OT: DSLR help

[Little Prince]

First, I've not gone over to the darkest side.

Now, my brother is looking to buy a new camera. All indications are a DSLR. I'm in charge of the research . I might have plans to gift him some add on too (later). Ideas of other cameras (RFs) are also being dutifuly pitched .

But back on topic (or off), I need some basic comparisons between the major DSLR options. I mean the big 5 (and no, that does not include L**ca ). I know there's DSLReXchange, but I know some people here and it would be easy to hear opinions here. Plus, I don't want to register over there just to ask the one question and never post again. (Well let's not say never now ).

I guess the models to look at would be the Canon 20D and equivalents. I know Canon has a long line up, and others might not have exact equivalents but whatever is the nearest that costs less than or equal to the Canon. I guess if someone could tell me the current offerings from each of Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Konica Minolta and Olympus that are in the low-mid price range, I'd be able to make some independent progress.

Don't mean to be a parasite, but this whole thing is just so confusing. I'd appreciate some pointers. Any indications to where I might find comprehensive but simple comparisons are welcome.

Ok, I'll stop before you get mad.

 

[ChrisN]

Hi - can't help with your questions, but do you know about our companion forum, DSLR Exchange, also run by Jorge? It's in the "Cool Links" panel at left.

 

[GeneW]

It's a tall order trying to make such a recommendation. First question: does your brother already have existing lenses that could be used on a digital body? Canon? Nikon? Minolta? If so, then the product line is a no-brainer -- go with a model that fits the lenses.

If not, the choice is wide open and to tell the truth, I've not heard anyone say anything significant against any of the top brands. And none of us can speak beyond our personal experience. Mine is Canon, someone else's is Nikon, others prefer Olympus...

If he's a newcomer to DSLR, and you're looking at Canon, I would suggest the Digital Rebel XT (350D) and spend the difference between this body and the 20D on some good glass. Sensor quality is pretty much the same for both bodies. The 20D has more features and a better build, but the 350D is really nice. I use the older 300D and it suits my needs ... it's all subjective.

Gene

 

[back alley]

yes, don't forget our sister forum, there should be some good info there also.

joe

 

[bmattock]

Most DSLRs are pretty good these days. Not many stinkers. Hard to go wrong.

However, each have certain advantages and disadvantages that may or may not apply, depends on what your brother has already, wants, and expects out of a DSLR.

1) Does he have legacy equipment, such as old lenses? That might predispose one to use a DSLR from the same manufacturer, if the mount hasn't changed.

2) Does he have a quality requirement for the megapixel? They go from 6 to 22 or so megapixels now.

3) Price a factor?

4) What will he use the camera for, primarily? If he's going to buy a DSLR and take family photos with it, no offense, but who cares what he buys? Any will suffice, and will be capable of doing a better job than he'll be able to get out of it.

Even things like having a stack of a certain type of memory hanging around can make a difference. If I have ten 1 gig CF cards, I'm going to be sure that my DSLR can use CF memory - it could save me spending a grand on memory again! Same for specialized batteries, to a lesser extent.

You mentioned the Canon 20D - a fine, worthy, camera. Nikon makes one just as good - it really comes down to personal preference. Each adherent may rant and rave for their pet system and against others, but the best Nikons and the best Canons are just fine - hard to go wrong with either one. Minolta has an interesting camera - it has an anti-shake BODY, whereas the Canon and Nikon have anti-shake lenses - but only if you buy a lens that has that option - not all have them. The Minolta AS works with all lenses it can mount.

The Fuji uses the Nikon mount and is well-regarded. Pentax is compact and low-cost. I have a Pentax, but I bought mine specifically because it will easily mount a wide variety of classic 50 year old lenses - not many people want that.

If you ask people for their opinion which DSLR is 'best' you will get personal preference - and everybody has a different idea about that. Most of them are right - for them, they've chosen wisely. Will that be true for your brother? Probably not.

First comes requirements - then comes recommendation. Unless the requirement is 'takes good pictures' in which case the recommendation is 'buy whatever you like and be happy with it.'

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[DougK]

I've heard very good things about the Minolta 7D and the Pentax *ist DS. Pentax would get my nod just because I have a lot of Pentax glass.

Don't overlook the Olympus DSLRs either.

