camera's

[island guy]

great pics!!

I've been holding off going digital till I saved some coin and could get something good. I'm now ready and am looking at the nikon d70. I've seen some really great phoptos taken with this camera. I'm very much a non-tech kinda person and a friend had told me this may be too difficult a camera for me to use. I admit I'm not the brightest star in the sky and technology overwhelms me. What do you guys think? I've been using a high end 35mm slr for years and do fine. Would I be getting in over my head with the d70?

Thanks

[Steve Foss]

Nope, you wouldn't be getting in over your head. You'd be getting up a good head of steam with the D70. I'm a Canon shooter. Have been since I started shooting at 18. But Nikon makes excelent DSLR cameras. Whichever you go with, it's a switch well worth making, and if you haven't shot much digital, you'll get addicted fast to the instant nature of the format.

Good luck, and have fun with it.

In most cases, the new DSLR bodies work with lenses that were attached to your film camera, if they are the same brand. So if your high-end film camera and its lenses were Nikon, it's cheaper to stay with Nikon DSLR than go to a different brand and have to buy a whole line of new glass.

Conversely, if your film camera is a different brand, and it's a brand that is one of the TOP makers of DSLRs, you may want to consider sticking with that make. The vast majority of DSLR shooters use either Canon or Nikon, because they were the top two in film and have translated that into the top two in digital. I believe Canon has the edge there, but then, I would believe that, wouldn't I?

What's your film camera, and what lenses do you have to go with it? Also, the Canon 20D that I shoot has a 1.6 magnification factor because the sensor isn't quite as large as a film negative. Most of the entry level and mid-range DSLRs will have a magnification factor of some sort, most hovering around 1.5. It's not until you get into the $3,000 and up range that the bodies contain the slightly larger sensor.

The practical ramification of this is good for telephoto shooters, not so good for wide angle. At the 1.5 factor, a 300 mm lens acts like a 450 mm. Also, a 20 mm acts like a 30 mm. I shoot mostly with a 100-400 image stabilizer lens on my Canon, which then with my maginification factor of 1.6 is a 160-640 mm. But my 18-55 mm is really more like a 28 or 29-88 mm, not so good when I want wide angle. But the major DSLR camera/lens manufacturers have come out with lenses specifically for digital. Canon now offers a 10-22 for the 20D, which matches its venerable 16-35 film lens, and other makers (including Tamron, Sigma and some other lower-priced manufacturers) have done the same.

If you buy new glass, try to spend enough for image stabilization (vibration reduction for Nikon) lenses. They use battery power to stabilize the hand shake, and that buys a LOT of flexibility for the shooter.

[Tom Wilson]

STF's info is right on...If you've been using a 35mm slr then you will have no issues at all with the digital. Sctually you will find it easier to use and will fall in love with it immediately.

[Flick]

I had a question also. I have a Cannon rebel 35mm and I like it alot, it takes great pics. The only thing I dont like is the cost of developing film. Is there any digitals out there for about $3-400 that will develop good pictures? I just dont want them to look great on the computer and then have them look "grainy" when I get them developed. Are there better places than others to go get your digitals developed? Thanks alot for any replies.

[Steve Foss]

You can take a memory card out of a digital camera and get it "developed" at most of the big film developer places in large cities. WalMart, for example, is one that you can bring in the card and walk out with prints.

You won't find a digital camera that can behave as well as your Canon Rebel for the money you said. You can get digital cameras that are quite nice for that money, but they are point-and-shoots with slow wits compared to your Rebel. They make prints that are very nice, but the problem is they act so slowly, and that makes it harder to get nicely composed photos than with your film Rebel.

If you want to go digital, you're better off spending around $800 for the digital Rebel XT, which then also works with your Rebel film lenses. The XT has about an 8 megapixel sensor. If you can find a nice used first-generation digital Rebel (a 6.3 megapixel sensor), you should be able to get that for about $500.

A quick note (VERY quick, in a tremendously complicated field): You can find point-and-shoot digital cameras with 8 megapixel sensors, but the XT has a much better and bigger sensor than those, because the compacts have to use smaller sensors. So an 8 Mp sensor in a point-and-shoot is smaller in size than an 8 Mp in a digital SLR, and the larger sensor is much better than the smaller one. The reasons for this are technical and complicated, but just trust me. In fact, a 6.3 Mp first-generation sensor is better than almost all of the 8 Mp point-and-shoots, because of that size difference.

Also, as said before, the 8 Mp point-and-shoot, even if it has a "telephoto" capabilty, like they all say they do, is so much slower than the focusing mechanism in a digital SLR that the bird, or deer, or kid, of wife, will have long gone out of the frame before some of these point-and-shoots even get focused.

[Flick]

Thanks catfish, will the XT make nice clear prints like my Rebel. I just want nice prints to put in my photo album and for 8x10's on the wall, but the joy of going digital and takin as many as I want. Thanks

[Steve Foss]

Yep, the 20D makes very sharp prints. I've made prints on my 20D up to 20x30 inches that were sharp as a tack.

