Doin the Newb thing, Which DSLR? long intro

[PHeller]

Ok...im PHeller...and im a newb.

I've been into photography since I was about 15, and took the bulk of my pictures when I was 16-17. I took pictures of friends (portrait), cars, gatherings, concerts, ect ect. Anywhere I went I had a camrea. My dream job was getting a gig with Playboy (shallow, I know), but I realised after meeting with a very well known wedding photographer, that going to school for photography would be a waste of money.

So here I am at 22, have'nt touched my SLR's (and old Olympus OM-1 and Minolta X-370) in about a year or two. Why? Because I got tired of wasting film. I was becoming so creative in my pictures, that I was trying so many new ideas that alot of my shots were junk. I didn't have the space for a dark room, and after highschool I became interested in other things...like attempting to go to school for something worth-while.

Now i'm really missing having that camrea. I got lots of compliments for my pictures, and I have some friends who are getting married soon, and they want me to take pictures at their wedding (young and not alot of money). I have confidence in my eye, but not in my equipment. Old, dusty, somewhat finiky, and that problem of "im not exactly sure how this will turn out" shooting style.

I dont want to end up with 10 good shots out of 4 rolls of film.

Also have had offers to take shots (for money of course) of some professional ballroom dancing, portraits, and motorsport events.

Now I know that buying a DSLR will not offset the price of film or development by any means, but i'm thinking it would be a good early x-mas present for myself. With the possiblity of making some money on the side as I progress (if I still have "the eye").

I dont want to spend more then 1100 tops for starters (that means for a complete kit)

I've been eyeing the following:

Canon 20D - Older but still good, lots of room to grow, best camrea for the money.
Canon 30D - New and not much diffrent from the 20D, just more expensive.
Canon 350/400D - I've used them before, and they do feel small and harder to hold longer periods of time, but considerably better then my old SLR's.

Sony A100 - Cool features, Minolta glass, Nice pricing

Olympus Evolt E-500 - Really nice price, cool features (raw edit on camrea), low price kit with two lenses, DOWNSIDE lower megapixel, USB2.0 SLOW

Nikon D80 - High Price, great camrea out of the box, wont need another body for sometime.

Pentax K110D - Low end?

So what am I missing? Will high ISO noise really effect me? What about USB2.0Slow? Do I need the 10.2 MegaPixel? Which one of these camreas will best suit my varying uses (indoor low light/outdoor highspeed)?

Thanks for staying with me!

[DonSchap]

There is much to consider...

1) Your budget is almost unusable (experience and the cost of glass...)
2) Your eye... jaundiced by time... shoot something first.
3) Read this forum...

There are tons of good pieces of advice and by looking at what YOU are asking, I know that you have not read anything on here.

I'm sorry, but that's rather arrogant. Just waltzing in and expecting everyone else to solve your problems. Well, they are solved... many times over. Just read it.

In fact, if no one else will, I insist that you take the time to read what people have already taken the TIME to write. Asking people to respond to this interrogative is disrespectful, at best. You waste their time repeating over and over, what is already here... if you would just take the time and LOOK! Read first... you have until Christmas, I guess. You can read quite a bit, by then.

I'll wait until you are done... then we'll... talk. :cool:

[PHeller]

Actually, I have read alot about the camreas in question. Reviews on this site, other sites, asked other photographers, ect

However, what someone knows about one camrea they dont know anything about another in comparison. I was really hoping just for a start. Mostly on the basic questions.

I'm not asking "which camrea should I buy" as much as I am asking "with so many choices, where do i begin?"

I have taken pictures recently with a friends Canon 350D, and I really enjoyed it and some of the result I got. Which is what spurred my interest in the most in getting a DSLR.

None of the reviews say "this camrea is better then this camrea" or "this is a good camrea of this type of photography, but needs this type of lense for this style", and even in the buyer guide, it doesnt adress all the choices currently available for prices given. For example, the 20D is priced (on the use d market) around that of the EVOLT E-500, but I can't tell which is better camrea because one is two years old and the other is only a few months, so features are completely different. There are no reviews comparing the newest lower end camreas with the best of yesteryears.


As far as my budget goes, I can't stand that response of "you cant do anything with that budget!" that's BS in my eyes, because I could buy a damn cheap DSLR and it would fit my budget even with a few lenses, but would that be a good decision? Probablly not.

