back alley
IMAGES
i am quite the neophyte when it comes to digital and while i do research to satisfy my general curiosity i think i rely more on the experienced advice gained from asking folks that are in the know and that i 'know'.
anyway, i am starting to think that i can't handhold a smaller camera very well. this panasonic seems to have all i really need and i love the layout, it is very easy to use. it is a good size i think but it may just be too light for me.
i know that might sound silly but i am getting not very sharp results from it too often.
i don't think it's the camera as i have also done some sharp pics also. if i really concentrate and lean/brace myself against something it works better for me, but that's not always possible and it's not my general style of shooting.
with my rf's i can shoot while walking and still count on a good shot.
so, i'm thinking of selling my cv 28/1.9 and the panasonic and getting a used digital slr.
if i can find one with a quick shutter and a sharp 'kit' lens i think that would be enough for me...at least to start .
a lens that translates to a 28 to 50 zoom range or so would be good.
so, ply with advice, please.
any recommendations?
joe
anyway, i am starting to think that i can't handhold a smaller camera very well. this panasonic seems to have all i really need and i love the layout, it is very easy to use. it is a good size i think but it may just be too light for me.
i know that might sound silly but i am getting not very sharp results from it too often.
i don't think it's the camera as i have also done some sharp pics also. if i really concentrate and lean/brace myself against something it works better for me, but that's not always possible and it's not my general style of shooting.
with my rf's i can shoot while walking and still count on a good shot.
so, i'm thinking of selling my cv 28/1.9 and the panasonic and getting a used digital slr.
if i can find one with a quick shutter and a sharp 'kit' lens i think that would be enough for me...at least to start .
a lens that translates to a 28 to 50 zoom range or so would be good.
so, ply with advice, please.
any recommendations?
joe
ampguy
Veteran
pentax *ist DL, or if you have a lot of Nikkor glass, a D200.
back alley
IMAGES
are these available used ted?
GeneW
Veteran
Joe, in all honesty, take your pick: Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony (aka Minolta). You can usually find fairly recent models on the used market, and if they've been lightly used, they're very cost effective. Play with them in camera stores so you get a sense of their styles, VF look, control layout, etc. The entry-level models are often good enough -- e.g., Nikon D50, Canon 350D (though watch the small size of this one), Pentax *istD, etc. I think Nikon and Pentax may have the best of the 'kit' lenses. Not bad -- not great, but quite useable. None of these will have IS though. IS lenses cost big $$$. The Sony (aka Konica Minolta) offers stabilization via the body. Don't know much about their kit lens.
Gene
Gene
FrankS
Registered User
Oh, The Humanity!!!
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Joe, I'd second the Pentax Dx suggestion. My DS gets the job done no matter what the circumstances and excelent lenses are available pretty cheap.
ghost
Well-known
a pentax ds or olympus e-1.
Andrew Touchon
Well-known
back alley said:
Which model Panasonic do you own?
ampguy
Veteran
possibly, but not for much less
possibly, but not for much less
When I was shopping, new with rebate was the same or less than used, so I went new, which I rarely do.
The DL is getting long in the tooth (6mp, not weatherproof), but has better JPG noise control than previous for non-raw shooters, and a couple of things that are considered "old fashioned" but that I like, SD cards, and 4 AA rechargeable batteries (last 600+ shots per charge).
I think Nikon D200's will be easier to find used, but if you can go down to 6MP, which is fine for 11x14, the D100 is a great camera, just ask Warren T.
Great glass for these in manual or AF mode is available at about 1/5 the price of RF glass, IMHO. They are bigger than RF's and the mirrors clack meaning for me and most people having to go up a notch or two on the shutter speed, but for tripod shots, good DSLR's have mirror lock up.
When I did my research, the pentax 18-55 was a notch better than the equivalent entry kit lens for Canon and Nikon, but these bundled zooms are a non issue, few people stick with them, and serious folks move up fast with better glass.
possibly, but not for much less
When I was shopping, new with rebate was the same or less than used, so I went new, which I rarely do.