[island guy]

Catfish

Great info!! I'm hovering between the nikon and the canon 20d. Both seem like great cameras. Just trying to figure out what lens system.

Again thanks!!

[Flick]

Allright thanks, is the 20D the same as the XT? I wonder if it's hard to find a used camera, im in college so any money I can save is great.

[Tom Wilson]

Sorry Catfish, but just so you guys know...

Nikon has just introduced the D200

This camera is awesome, and is the same price as the 20D

Frankly, this camera is going to absolutely rule the roost for some time. I am begging the wife right now to put one on order as they are still about two weeks out of the retail stores.

[Steve Foss]

Hey, can't you Nikon people do math?

My supplier has the new Nikon for $1,699 and the 20D for $1,299. By my math, that $400 difference makes the Nikon about 30 percent more expensive. These are for the camera kits with no lens. The Nikon has a 10.2 megapixel sensor to the 20D's 8.2. I've never been one for megapixel envy (til now.) The Nikon is otherwise comparable to the 20D in almost every way, although it can take more images in burst mode before having to write to the memory card than the 20D, and that's a strong advantage when shooting sports or other action photography (like nature photography.)

Canon and Nikon both have DSLRs with larger sensors (12.1 megapixel with Nikon, 16.7 with Canon) and vastly higher sticker prices, but these two are considered in the marketplace to be in the "advanced amateur" or "entry level professional" categories. Nikon shooters must be ecstatic to finally have a mid-range camera that bridges the gap between the 6.1 and 12-ish megapixel options up to now, and for not an unreachable increase in price, to boot. No doubt as happy as I was when Canon developed the 20D and I could afford a big bump in quality and features without shelling out $3,500 to $8,000 for higher-up Canons.

Canon and Nikon will keep fighting the megapixel wars, with one pulling ahead of the other for awhile and then falling back. It's fun for Tom and I to HOO-ahh about our preferred beasts, but that's just for a nice diversion.

I'm sure Tom would agree that the best advice for people getting into DSLR for the first time is, pick a brand and stay with it. The majors will each keep upgrading as fast as they think the market will bear it and as the technology keeps getting sharper. Nikon or Canon, you can't go wrong.

[Steve Foss]

Flick:

The sensors in the XT and 20D are almost the same, and have virtually the same megapixel counts (8 in the XT, 8.2 in the 20D). The XT lists at my supplier for $784, the 20D for just under $1,300. The XT has a lot that the older digital Rebels did not, including more frames per second in shooting capability and a faster "wake-up" time.

Canon no longer offers the older Rebel, the 8 megapixel XT now being their lowest-resolution DSLR. You can find digital Rebels on hsolist and through used camera dealers, and that 6.3 megapixel camera is a good one. It's what I learned digital photography on (well, I'm always still learning), and it remains the backup camera in my bag.

I wouldn't pay more than $500 for a used digital Rebel, no matter how nice it is. The lower and middle end digital SLRs are only rated for so many shots before the shutters wear out. The more you shoot them, the faster they reach that magic number. I reckon the manufacturers do that partly to keep expense down, but also in acknowledgement that they keep making digital camera advances at a great rate, so these cameras tend to be considered "obsolete" after a couple three years, so people will be trading them in anyway.

I'm pretty sure the 20D is rated for 100,000 shutters, but I don't know about the Rebels and Rebel XTs.

[hobbydog]

Quote:

---

Hey, can't you Nikon people do math?

My supplier has the new Nikon for $1,699 and the 20D for $1,299. By my math, that $400 difference makes the Nikon about 30 percent more expensive.

---

Once you spend that first few thousand camera and lens whas a few more bucks for the real thing

It's only going to get better in the coming years. It won't be long that a 20 mpx with auto cropping down to 8 mpx will be in that price range....talk about some real digital zoom. That will only be made possible by strong competition between canon and nikon and others. My wife thinks it's cool that I am teaching my daughter photography....little does she know my plan is hand down my D70 to her so I can get the D200.

[Steve Foss]

You, sir, are a sly dog.

Since there's already a 600 pound gorilla in the room (Canon 1Ds Mark II) with 16.7 megapixels, 20 MP can't be far behind. As for being affordable, well, $1,000 here and $1,000 there and pretty soon you're talking some real money.

The market is aimed in a few directions. Most of the pro shooters already have gone digital, and the cost of switching brand names, largely because of all the extra costs to switch professional lenses, means the camera makers, in their upgrades, aren't looking predominantly for people to switch from Canon to Nikon or Nikon to Canon.

The bigger, better, faster means that each brand user will have more and more sophisticated options within the same brand.

But since there's a huge world full of film shooters still out there, most of whom like their shooting but have been hemming and hawing at the cost of DSLR as opposed to the point-and-shoot digital, the camera makers are courting that market tremendously, and whoever of the biggies can put together the best DSLR for the money to touch that particular market has the advantage. And its not just the film shooters converting to digital that's driving the market, it's those among the point-and-shoot digital crowd who have been bitten by the digital addiction and want to do more serious and flexible styles of shooting offered through DSLRs who are also seriously weighing who has developed what.