I obviously have done some research because I know a little about each of the camreas I have in question, but I dont know the details of comparison between them and how the options in glass may effect the total cost of upgrading/performance down the road.

Give me a little help for a head start, it wont kill you.

[timmciglobal]

D80, XTI and 30D are all good. With current rebates I'd skip a 20D unless you pick it up used.

Tim

[DonSchap]

The SONY A100 is an excellent choice for the "beginner" and hobbiest. It offers an up-to-date sensor and anti-Quake technology, not found in the previous Canon DSLRs.

The Canon XTi has adopted the bigger sensor, but there isn't much more in its bag of tricks.

The Canon EOS 20D and 30D will require IS-embued lenses to acheive at least the same level of anti-shake the SONY gives you right up front. Any lens you put on the SONY gets this additional capability.

The price is shifting, also. You can find the base body for around $750 or less, on sale or with some type of store discount. Some folks believe the high-ISO noise level is questionable. Personally, I hardly ever shoot over ISO-400, so it means little to me. I figure ISO-800 or 1600 is really pushing the sensor and if you are using a decent lens, you won't have to.

Now, if you have a lot of extra cash... you can make a very decent argument for the Canon-system. But, as you have stated... that's not a reasonable expectation.

I recommend you read through this forum (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=47)... and decide.

[PHeller]

Well Don, you said you were doing a comparison of the 20D and the ALPHA...so lets here it. Ha.

I'm sorry, but quick question. To use ISO 800 or great effectively, you need what? Lots of light and a very quick exposure? Or a very long exposure? For example, in taking pictures of cars from 100-200 feet away on a very sunny or possibly overcast day, would I be encountering a 1600 ISO? Or would I need to take pictures of a white car in direct sunlight to really encounter those high ISO's? Im confused about how often Higher ISO's are actually used.

[DonSchap]

To be honest, higher ISO on the digital is used to solve low light issues. It adjusts the sensor to receive more light, faster. Unfortunately, the side effect is a higher noise level, due to this higher speed processing of photons.

Normally, ISO 400 is the setting you want to use as a maximum, but there are times when you need a faster shutter speed. To do this you drive up the ISO to 800 or 1600, which gives you, respectively, 1 or 2 f-stops of play. Also, the inherited noise that goes with it.

For instance:

Let's say we are indoors and at the maximum f/2.8 aperture with our EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens... a shutter speed of 1/60 sec and an ISO-400 setting. The lighting is so poor that the internal light meter says... "I still need two more f-stops of light for the correct exposure", yet you do NOT want to lose that 1/60 sec shutter speed, because any slower and you will get image blur. You jack up the ISO... to 1600.

You know that with post-processing, you'll probably be able to resolve the noise problem, but if that image blurs... the shot is spoiled no matter what. So you take the shot! Looks good, except the shadows are full of tiny green, red and purple flecks. Ah, digital noise. The camera did not have enough information coming from those places to provide definition... so it kind of "made up" the lack of data with these flecks of color. Is the shot spoiled? No way... there are post-processing software programs that can help with this. Even some talent with Photoshop will provide some relief.

Some people ask: Is digital noise the same as grainy film? The answer is "NO!" Although it makes the image look speckled and fuzzy, grainy film is an actual image problem. You can try sharpening it through contrast filters, but the actual image is imperfect. Digital noise is correctable through an image-filtering process that actually replaces the specks with greys and blacks, restoring the shadow density.

Anyway, I don't really know if this addressed what you are asking... but it is good information, none-the-less.

[PHeller]

Ahhh, highly informative.

Now then, you were going to compare your new A100 to the Canon 20D? At least you said you would in the Sony DSLR Forum.

[DonSchap]

One of the things on my "to do" list is taking time to do comparative shots between the Canon EOS 20D and the SONY A100 Alpha. One of the issues I have run into is time. (Who knew?)

Over the coming weeks... I am going to be involved in doing transparency work (Ektachrome) and will have to shelve my digital equipment for a bit. All I can say is that with the amount of time I have spent on either system, the SONY is capable of nearly every level of shooting the 20D can do, on the normal scale. Of course there are particulars, but for the sake of argument and comparison, that's just nit-picking.

The JPG image from the SONY is slightly larger and just as well defined.

One thing you may like is that you do not have to peek through the viewfinder or look over the top of the camera to get your shutter speed, imagine count, aperture, ISO, or other information... it is all on the rear of the camera, in the LCD.