 

[bmattock]

yes, don't forget our sister forum, there should be some good info there also.

joe

Eh, it doesn't have critical mass yet. Post a question, a week goes by before someone posts 'yeah, me too.' I'm there, but don't visit much. It ain't soup yet.

 

[bmattock]

I've heard very good things about the Minolta 7D and the Pentax *ist DS. Pentax would get my nod just because I have a lot of Pentax glass.

Exactly! I would not insist that my *ist DS is 'better' than another DSLR - it just works for me because I have a bunch of M42 glass. And yes, lots of DSLRs have M42 adapters, but they either a) don't have TTL metering with M42 lenses or b) have penta mirrors instead of penta prisms - and I need lots of light for my old eyes. But that's just a personal solution to a personal problem - would not be the right answer for another person, perhaps.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Little Prince]

Ok, I should have mentioned that he doesn't have any current systems or lenses. So ignore that issue completely. No compatibility of any kind to worry about. He did have an old Canon rebel and some lens that he doesn't use and a digicam that he uses somewhat. I guess you people make an important point about not worrying or spending too much if serious intentions do not exist for the camera. But who knows. At this point he doesn't care much I guess, but he might later.

I guess I'm just confused with the multitude of available models. For example Pentax has some *ist DS2 that I guess is the follow up of the *ist DS. Then there is the *ist D. Now as time progresses, yesterday's top of the line model may be worse (spec-wise) than today's mid-range model. So this whole thing is just rather confusing.

I suppose we're looking at D70s and 20D (or 350D). Similarly, can someone tell me what the comparable current models from the other 3 (KM, Pentax, Oly) are? Once I know that, I'll go and look up specs and prices and everything. Then, I'll come back for specific questions like VF quality etc..

I might also try to impress upon him the advantages of a high end digicam. He is the kind that will not want to bother with a multitude of lenses and large size, noise etc.. Nothing too *geeky* if I may say so. I can't look at this from my own point of view. Or I'd have him buy a Makina W67 or something.

 

[back alley]

does it have to be a slr?

my canon g2 is a great camera with tons of features.
i would think a newer model might do him well.

joe

 

[Kin Lau]

At the 20D level, I would say the equiv is D70s, *istD and Minolta 7D.
The entry level is Nikon D50, Canon 350D/XT, *istDL and Minolta 5D. Out of the entry level list, I would suggest the 350D simply because it's the most bang for the buck right now. It might not apply in a couple of months, but as of right now, it's the best deal.

The only digicam I'd recommend right now, is one of the Panasonic FZ series. GeneW can tell you about his.

 

[Little Prince]

I don't know Joe. From what I can tell, he wouldn't be impressed by the lack of reach (long lens) and just wouldn't be used to non-reflex viewing. I believe that by encouraging him to try RF, he might be led to see the possibilites of RF type viewing, but from my own experience I would say that you truly appreciate the benefits of an RF only after a stint with the SLR. That's why I'm thinking I'll let him go ahead with an SLR before I start making a case for an RF.

Besides, like I already said, telephoto reach is a very popular thing with new users. Not having it is only going to bring a frown. Also, I really doubt he is much of a people person. Heck, I'm better in that respect and even I am a far cry from being a people person.

 

[Terence T]

Don't forget the Fuji S3pro, guess it'd be at the 20D and 7D price and performance level. The AF isn't too quick on the Fuji but the color rendition which emulates the Velvia film is simply superb. It does have a wider dynamic range than most of the competition too. A used S2pro might be another consideration, those go for about $700 in good condition.

 

[DougK]

Y'know, another option to consider which I didn't think of earlier is the Sigma SD-10. I have a Sigma SA-7 film burner (a member of the family the SD-10 hails from) and for an enthusiast SLR, I couldn't be more pleased. The kit 28-80 and 70-300 lenses which came with the body produce some very nice results, very sharp, good contrast (a touch on the slow side if you look at the specs but in practice I didn't find that to be a problem for me). The controls are simple and well laid out and it's a joy to shoot, in fact, it's the only modern SLR (post 1980s) which feels comfortable and intuitive to me. There are a number of quality lenses available from wide angle to long telephoto although Sigma focuses on zooms. The SD-10 shoots RAW format only, so post-processing of your images is thus required but a small price to pay for the flexibility of the format; your mileage may vary on that one. The Foveon sensor, while it doesn't have the megapixel count of the major players makes up for that with each physical pixel capturing red, green, and blue information instead of just one of the colors.

