ISTM that the answer might depend on your existing supply of lenses for 35mm SLRs. I'd look seriously at Pentax, because I already have three K-mount lenses.
I'm not expecting it to be cheap. I've been thinking about getting a new camera for a while, and circumstances are such that I feel like treating myself.
Well, that's half the afternoon wasted reading the *ist DS review and coming to the conclusion that, yes, this is exactly what I want. Unless there's anyone else doing digital bodies with a K bayonet mount (was with my non-Pentax film SLR).
The Panasonics use Leica lenses, and occasionally there are offers on the website. Some of the Minoltas are excellent value. 1st thing is to decide if you want an all-singing all-dancing top-of-the-range SLR equiv, or just a cheapo camera, or something sensible in-between.
At the moment, the sensible choices for consumer-level digital SLR seem to be either the Canon EOS350D or the Nikon D70.
The 350D fixes a number of irritations with the 300D (which is the model I have), such as the original's low write speed to CF, small buffer (together leading to poor continuous shooting performance), USB1, and long boot time.
Isn't the D70 still about 400 quid without a lens, though? Perhaps rjk was thinking more in the 200 quid bracket - in which case there are a bunch of superzoom cameras (Olympus, Minolta, et al) to look at.
I was pretty amamzed at how cheap the readers were.
And recently when I had to use USB1 to copy stuff, I was very frustrated with the speed of it. I'd say that a faster readerr would pay for itself in one download through the reduced waiting time.
If you consider wider than that, you end up in a maze of twisty little cabbages all looking the same. IME.
Which is why I'm going to buy the Nikon D70 at some point. That and it will take all my existing Nikon SLR lenses etc. As it continues to drop in price every time I check, I'm waiting until just before the point I really want to take a decent photo and then I'll get one.
I would be very tempted, before buying a digicam 'because it takes my lenses', to check what the value of your lenses is in comparison to the value of the camera. I don't see much point in making a choice of £600 purchase based on pre-existing equipment replaceable second-hand for £200, for example.
Obviously if you've half a dozen of the L-series incredibly expensive Canon lenses, buying anything non-Canon is crazy. But picking a Nikon camera because you've got a manual-focus Russian 600 f/8 mirror-lens, a sub-Sigma OEM 75-300 f/5.6 and the 28-80 that came with the previous second-hand Nikon (to be absurdly and obviously specific) seems somehow unwise.
Yes, my Pentax lenses are old enough and few enough that if I eventually get a DSLR I'm unlikely to worry about keeping them. Though my uncle[1] seemed very happy with his *ist D when I saw him at Christmas. [1] Actually cousin once removed.
It depends what you're looking for. If you just want bang for buck, Canon have some of the best cameras at the lowest prices.
Go and try them in a shop. Find one that fits your hand and that you feel comfortable withthe location of the controls.
IMO, erganomics is one of the key things when buying any camera.
I happen to be a Canon film camera person, and I find the larger Canons work best for me. I don't get on with Nikon SLRs at all, though their compact digis are quite good.
Point of interest, while the 350D is incredible value for money, some of the design decisions on it suck so badly, I would say that it's unusable. But that's strictly for me.
Do remember to budget for buying a decent lens. Personally, I'd buy a body on it's own and a lens to go with it, rather than a kit, because thebundled lenses are generally so awful you negate the quality of the rest of the camera. The glass you put on the front of the camera is probably more important than any of the bells and whistles in the body, except for the CCD/CMOS.
except for the D70s 18-70 kit lens which is a v. good bit of glass. It's an excellent kit lens and you'd be daft to buy the D70 without it if it's your first DSLR.
I have no personal contacts who have bought a Nikon in the past 5 years, so I can't say one way or the other about them, really.
I grew up using a selection of manual Canon SLRs, so they were the obvious choice for me when I moved back into photography.
My general feeling from watching the digi market with half an eye, since I'm a dedicated film photographer, is that Nikon offerings are generally nice, but behind Canon in both technology release date and value for money.
I'm entirely happy to be proved wrong, about this, but I'm far too invested in Canon kit to change brand at this point.
I'm also concerned by the 'not all Nikor lenses work seamlessly on all Nikon bodies' thing. For me, this seems odd, as in the Canon world, every EF mount lens will work with every EF mount body, and some of the D-SLRs will also take the specially designed EF-S mount lenses.
I'd also suggest looking at dpreivew. They have good reviews there that are worthwile reading - however start with the 'conclusions' and see if the pros/cons list things that are important to you. Don't get too bogged down with the technical parts of the reviews - at the end of the day a lot of that is really only noticable under vigorous tests and afterall it's what you *do* with the kit that makes a good photo not neccesarily the kit itself!
If you already own some an old slr of some make and have lenses then it's worth your while starting with the reviews of the same make you already have.
If you don't have one then dive into the reviews! Look at all makes - I'm personally going for a Nikon D70 myself v. soon. Kodak, Pentax, Olympus...more...all make good dslrs. It's just a matter of what you feel is important for the type of photography you like to do as to what might suit you.