I do miss the rear dial on the Canon. I got used to having it.

The LCD is significantly larger on the SONY.

Super SteadyShot is an obvious advantage.

All the older Minolta AF-glass works on this camera. That's 20-years of good, quality glass available at some great prices, too.

These are some cropped out test patterns that really need to be reshot, but here were some initial ones I took:

SONY A100
16592

Canon 20D
16593

[unix04]

you can find a used 350d in good/excellent condition for just above $500, leaving you with lots of room to buy the 50mm/1.4 (for portraits/ballroom) and other accessories like memory card + lens hood and still have some change left. you can then save up a little more than purchase another long range prime, perhaps the 85, 135 or 200 and allow yourself to shoot sports photography.

that's the method i would take given that budget. plus, the 50mm is a capable walkaround lens (though you'll need to foot-zoom pretty often).

getting the 20d/30d or the sony alpha or d80 and the like will leave you no room to buy a decent lens for your purposes.

an alternative could be perhaps the d50, which costs around 550, and the 50mm/1.4 equivalent costs less than its canon counterpart, making costs almost the same initially. i havent checked prices on the nikon tele primes though...so you'll have to look it up to see how extensible the d50 setup may be.

good luck with your search!

[rfortson]

Why are you considering a Pentax K110D and not the K100D? I think it's one of the better values out there. Also, the new Pentax K10D is due out next month, and it seems to offer a lot for the money. The K100D can be had for a little over $600 with a decent kit lens, leaving you $500 in your budget. If you spend $400 on another lens and $100 on memory and batteries, you'll have a nice setup.

If you spent that much time experimenting with film, I'm surprised it's taken you this long to move to digital. If you like to experiment, you'll love digital. Just buy something and have fun!

Russ

[DonSchap]

The Pentax Cameras (K100D and K110D, not the K10D) are 6.1 MP cameras. Similar to the Nikon D50 and D70s. They are not even in the same class as a Canon XTi, 20D, 30D, Nikon D80, D200 or even the startlingly cool SONY A100!

If you want to toss away money, rather than buying dead-end cameras... just put it in an envelope and... ;)

[jeisner]

Everyone knows more MP are better, and everyone needs them ;-)

[PHeller]

Found a good deal on ebay for the 20D, putting it below anything I could buy new. I just dont like the fact that the 20D doesnt have built in image stabilization.

[PHeller]

and in the end...it sold for what I could buy it used on B&H.

[TenD]

However, what someone knows about one camrea they dont know anything about another in comparison. I was really hoping just for a start. Mostly on the basic questions.

I'm not asking "which camrea should I buy" as much as I am asking "with so many choices, where do i begin?"
None of the reviews say "this camrea is better then this camrea" or "this is a good camrea of this type of photography, but needs this type of lense for this style", and even in the buyer guide, it doesnt adress all the choices currently available for prices given. For example, the 20D is priced (on the use d market) around that of the EVOLT E-500, but I can't tell which is better camrea because one is two years old and the other is only a few months, so features are completely different. There are no reviews comparing the newest lower end camreas with the best of yesteryears.
As far as my budget goes, I can't stand that response of "you cant do anything with that budget!" that's BS in my eyes, because I could buy a damn cheap DSLR and it would fit my budget even with a few lenses, but would that be a good decision? Probablly not.
So what you are basically asking then is: What features should I look for on any camera. Look for basics in the body, how many frames per second(how fast do you need, landscapes don't require speed), how's the high ISO performance, how's the AF performance, etc. After that you can pretty much forget the body for the most part, most of them are a parity product. Decide what system you want to invest in, who's lenses look best to you(Nikon and Canon have the largest array, but Pentax, Sony(Minolta), and Olympus have a decent selection)for the photography you want to do. Plan to spend the bulk of your budget on lenses in the long run, the lens is what gets the image to the sensor. A good used body with great glass will yield much better results than a great body with mediocre glass.
I will speak of Canon because that is what I am familiar with a D60, 300D, or 10D will leave a lot of room in your budget for a decent lens or 2. A 20D or 350D will squeeze you down to 1 quality lens, or 2 mediocre ones.
A couple of good quality(image quality not necessarily build quality) Canon lenses are the 50mm f/1.8 and the 28-105 usm II. Both have their limitations the 50 doesn't zoom at all and the 28-105 is pretty slow so a flash is mandatory for indoor photography.
KEH is a great source for used camera gear, if you can stand your equipment having some dings and scrapes thier bargain selection can sometimes be a true bargain. If you don't like the way your bargain lens looks KEH has a 14 day return policy.