I'll admit it's easier to find a good deal on Nikon and Canon but don't overlook the "other guys." There is some amazing hardware out there right now from all manufacturers and really, it's hard to go wrong.

 

[x-ray]

I've been shooting with digital for about seven years in my commercial business. I first used a scanning back but bought a nikon D1 when it came out then bought a D1X and D100 later. I liked the nikons but after trying a friends 1Ds and 1D canon I fell in love with canon and sold all my nikon gear and bought canon. I had a number of issues with nikon particularly relating to very poor repair service. I was a NPS member and should have gotten priority service and probably did but any repair took atleast three weeks and always came back with more problems than when I sent it in. Also nikon was falling far behind the technology curve compared to canon. I first purchased a 1D and 1Ds plus about fourty thousand bucks in blass. Now I shoot with 1DsII and 20D bodies and absolutely love the cameras, images and canons professional attitude and service.

In my opinion there is no choice other than the canons. My suggestion would be a 350D and 17-85 IS lens. My assistant used to shoot with a D70 untill I loaned him my D20 and now he has 2 D20 bodies and a number of lenses.

 

[GeneW]

The only digicam I'd recommend right now, is one of the Panasonic FZ series. GeneW can tell you about his.

Good point, Kin. The Panasonic FZ-20 (which I own) and the newer FZ-30 are DSLR-like cams with an amazing non-interchangeable Leica zoom lens. On the FZ-20 it is the rough equivalent, in 35mm terms, of something like 38-420mm, with a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout and image stabilization. It has an EVF (electronic viewfinder) that allows through the lens viewing, which takes a bit of getting used to , but can be quite useful. It has the usual drawbacks -- shutter lag, noise at high iso levels being the main ones -- but it's a heck of a take-anywhere camera, especially if you use telephoto a lot. And, it's far less expensive than any DSLR. It's also much lighter and smaller than any DSLR combo. An interesting alternative to DSLR's if you don't mind working around the drawbacks.

Gene

 

[bmattock]

Ok, I should have mentioned that he doesn't have any current systems or lenses. So ignore that issue completely. No compatibility of any kind to worry about. He did have an old Canon rebel and some lens that he doesn't use and a digicam that he uses somewhat. I guess you people make an important point about not worrying or spending too much if serious intentions do not exist for the camera. But who knows. At this point he doesn't care much I guess, but he might later.

Well, if he goes with a Canon DSLR, he can use his Rebel lens - if he wants to. If he changes his mind later - DSLRs are currently on a 3 month production cycle. He should buy again when/if he gets serious.

I guess I'm just confused with the multitude of available models. For example Pentax has some *ist DS2 that I guess is the follow up of the *ist DS. Then there is the *ist D. Now as time progresses, yesterday's top of the line model may be worse (spec-wise) than today's mid-range model. So this whole thing is just rather confusing.

It is confusing because the manufacturers are scrambling for market share and mind share. They can lose money and that's ok. But they have to have a highly-regarded model that is the cheapest. Another that is the fastest. Another that is the ... Nobody can wait six months or a year - then their product looks old and decrepit compared to the competition. So until the Big Shakeout comes, they have to spend money like crazy and try to stay on top of the market.

In answer to your specific question - the D came first. The DS was a tad smaller and lighter, I think - plus a lot cheaper. For some reason the D is still on the market. The DL was the DS made cheaper - biggest difference was the penta mirror instead of the pentaprism (lighter, cheaper, not as bright). The DS2 is the DS revisited - supposedly has a high-magnification viewfinder - because people have complained that the DSLR viewfinders are like looking down a tunnel at a postage stamp (only us old SLR buffs know the difference - people who grew up with digicams have no idea how good a viewfinder can be).

I suppose we're looking at D70s and 20D (or 350D). Similarly, can someone tell me what the comparable current models from the other 3 (KM, Pentax, Oly) are? Once I know that, I'll go and look up specs and prices and everything. Then, I'll come back for specific questions like VF quality etc..

I could, but I don't recall all the models off the top of my head. You can look them up as easily as I can - www.steves-digicams.com lists them all, and all the specs are there too. The D70 and the 20D are terrific cameras. The DRebel XT (350D) is made to be less expensive, that's all.