The DL is getting long in the tooth (6mp, not weatherproof), but has better JPG noise control than previous for non-raw shooters, and a couple of things that are considered "old fashioned" but that I like, SD cards, and 4 AA rechargeable batteries (last 600+ shots per charge).
I think Nikon D200's will be easier to find used, but if you can go down to 6MP, which is fine for 11x14, the D100 is a great camera, just ask Warren T.
Great glass for these in manual or AF mode is available at about 1/5 the price of RF glass, IMHO. They are bigger than RF's and the mirrors clack meaning for me and most people having to go up a notch or two on the shutter speed, but for tripod shots, good DSLR's have mirror lock up.
When I did my research, the pentax 18-55 was a notch better than the equivalent entry kit lens for Canon and Nikon, but these bundled zooms are a non issue, few people stick with them, and serious folks move up fast with better glass.
back alley said:
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
andrew i have the fz20.
i've been reading up on some of these models and feel a bit dizzy.
it's a whole 'nother world.
i've been reading up on some of these models and feel a bit dizzy.
it's a whole 'nother world.
R
ray_g
Guest
If you ask me, Joe, you will end up spending a lot of money if you go down this road. Even if you start with a used body, you will be starting from scratch with the lenses. If you want your photos to be "up to snuff" with your RF pics, you will not be content with an inexpensive kit lens, and will start laying out the big bucks for the good glass. Keep in mind, digital gear depreciates faster than RF gear, so stand to lose money buying and selling, more so than you have with your kit transitions.
If you really want to get into digital, consider a used RD1 or the new RD1s. Even though the body will cost you more, you already have the good glass. Sell one ZI body.
If you really want to get into digital, consider a used RD1 or the new RD1s. Even though the body will cost you more, you already have the good glass. Sell one ZI body.
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Joe, maybe these user opinions will help.
Mark Eggers
Dad of Four!!!
Hello all,
I am new to Rangefinder cameras but have quite a bit of expeirience with Digital SLR's I have gone through quite a few of them and here is my .02 cents.
Canon: Had 10D and 1D. Images were quite acceptable I could not stand the layout of the cameras. Basically ergonomics with Canon just suck. AF not real great either, best in high ISO shooting. Flash system was/is terrible.
Olympus, Had E-1, liked the ergonomics, flash shooting OK better than Canon. High ISO terrible. The camera is very slow compared to the Nikons Dust removal thing very cool!
Now with Nikon Have had D50, D70s, D2x and now 2 D200's. Nikon ergonomics is by far the best. Nikon's Creative Lighting System (CLS) is the best bar none when it come to flash work. The only real drawback is that Canon is better at High ISO but the D200 images are quite useable at 1600 ISO.
Understand this, if you don't like spending a lot of time in front of a computer then stick with film. Or go with something like a digital P&S or a D50 they are designed to give you sharp images right out of the camera. Cameras like the D200, D2x, D2hs all require post processing to get the most out of them.
I love digital for portraits when you only need to process a few shots. But when we shoot weddings and have 1000+ images to work it gets real tiresome. Also dust is a major problem if you are a big lens changer. CCD's suck dust up like crazy. Oly has the best system for this and it looks like Canon did something like it with their new Rebel. Nikon uses a software solution which is the least desireable.
I hope this is helpful
Mark
I am new to Rangefinder cameras but have quite a bit of expeirience with Digital SLR's I have gone through quite a few of them and here is my .02 cents.
Canon: Had 10D and 1D. Images were quite acceptable I could not stand the layout of the cameras. Basically ergonomics with Canon just suck. AF not real great either, best in high ISO shooting. Flash system was/is terrible.
Olympus, Had E-1, liked the ergonomics, flash shooting OK better than Canon. High ISO terrible. The camera is very slow compared to the Nikons Dust removal thing very cool!
Now with Nikon Have had D50, D70s, D2x and now 2 D200's. Nikon ergonomics is by far the best. Nikon's Creative Lighting System (CLS) is the best bar none when it come to flash work. The only real drawback is that Canon is better at High ISO but the D200 images are quite useable at 1600 ISO.