[drew_viii]

i havent really read the whole thread yet, but just wanna say something...

things to consider for getting a DSLR:
1. money
2. features, like HIGH ISO with low noise,canon is best at that. or Dlite feature from nikon D80, or sony's anti shake system. Its really hard to say, but you have to look carefully... for example, most people think that 350D has spot metering, but they dont... so look carefully on the features.
3. what kind of photos are you into? sports? then go for 30D, portrait? still-life? do you shoot RAW as well?
4. which lens line you favor? canon has good pro series lens but mostly are expensive, while nikon has good amateur lens in a descent price. i dont know about sony or minolta but heard they have the best optics around the market.

personally i would say check this 4 cameras... canon 30D, 400D or xti, nikon D80 and sony A100. each camera has different advantages and disadvantages which you have to weigh it as possible as you can. canon cameras are good at high ISOs with low noises, hence the reason why i bought canon. im not sure about nikon's camera, but what ive heard about nikon though they have good metering system. while sony has the anti shake system built in with the camera body...

[RichNY]

I just dont like the fact that the 20D doesnt have built in image stabilization.

Umm.... There isn't a single Canon or Nikon DSLR that does have built in image stabilization. Then again there isn't a single film SLR, medium format, or large format camera with it.

The 20D is a great camera; IMO the only important feature 'lacking' is spot metering which didn't come out until the 30D.

[TenD]

Found a good deal on ebay for the 20D, putting it below anything I could buy new. I just dont like the fact that the 20D doesnt have built in image stabilization.
I doubt you will ever see IS in a Canon or Nikon body, they both have a large investment in IS lenses and I think both feel that the best performance is in lens based IS systems. The first image stabilized SLR lens was introduced by Canon only a short 11 years ago. I guess that means many many many photographers got along just fine without IS. I still do, I use a tripod and a monopod quite a bit to make up for it.


and in the end...it sold for what I could buy it used on B&H.
That's what usually happens on ebay, it's pretty hard to find a bargain any more, everyone usually has a pretty good idea what something is worth.

[DonSchap]

Unless you look for Minolta-glass, ebay is no bargain. But, then again, "everyone" knew better, right? Canon-this and Canon-that... Hah! :rolleyes:

Just find a half-way reputable vendor, selling Canon. Forget the warranties and whatever... if it is new, it should work just like the high-priced sellers does... they get the very same product line... right? Well, RIGHT? :eek:

Canon has a cost... and it is high as heck! I need only point to that wonderful new addition to IS-land... the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Selling for about $550 more than it really should.

Enjoy your seat in the "lap of luxury", my friends. At least your wallet won't weigh you down, while you are in it. ;)

[RichNY]

Don, you sure do have a funny and long winded way of saying Canon glass holds its value better than other glass. ;) :D

While the initial investment is higher the true cost of ownership is less.

Now I just bought my 17-55 IS for $999 so $600 less would make it a $399
f/2.8 Image stabilized lens while a Tamron 17-50 w/o image stabilization costs $449.... Hmmm... :rolleyes:

[DonSchap]

Don, you sure do have a funny and long winded way of saying Canon glass holds its value better than other glass. ;) :D

While the initial investment is higher the true cost of ownership is less.

Now I just bought my 17-55 IS for $999 so $600 less would make it a $399
f/2.8 Image stabilized lens while a Tamron 17-50 w/o image stabilization costs $449.... Hmmm... :rolleyes:

Oh, for crying out loud, in the darkness... "I need light!"

Rich, you are picking at pricing... which is always going to change depending on the day of the week. I think you knew my intent and just because YOU forked over that amount... oh, don't get me started. When it was announced, it drove me nuts. Grossly over-priced for an EF-S lens!

Anyway, if you want a good read... read THIS (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19363)! You may laugh.. or cry. It had its moments, to be sure.

[rfortson]

The Pentax Cameras (K100D and K110D, not the K10D) are 6.1 MP cameras. Similar to the Nikon D50 and D70s. They are not even in the same class as a Canon XTi, 20D, 30D, Nikon D80, D200 or even the startlingly cool SONY A100!

