already have lenses that will work on the digital SLR.
SLR = Single Lens Reflex, which means you’re actually looking through the lens when you take a photo, unlike most digital cameras. SLRs generally have a mirror and a real shutter in front of the sensor.
I have both a film and a digital SLR, and I interchange lenses and filters and stuff all the time.
So treat it like any other consumer purchase (car, computer, etc) – start with the amount of money you want to spend and choose the Canon or Nikon at that price. The more expensive, the better.
I lost my 35mm SLRs along with my animation lab in a house fire 15 years ago. Now my kids are all growed and gone. Hers just left for leadership camp and for Montpellier, then they switch. First time since I was single with time to myself this summer. Digital SLR would be really, really nice. Wonder if Fuji has one yet, used to like thier products a lot.
EDIT: dpreview.com/news/0201/02013 … ms2pro.asp
I will use Google before asking stupid questions (even hypothetically).
I will use Google before asking stupid questions (even hypothetically).
I will use Google before asking stupid questions (even hypothetically).
I will use Google before asking stupid questions (even hypothetically).
I will use Google before asking stupid questions (even hypothetically).
I will use Google before asking stupid questions (even hypothetically).
I will use Google before asking stupid questions (even hypothetically).
Another option other than Nikon and Canon is Olympus. I bought an Olympus E-300 (D-SLR) this summer and I am in love with the thing. All DSLR’s have similar features these days. For me, I needed something that felt right in my hand. Canon and Nikon (Canon especially) seem to be shrinking the size of thier entry level DSLR’s smaller and smaller with each new release. The new Canon digital rebel is really quite small in your hand compared to the last version of it. That was disapointing for me since I have a bunch of Canon lenses and stuff from my film cameras that would have worked.
The E-300 is a beefier camera that felt right from the moment I picked it up. It’s really well built and shares many features with it’s big brother the E-1 which is a professional level camera. As I said before, most of the features are the same accross the product lines but one unique feature of the Olympus DSLR’s is that they have technology that keeps dust off the sensors. From Olympus’ website:
"Located between the shutter and the image sensor, our exclusive Supersonic Wave FilterTM – a sort of “digital dusterâ€
I think I would buy a Nikon myself. I have always been fond of them. I think I have some older Nikon nikormatt lenses kicking it somewhere in this house anyway. Not sure if the non-AF lenses fit or not, but the telephoto is cool.
Nikon D70, Olympus E300 & Canon 100D, side by side. Eyecandyish!
There’s a huge difference between what consumers and “pro-sumers” would use and what professionals use.
Next time you see a soccer or basketball game, check out what kind of cameras the press is using. Or if you see a press conference with politicians and stuff, check out what the professionals are using. 99% of them are using the Canon gear.
If you’re thinking of Nikon, go with the next model, not the D70 – you’ll be limited a little bit in the ISO ranges, for example.
With my Canon, I can do ISO 100-3200, which makes for great night photography without a flash. ISO 3200 or 1600 with an f/1.8 lens:
http://photos22.flickr.com/25707732_dca8cc09bb.jpg
http://photos23.flickr.com/25707652_0e40be1bd2.jpg
http://photos23.flickr.com/25707721_cbe9e67b48.jpg
The only way you’re going to get that with a D70 is with a really really expensive lens. On my canon, I used a $100 lens.
Not sure if the next generation of Nikon entry-level SLR has better ISO coverage or not (I’m sure somebody will look it up).
But in the end, most of the SLRs are pretty much equal – the more expensive, the better, generally. The lenses are the real investment (my lenses cost a lot more than the camera!). So if you already have a lens or two from a certain manufacturer, it would definitely make sense to buy that SLR.
I know somebody here in Rupert who has very expensive Minolta lenses, and he just recently switched to digital and bought the new Minolta DSLR – and it kicks butt too!
Charles, if you don’t know anything about photography (ie; what is SLR?) why would you spend over $1,000 for a camera that you won’t know 90% of the features of?
I see so many people going out and buying DSLRs all the time who are clueless to the reason why professionals and advanced users buy these cameras. They’re spending way too much on cameras when they’re not helping them take any better photos.
If you really want something “fancy” that’ll be good for virtually everything you’ll need to do, take a look at the Canon Powershot Pro 1 camera. I assume you want lots of “zoom”, so the Pro 1 has approximately 8x zoom lens equivalent to a 28-200mm lens on a 35mm camera. It’s also got 8 megapixels, I guess megapixels are pretty important to consumers these days to. It’s got a good kit flash and there’s the opportunity to buy an external flash for better flashes over long distances etc.
Pro 1 will run you around $800. My setup has cost me more than that, ie;
$1100 - Canon EOS 10D (used)
$270 - Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 II USM (used)
$50 - Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II (used)
$90 - Vivitar 285HV Flash (used) + sync cable
$80 - Compact flash cards
$150 - Filters
That’s only $1740, but including my past equipment, which I’ve been able to sell (for much less than I paid, mind you), I’ve spent over $3500 on photography, and I’d spend much more to get lenses I die for, and buy memory since I only have 256mb but considering I’m 17 and saving for college and paying for car insurance/gas every month it’s not easy.
Is that something you’ll willing to do? Because photography with Digital SLRs isn’t cheap. If you’re going to buy an 8mp camera, you’re looking at about 10mb per RAW file and 3mb per high-JPG, so you’ll want a couple GB in memory cards which is a couple hundred $$. Something you’ll need to buy with the Pro 1 also, but you won’t need to spend money on lenses.
Think about it before you buy a DSLR. It may be the “cool” thing to do, but when everyone realizes their photos are no better with a DSLR, and like 50% of them are out of focus, they’ll switch back to P&S’ and DSLRs won’t be cool any more.
So yeah, to add to the Pro 1, bhphotovideo.com/bnh/control … Q=&ci=8613.
That shows the “Super Fancy” cameras you’re looking for. They do everything the trendy cameras like the digital rebel do, and in the case of the Pro1 is does more minus the fact that you don’t have interchangeable lenses and such. But then again, even my old $300 P&S had more features than the DRebel.
I wish I had a better camera. Mine was about $100, new!
One thing I really wish my Minolta coudl do was good night shots. It can’t even focus on stuff that isn’t well lit. I could use the manual focus/aperature/shutterspeed/iso, but who the hell can focus a camera through a 2" LCD? That’s where the D-SLR cameras blow me away… True optics.