Understand this, if you don't like spending a lot of time in front of a computer then stick with film. Or go with something like a digital P&S or a D50 they are designed to give you sharp images right out of the camera. Cameras like the D200, D2x, D2hs all require post processing to get the most out of them.
I love digital for portraits when you only need to process a few shots. But when we shoot weddings and have 1000+ images to work it gets real tiresome. Also dust is a major problem if you are a big lens changer. CCD's suck dust up like crazy. Oly has the best system for this and it looks like Canon did something like it with their new Rebel. Nikon uses a software solution which is the least desireable.
I hope this is helpful
Mark
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
check out this forum:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1036
and the photos in it. I think you'll see you don't need to spend $1900+ for a 6MP rf body for "rf quality" photos ...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1036
and the photos in it. I think you'll see you don't need to spend $1900+ for a 6MP rf body for "rf quality" photos ...
Gid
Well-known
If you don't want to spend a lot of money, then Olympus E1. Pro build quality, weather sealed, excellent ergonomics, shutter as quiet as a Leica (check out sean reid's reviews) an the best use of 5MP you could possibly get. Still a few available at less that £400 in the UK with a kit lens (new price £1350 without the lens a couple of years ago). Used even less.
I have two. PM me if you want to borrow one with kit lens for the price of postage
PS
You can use your new OM lenses with an adaptor
I have two. PM me if you want to borrow one with kit lens for the price of postage
PS
You can use your new OM lenses with an adaptor
Last edited:
Andrew Touchon
Well-known
back alley said:
Joe,
I know how you feel. Yesterday, I ordered a FZ-50 Kit from B&H.
jody
Broke User
The new Sony is a bargin with plenty of older avaiable lenses to choose from. Do some research it is rated very well by all. it is also sold at best buy where you can put your hands on it before buying.
Toby
On the alert
Joe
I would recommend canon - I've always found their cameras the best ergonomically and being the biggest sellers there are more second hand options floating around. I predict you'll have an EOS 1DS II within six months
I would recommend canon - I've always found their cameras the best ergonomically and being the biggest sellers there are more second hand options floating around. I predict you'll have an EOS 1DS II within six months
sf
Veteran
Here is my input, real short and simple:
Nikon is cheaper per megapixel, but Canon sensors are less noisy.
Canon sensors are less noisy, but the bodies are not as well designed (in my opinion).
Nikon premium bodies (D200 or higher) are very well made, and you can get a higher quality body from Nikon for the same price as the Canon. Weather sealing, etc.
I tried the Nikon D200 for a day and didn't like it at all. I was actually surprised at how ugly the images were in low light. NOISY as heck, actually. THis may be because they are stuffing more pixels into the same DX sensor. The thing is fast though. 5fps and focusing too. Powerful machine. If I were going to shoot news on a budget, or tabloid work, this would be the no brainer choice.
For image quality, the Canon 5D is peerless in the cost range that it enhabits, but it is doomed for obsoletion when the next Canon super camera comes out.
If I were going to buy any digital camera on the market right now, I would buy the D200 only because I don't ahve the cash for more. THe D80 has the same image quality, but the body is puny, and my D70 died after only a few thousand shots. I want toughness in an SLR.
Nikon is cheaper per megapixel, but Canon sensors are less noisy.
Canon sensors are less noisy, but the bodies are not as well designed (in my opinion).
Nikon premium bodies (D200 or higher) are very well made, and you can get a higher quality body from Nikon for the same price as the Canon. Weather sealing, etc.
I tried the Nikon D200 for a day and didn't like it at all. I was actually surprised at how ugly the images were in low light. NOISY as heck, actually. THis may be because they are stuffing more pixels into the same DX sensor. The thing is fast though. 5fps and focusing too. Powerful machine. If I were going to shoot news on a budget, or tabloid work, this would be the no brainer choice.
For image quality, the Canon 5D is peerless in the cost range that it enhabits, but it is doomed for obsoletion when the next Canon super camera comes out.
If I were going to buy any digital camera on the market right now, I would buy the D200 only because I don't ahve the cash for more. THe D80 has the same image quality, but the body is puny, and my D70 died after only a few thousand shots. I want toughness in an SLR.