If you want to toss away money, rather than buying dead-end cameras... just put it in an envelope and... ;)


Thanks Don. I'll keep that in mind. I forgot that 6MP cameras are crap.

Russ

[PHeller]

When do Megapixel's come into play? How large of a picture do you have to print before you'll notice the diffrence between 6,8, and 10 megapixels?

Reason I ask is that the Pentax K100D offers alot of nice features, and compares with the Canon 350D and almost with the 400D at higher then 800 ISO's.

Plus for the price of a 400D or a Sony A100, I can get a Pentax with two lenses, one being a Tamron 17-300mm Telephoto. It also has built in image stabilization, so I can buy any cheap Pentax lense and it'll still do the job.

To me, at least as beginner to the realm of DSLR's, the only thing the Pentax lacks(tonque twister) is the MegaPixels and the Dust Reduction.

[jeisner]

Don, you sure do have a funny and long winded way of saying Canon glass holds its value better than other glass. ;) :D

I have been selling a lot of my friends Canon glass lately (I have better ebay rep) as he is moving to both canon and Pentax systems.. And holding its value well is not a feature of Canon glass in my experience... Though not as bad as Sigma! ;-)

[jeisner]

When do Megapixel's come into play? How large of a picture do you have to print before you'll notice the diffrence between 6,8, and 10 megapixels?

Heavy cropping will expose a difference, though I tend to only crop slightly myself but your milage may vary..

As for prints, at say 10"x12" you won't notice a difference.. At big prints like A2 then if you look up close and its a good quality print then you will, but mine tend to be on the wall and look great to me (as I'm not pixel peeping)...

Generally I think saving the money now on the body, to spend on better quality glass will give you more visible differences at even smaller print sizes, than buying a 10mp camera and only affording lower quality lenses..

Then in the future as you get addicted to the hobby :p you can upgrade to a 10mp body, at which time you will already have good quality glass that is not going to hold the camera back.. Cheap glass on a 10mp sensor is a waste of effort IMO, though I don't like cheap glass on a 6mp body either LOL


To me, at least as beginner to the realm of DSLR's, the only thing the Pentax lacks(tonque twister) is the MegaPixels and the Dust Reduction.

Which if you upgrade in the future they will have with the K10d coming out next month...

[DonSchap]

When do Megapixel's come into play? How large of a picture do you have to print before you'll notice the diffrence between 6,8, and 10 megapixels?

Reason I ask is that the Pentax K100D offers alot of nice features, and compares with the Canon 350D and almost with the 400D at higher then 800 ISO's.

Plus for the price of a 400D or a Sony A100, I can get a Pentax with two lenses, one being a Tamron 17-300mm Telephoto. It also has built in image stabilization, so I can buy any cheap Pentax lense and it'll still do the job.

To me, at least as beginner to the realm of DSLR's, the only thing the Pentax lacks(tonque twister) is the MegaPixels and the Dust Reduction.

I'll try and ease your load... just go ahead and get what you want. Hey, thanks for participating and reading all the suggested forum material. I can see you have really gotten a lot out of it... :rolleyes:

I'm truly sorry, "ReF"... I didn't realize just how hard this could be. "RichNY", you may have had a point. Oops. :o

Well, this weekend's just about shot...

Oh yeah, I hear there is a whole bunch of stuff coming out at the beginning of next year... (drumming fingers on desk)... gosh, look at the time! :eek:

[jeisner]

Thanks Don. I'll keep that in mind. I forgot that 6MP cameras are crap.

Russ

:confused:

[murrays]

When do Megapixel's come into play? How large of a picture do you have to print before you'll notice the diffrence between 6,8, and 10 megapixels?

At first glance, 10 mp might seem like it will make a 66.7% larger picture than a 6 mp. This is true in area, but not the length of sides of the photo.

For example, say a 6 mp camera makes a great 12x18 photo. A photo of similar quality from a 10 mp camera would only be 15.5 x 23.2, not a heck of a lot larger.

IMHO, get your hands on some of the cameras you’re considering and figure out which one feels the best in your hands and has the simplest access to adjustments you’ll be making frequently. If you’re fumbling to change the ISO, WB, shutter, aperture, etc. you’ll likely end up with no photo at all.

If I was on a budget, I’d consider a discontinued model from Nikon or Canon and start your glass collection. Move up when you get the cash and understand what’s really important to you.