So there are a lot of reasons for those big guns to compete. And, in the end, we're the ones who benefit, as dog pointed out.

[Tom Wilson]

STF,

Where did you find a 20D for $1299? The cheapest I've seen has been $1499 and I wouldn't buy it from them. Did they drop the price in the last week? I'm not arguing--I just haven't seen it.

I also wasn't trying to pick on you over the Canon gear--but if a person doesn't already have money in prime glass, then this just gives Nikon an edge that soon enough Canon will match or top. It's the nature of the photography beast.

Tom W

[Steve Foss]

Hey, I didn't feel picked at. I'm a writer, so we write.

canogacamera is where I do all my online photo shopping. Add a 3w in front and and a dot c0m after it and it'll take you there. On the home page, under digital, click on still cameras, and then select brand rather than megapixel count.

It's a well organized site, and their customer service is outstanding.

The 20D has a $100 factory rebate offer as well, so that's another $100 off the above listed price.

[ewirz]

I think I fall under the dilemma that a lot of people do when it comes to photography. I consider myself an "advanced amateur." I shot a canon A2E and absolutely love it. I also am intrigued by the new digital world, instant gratification and ease of use with computers that digital offers. My biggest hang up is I've already invested a hefty sum of $$$ in a canon film system. I am very tempted to buy a relatively simple digital point and shoot for a bum around camera (friends at parties sort of thing) and keep the A2E for my serious, hobby oriented pics. Any thoughts on the wisdom, or lack of, for this?

ERW

[Steve Foss]

Well, your dilemma is not uncommon, I think.

Once you get a high quality film camera, it's there for years and years and years. If you switch to DSLR, you will to some degree be caught on a faster equipment-replacement treadmill, because the medium is fairly new, very technical and wide open for continued improvements, unlike film cameras, which have offered top quality bodies for many decades.

Now, digital doesn't mean you have to upgrade to the newest and best every time one comes out. I expect to wear out my 20D, not trade it in, and that'll take several years, by which time I'll be ready to upgrade, anyway.

One of the fairly big concerns is that the RAW format for certain cameras (which is proprietary to each camera manufacturer) won't be supported after a certain number of upgrades. In other words, the RAW images shot from a Digital Rebel may not be supported by Canon in 10 years.

Adobe has licked that, however, with its DNG format. It's a free download, and RAW shooters worried about their RAW files can convert them to DNG, which Adobe will continue to support through its Photoshop program. Most pros use Photoshop for their digital work.

I consider that issue settled. I also consider settled the argument about whether digital captures the rich and saturated colors like films such as Velvia. It does.

Another issue is cost. Yes, you have to spend money to switch from film to digital bodies, but have you weighed the difference in film and film processing costs? If you are an advanced amateur, how much film do you shoot and develop and print? How much does that cost you per year? Film manufacture and development also is a dirty industry. No way to get around that.

You also will shoot a lot more when you convert to digital, partly because of the convenience and partly because of the lack of cost impediments. The more you shoot, the better you get at it. And with digital, you can look at the camera's back to view the images to see what you're doing right and wrong. I might have had to use a whole roll of 36 to capture one or two images that were just right to my eye, but with digital, you can make adjustments on the fly and get what you want a lot faster. And then — Shazam! — you delete the ones you don't like off the memory card and keep shooting. All this makes for better and better photography.

A point-and-shoot digital isn't a bad half measure, but you need to spend a few hundred bucks for a good one, minimum, and when you can buy a Rebel XT digital for under $800, you see that the cost difference really isn't that much.

There are a whole host of other ways to compare the two, but I will finish with one of the most important to me: Control of the work from start to finish. My image capture, my post-processing software, my printer, my control. For an artist, that's vital. Maybe you don't want all that "hassle," which is how many casual shooters see it. Gotta have a good computer, a good processing program (although the ones sold with the cameras from the manufacturers are good enough for the general user) and a good photo printer). If that's too much, you can take your memory card down to most photo stores and some big box retailers and make prints right off the card.

However, I can spend a day in the woods, come home, download my images, sort through them, process the ones I want and make prints then and there that are as good as or better than the ones I have to wait for from the photo store.

[Dbl]

One other thing to consider is to trade all that film equipment in except for some of your better lenses. That is what I did and it ended up costing me about what an average point and shoot costs. Most DSLR's can use your older lenses, sometimes with restrictions, so you immediately have a selection of glass to start your shooting.

I decided to make the switch after owning some simple point and shoot digital cameras and became frustrated with not having control over the camera. It was a bit hard to sell all that equipment after using it for so many years, but it has been the best thing I could have done. It is so easy to shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. The points Steve made in his post are exactly why I made the switch.

Ask yourself how often you take your film camera with you when you go places, or even take it out of the bag. I promise you that with digital you won't want to leave home without it. Good luck with your decision.

Dan

[ewirz]

Thanks for the advice guys!!

ERW