I might also try to impress upon him the advantages of a high end digicam. He is the kind that will not want to bother with a multitude of lenses and large size, noise etc.. Nothing too *geeky* if I may say so. I can't look at this from my own point of view. Or I'd have him buy a Makina W67 or something.

If you suspect that you might be able to turn him into a camera buff instead of a picture-taker (happy-snapper for Brits), I'd say it still doesn't matter much what he gets, unless you think he'll turn quickly. Say it takes him a year to 'catch on' to what he could do with a decent camera. By that time, no matter what you get, it will be obsolete.

I mean, if you really want someone to say 'go buy an X,' they rule, then I'm sure someone will oblige you. But then someone else will say 'X sucks, go buy a Y' and then we're off to the races.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Good point, Kin. The Panasonic FZ-20 (which I own) and the newer FZ-30 are DSLR-like cams with an amazing non-interchangeable Leica zoom lens. On the FZ-20 it is the rough equivalent, in 35mm terms, of something like 38-420mm, with a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout and image stabilization. It has an EVF (electronic viewfinder) that allows through the lens viewing, which takes a bit of getting used to , but can be quite useful. It has the usual drawbacks -- shutter lag, noise at high iso levels being the main ones -- but it's a heck of a take-anywhere camera, especially if you use telephoto a lot. And, it's far less expensive than any DSLR. It's also much lighter and smaller than any DSLR combo. An interesting alternative to DSLR's if you don't mind working around the drawbacks.

Gene

Gene,

With respect, the EVF is a HUGE drawback, not a small one. The only escapees were the Olympus E10 and E20, which still command high prices used (optical viewfinder, SLR style). I believe that the Minolta A2 (?) had a radical high meg EVF which was awesome - and apparently cost too much to make - gone now. It also did some kind of low-light thing that made available-light photography sorta-kinda-possible.

I have given the semi-DSLR a lot of thought. One can say they are 'almost' SLRs, but one can also say that they suffer from every drawback and a PnS has. Low ISO, EVF or LCD viewing, shutter lag, startup speed, and worst of all in my mind - a very tiny sensor - no matter what the megapixel rating, an itty-bitty sensor cannot substitute for the larger ones - no DOF effects at all, unless you're shooting macro. Icky poo.

What I *do* like about a semi-DSLR is the increasingly long lenses, the possibility of less dust and crud on the sensor (since the lens doesn't come off), and some of them have interesting anti-shake technology - quite cool. But overall, for me it is neither fish nor fowl - I'd prefer a digicam in my shirt pocket and a DSLR in my hand if that's what I needed. Something that tries to blow hot and cold with the same breath doesn't get it for me.

I have to admit though - I look at 'em. The danged things are sexy, if one can say that about a camera.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Little Prince]

Sorry haven't logged in at RFF in the past two days. I've just read the replies to my question. Will be looking into this stuff tomorrow. Been busy. Appreciate the link to Steve's digicams. Got about 9 pages of threads to catch up on!

 

[Little Prince]

Resurrecting this thread after a few days of research. I have (on the basis of various logical and some arbitrary reasons) narrowed down the search to one of three cameras pending new information. So my recommendation is either a 350d (Rebel XT), a D70 or a Maxxum 5D. I guess I must mention that sub $1000 is a guideline.

I'm quite comfortable with picking out any one arbitrarily and sticking with it. They all seem to be good enough. I have some specific questions.

I understand that the Maxxum 5D isn't yet out long enough for opinions.

What do you have to say about the VF quality of these three?

How about responsiveness in terms of lag, easy controls, etc?

Any media compatibility issues I must be aware of?

Finally, what is your opinion of Minolta's lens line up (AF I guess)? I am familiar with Nikon and Canon has all equivalents, but know nothing of Minolta SLR lenses. I don't really care if they don't have zillions of lenses, because frankly who's going to buy all those? The only question is do they have a good option in each of wide, normal, short tele, long tele and macro? How wide do their zooms get? You understand the problem with crop factor and wide angle I suppose? I'm not intent on zooms but I suspect my brother would be.

Thanks for your responses. I know this isn't the best place to ask these questions but as I said earlier I wouldn't want to register at a different forum for just the one thread. Besides I have reduced my questions to a set of 4 (mostly) subjective ones.