-murray

[rfortson]

:confused:

Sorry, I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well over the web. I too have a Pentax K100D. That's why I was recommending it. However, I didn't realize the camera bigotry that I was going to run into here. I guess there's a reason I don't frequent this forum.

Russ

[TenD]

Sorry, I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well over the web. I too have a Pentax K100D. That's why I was recommending it. However, I didn't realize the camera bigotry that I was going to run into here. I guess there's a reason I don't frequent this forum.

Russ
I'm still shooting with a low class 6mp camera too, I'm just about against that dead end...NOT.

[jeisner]

Sorry, I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well over the web. I too have a Pentax K100D. That's why I was recommending it. However, I didn't realize the camera bigotry that I was going to run into here. I guess there's a reason I don't frequent this forum.

Russ

Sorry for the misunderstanding, your sarcasm seemed to agree with someone who was serious, so I mistook your comment to be serious too...

Camera Bigotry was a way of life here on dcresource, though it is getting better of late...

[DonSchap]

There are plenty of shoulders to dry the tears, concerning the continued use of 6.1 MP sensored cameras versus 8.2MP and 10.2MP... personally, I'd like to step up to a 16.4MP... but, that doesn't look like it is in the cards until the prices take a big ol' drop. And it better be a steep one, too.

I don't think it is bigotry NOT to recommend the purchase of a 6.1 MP camera. Especially in light of what is being offered for a few dollars more. It's just not recommended... plain and simple. No one is saying anything to put the 6.1 camera down... they're just not advising anyone to pick one up.

The future will be crowded with bigger and bigger. There is even the off-chance that perhaps even a whole new "sensor" will arrive, delivering things none of the current ones do. Then what... more bigotry allegations? Geez... lighten up.

I mean, even the low-end XT, with a full 8.2MP in the 350D, went up to a 10.2MP in the 400D (XTi). If 6.1MP was so darn good, then why didn't Canon stick with one, originally? It's a fair question. The EOS 10D, with its 6.3MP was effectively abandoned very quickly for the 20D and everything that followed. Even EF-S lenses won't mount on the EOS 10D.

The image is the important thing... and some folks figure their image looks better holding a Canon Rebel XTi than a Pentax K110D.

Can't you just picture that? :rolleyes: Bigotted? Hardly.


Remember: "Image is everything!" - Andre Agassi, 1990
16659

[murrays]

I mean, even the low-end XT, with a full 8.2MP in the 350D, went up to a 10.2MP in the 400D (XTi). If 6.1MP was so darn good, then why didn't Canon stick with one, originally? It's a fair question.

Fair (and simple) answer...marketing. No one is going to replace their camera with one that's essentially the same.

As for image, you won't see much, if any difference, unless you're printing posters.

-murray

[swgod98]

As for image, you won't see much, if any difference, unless you're printing posters.

Exactly.

The only reason companies have moved to 10mpx cameras is because they can. It's marketing. Have things improved? No. Noise is just as high, if not worse (especially on the A100).

If money were an issue at all, i would heartily recommend the K100D.

[jeisner]

Its more fun to be a slave to the marketing departments... ;-)

Look if image is everything stop wasting your time APS-C and buy a Canon 5d, actually thats a waste of time to, go Medium Format it'll make great 8x10s.. 6mp APS-c is easily enough for the vast majority of DSLR users they want MORE as the marketing departments of the camera companies convince them they need it.. They do that as they want to keep selling you new cameras, not because you need a 16mp APS-C camera, if you want that stop waisting time with a crop factor camera..

[DonSchap]

Personally, I have always been of the mind that Canon's 8.2MP sensor and the EF-S lens system were inter-related and that's why they don't work on 6.3MP sensor EOS 10D camera. But, hey, that's just me and my suspicious mind.

But, you know what... you guys win! You've convinced me.

I'm going out and selling all my high MP sensor cameras and going back to a 6.1MP Samsung or something just a unimaginative. What was I thinking? :eek: What foolishness. (shaking head in disgust) All the money I coud have saved with a Pentax... a Samsung... a Fujifilm S3? Oops... sorry... that's a luxury version of the 6.1MP. LOL :D

Look, enjoy your photography. I know I do... not yours, but mine. LOL :p

Pentax fights... be there!

[jeisner]

Personally, I have always been of the mind that Canon's 8.2MP sensor and the EF-S lens system were inter-related and that's why they don't work on 6.3MP sensor EOS 10D camera. But, hey, that's just me and my suspicious mind.

Nothing at all to do with the MP, read about it if you want... OR make stuff up, whatever!

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html


But, you know what... you guys win! You've convinced me.

I'm going out and selling all my high MP sensor cameras and going back to a 6.1MP Samsung or something just a unimaginative. What was I thinking? :eek: What foolishness. (shaking head in disgust) All the money I coud have saved with a Pentax... a Samsung... a Fujifilm S3? Oops... sorry... that's a luxury version of the 6.1MP. LOL :D

Look, enjoy your photography. I know I do... not yours, but mine. LOL :p

Pentax fights... be there!

*YAWN*

[swgod98]

But, you know what... you guys win!

This thread is for the OP, who should have a fair assessment of ALL his options so he can make an informed decision for himself.

You obviously don't think it's worth it to put money into a 6mpx camera. Not everyone agrees with you.

[DonSchap]

It's kind of funny to read an article that goes into detail on how to "butcher" a "kit" lens to literally MAKE IT WORK with an EOS 10D, which it was NOT designed to do. Heck, you can use a magnifying glass, a roll of electrical tape and a paper cup with its bottom removed and get some kind of result out of a DSLR camera, for goodness sake. It's not rocket science! Just some careful positioning of the glass. :rolleyes:

The bottom line is all this is that 6.1 MP are probably adequate enough for decent photgraphy. Jumping up to a 10.2MP is nothing that extraordinary... but why would you suggest that someone should buy a 6.1MP sensor camera, now, if the design is due to expire in short order?

Maybe it is just late... but I'm not seeing the logic in this at all.

I mean: "Crop with a "6" and it can't be fixed... crop with a "10"... and you can do it again!"

It's all in the wrist... :rolleyes:

[Vich]

Thanks Don. I'll keep that in mind. I forgot that 6MP cameras are crap.

Russ

Absolutely disagree.

6MP is JUST FINE for most photos. Bigger pixels can combat noise.

Don, surprised at you! You're always going on and on about not giving in to Canon (or any manufacturer's) hype. I fear, you are guilty of just that! 10MP is useful to some here, who make a craft of large printing, but the average wedding with 8x10, 4x6, maybe 1 or 2 bigger prints (maybe), a 6MP camera should do wonderfully and saying the average photographer needs more sure sounds like marketing hype.

I saw a Canon Rebel 6MP (the original) on www.fredmiranda.com for $320 this week. I would highly recommend that route for someone wanting to get their feet wet without much risk.

The original Rebel would offer adequate shutter lag, decently low noise at high ISO, reasonable AF (that would be it's biggest failing I believe), and full compatibility with a great lens line-up.

"Crap"? I'd wonder about pitting that camera equiped with a Canon 35L against a top Tamron zoom on a 30D or 400D for IQ at ISO 800.

I've never owned the original Rebel but have heard OK reports on it. Don't think it's automatically deserving the "crap" rating just because it's 6MP.

Now; if you want to talk about the 2.0x crop, 6MP, Olympus .... at High ISO anyway, now you're challenging the limits (even still, Noise Ninja ...)

I'd say, if you only have $1100, don't automatically rule out a 6MP camera. All other things being equal, a 6MP image merits respect.

My .02.

To the OP: Suggest registering at www.fredmiranda.com (if you can) and surfing their buy-sell site. There are deals to be had.

[Vich]

Nothing at all to do with the MP, read about it if you want... OR make stuff up, whatever!

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html



*YAWN*

Great article! I just love how he just hack-sawed his EF-S 18-55! Guess he really didn't care, lol!

[murrays]

Jumping up to a 10.2MP is nothing that extraordinary... but why would you suggest that someone should buy a 6.1MP sensor camera, now, if the design is due to expire in short order?

Read again, I suggested that a person on a tight budget would do well to save on the body and start their glass collection. Do you disagree?

Let's turn this around, those of you convinced 10.2mp is the only way to go, how many mp would you use if there were no limits on the sensor? 20mp, 50mp, 100mp?!? Is 10.2mp the sweet spot or are you going to sell your camera in another year?

-murray

[swgod98]

Is 10.2mp the sweet spot or are you going to sell your camera in another year?

10 mpx is no doubt better for cropping. I don't think Don's underlying point is in question. But, 6 mpx camera's do save money. The K100D especially, due to it's built in SR.

Being able to crop is just another "+" of a camera. Like Spot Metering, or having an F2.8 lens, or having 5fps or wireless flash...There are always compromises to make in every purchase.

So, I stand firm in my stance...if money is an issue, the K100D is a great option. If the user decides 6mpx is not enough in the near future, the K10D is coming...

If money is NOT an issue, I would recommend the 30D or D80. I feel those are the two best camera's on the market at about $1000. You pay a little more for the camera...and a LOT more for SR should you decide you want it.

[TenD]

Personally, I have always been of the mind that Canon's 8.2MP sensor and the EF-S lens system were inter-related and that's why they don't work on 6.3MP sensor EOS 10D camera. But, hey, that's just me and my suspicious mind.
Don, Don, Don, Where are you getting your information from? The EF-S lens system was introduced with the Canon Digital Rebel 300D, a 6mp camera body. The Dreb(300D) was introduced in September of 2003 with an EF-S 18-55mm "kit" lens, a full year :eek: before the 8.2mp 20D was introduced. The 10D followed Canon's usual cycle and was introduced in March of 2003 and was replaced by the 20D in September 2004, A year and a half cycle. Canon has followed the market: they cram more and more MP on each new sensor because that is what the general public perceives as a measure of a camera's worth. There is a price to pay for more MP and that's noise, the ability to control that noise has to improve before small sensors with lots of pixels work well. The 10mp sensor is cutting edge right now and sure, it's pretty darn good, but for someone on a budget, I still heartily endorse a 6mp sensored camera, heck I'm still using one. I haven't seen enough improvement in subsequent models to make the upgrade yet. Instead I am filling my stable with great overpriced...NOT, Canon glass. Canon's good glass holds it's value very well, in fact my 80-200 f/2.8L is worth far more than what I paid for it used 6 years ago.
A 6mp camera takes fine photos, with easy enlargements up to 8x10, A5 is possible with a good image, and with genuine fractuals 16x20 or larger is totally possible. A D60 is still quite a viable camera and can be had quite cheaply, it's chief problems were in auto focus and fps, it's not a sports camera but does quite nicely for landscapes, some say it produces the best images of any Canon 6mp camera.

[Jason25]

Pissing matches aside, to the original poster:

If your budget is around $1,100 you might consider just getting a used Rebel XT or D70s and a damn good lens (or 2, if you go third party). If you're going to be getting paid to do stuff, get good glass, it's more important than the latest body.

[DonSchap]

Hey, thanks for chiming in, "TenD"

My whole contention in this is simply... "Go big or stay at home." LOL

Honestly, it doesn't really matter one way or the other, as long as you...

GET THE SHOT! :D

I guess they are having trouble getting photographers over in Iraq. The insurgents keep aiming for the polarizer. Can you imagine, $250,000/ yr for that job... only to get capped by some guy who doesn't know what having a fine house with a fine lady, by a fine lake, drinking some fine wine means.

It just ain't right... or even left, for that matter.

I guess, in their case, it's...

TAKE THE SHOT!... TAKE THE SHOT, WILL YA?

Go 6MP. 8MP, 10MP... but give me an 16.7MP. I like 'em big.

Oh, BTW, the Nikon D200 is using the very same sensor as the SONY A100... at about 2/3 more the cost. Which camera do you want, now?

Anyway, back to work I go... ;) Some things are better left... alone.

[swgod98]

Oh, BTW, the Nikon D200 is using the very same sensor as the SONY A100... at about 2/3 more the cost. Which camera do you want, now?

D200. Did I answer correctly? :D

[wh0128]

Yeah I'd say d200 over the A100 any day. More features, more fps, which is good for me because I shoot sports. I use a D50 and it is very well loved, and can print exceptionally large images without using sharpness. I got my camera for a graduation present, and I paid HALF of it myself, and everything else I have bought with my own money. Having my new 80-200 2.8 worth more than the body itself. I felt that I need a really highquality piece of glass, so I bought one, but that wasn't until 3 months after I was stuck with only the D50 and the 18-55 kit lens which gave me a great deal of good images. I'd say who cares about MP until you start getting into the big corporate jobs where they start printing poster size images. You can find a used d50/d70/d70s which are all 6.1mp for 399 body only. Canon was way to expensive for me in bodies and in lenses, so that is why I went Nikon rather than Canon. And Nikon just felt better in my hands.