Once you've read reviews and got an idea of some you might like then I'd strongly reccomend going down to the shops and asking to try some! Something you though might be right might suddenly feel ippykak in your hands. Comfort in the hands is a big factor in having the camera right for you - if it doesn't feel comfy you aren't going to want to use it! Always get the feel for the camera before you buy I say.
Consider buying with a kit lens - if you don't own any of the same make as you buy then if gives you a starter lens. However make sure you know the comments on the kit lenses - if they say they are *really* bad then consider buying seperates. If it's middling to good then I'd say get it and call it your 'starter' lens. Like I said - the 18-70 with the D70 is a brilliant lense and totally worth the investment as a kit.
Good Luck! Enjoy the camera once you have it. The make don't matter, it's the photographer that does :) I hope you find the camera suitable for you and get a lot out of it!
Everyone else has been singing the praises of DPReview, so I shan't bother :)
I've used the Canon 300D a medium amount, the 20D a lot, and taken some shots with the Nikon 70D
All three are pretty credible cameras. After 6000 shots with the 20D and I am still happy that I went with it.
All three are fairly easy to pick up and shoot with if you are familiar with SLR's, and both the Canon and Nikon have a massive range of lenses behind them. The lens support is a good thing if you are intending to take things up seriously. A rule of thumb from the film days was that your first body should have in front of it at least the same value of glass. Not quite so true in the digital age (Since the entry level is more expensive) but you should still conside which lens(es) you get with it.
If you want to play with mine and try out the various lenses that I have so that you have some idea of the focal lengths that you might be interested in then feel free. I can probably offer more opinions on cameras in person as well.
Do you know what sort of things you want as subjects?
I'll put in another vote for the Nikon D70 - it's a great camera. Some of my forays with it can be found here (http://www.photonhunter.co.uk/photos/events/ag-tfm-wedding-ceremony) or here (http://www.photonhunter.co.uk/photos/events/winchester-1) or here (http://www.photonhunter.co.uk/photos/events/ag-tfm-wedding-ceremony). A real plus over my earlier digicams is how acceptable the results are at higher "ISO" settings. In the context of digital, this means that you get a higher light sensitivity at the expense of noise in the image. 200 (the minimum) up to about 600 produce barely noticeable noise; up to the maximum of 1600, which is still tolerable, especially when it allows you to take indoor/low light shots you would otherwise be unable to take.
As said elsewhere in the comments to this post, the 18-70 lens is the one to get. Definitely worth the extra money.
In addition to DPReview, Steve's Digicams (http://www.steves-digicams.com/) is a good site.
I have seen it said that one of the strong points of the D70 is the UI - Nikon cameras are traditionally popular with photojournalists, and the UI will 'get out of the way' and let you get on with the business of taking pictures, which I would certainly agree with. The main reasons I chose it over the Canon were its rapid-fire performance - it can do 3 maximum-quality JPGs per second, and keep this up for around 140 shots (IIRC), whereas the Canon at the time (300D) bogged down very quickly; and the battery life, which is up to around 2000 shots.
Shout if you have any questions about the D70, though...
I have a Kodak DX6490 (I think) which I got on the advice of my brother-in-law.
I'd call it a "digital SLR" since it's (a) digital and (b) has some sort of device for letting the viewfinder look through the main lens, but you can't remove and swap the lens bit.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ewx
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 12:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 12:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 12:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 01:02 pm (UTC)-m-
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 12:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 12:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 12:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-06-19 11:42 am (UTC)You were correct.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 12:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 02:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-03 10:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 12:56 pm (UTC)Some of the Minoltas are excellent value.
1st thing is to decide if you want an all-singing all-dancing top-of-the-range SLR equiv, or just a cheapo camera, or something sensible in-between.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 01:02 pm (UTC)At the moment, the sensible choices for consumer-level digital SLR seem to be either the Canon EOS350D or the Nikon D70.
The 350D fixes a number of irritations with the 300D (which is the model I have), such as the original's low write speed to CF, small buffer (together leading to poor continuous shooting performance), USB1, and long boot time.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 01:14 pm (UTC)Perhaps rjk was thinking more in the 200 quid bracket - in which case there are a bunch of superzoom cameras (Olympus, Minolta, et al) to look at.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 01:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 02:40 pm (UTC)In that case, I don't think I've ever heard a bad word about the D70.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 06:30 pm (UTC)CF card readers are your friend.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 06:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 11:00 pm (UTC)And recently when I had to use USB1 to copy stuff, I was very frustrated with the speed of it. I'd say that a faster readerr would pay for itself in one download through the reduced waiting time.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 01:04 pm (UTC)Which is why I'm going to buy the Nikon D70 at some point. That and it will take all my existing Nikon SLR lenses etc. As it continues to drop in price every time I check, I'm waiting until just before the point I really want to take a decent photo and then I'll get one.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 06:00 pm (UTC)Obviously if you've half a dozen of the L-series incredibly expensive Canon lenses, buying anything non-Canon is crazy. But picking a Nikon camera because you've got a manual-focus Russian 600 f/8 mirror-lens, a sub-Sigma OEM 75-300 f/5.6 and the 28-80 that came with the previous second-hand Nikon (to be absurdly and obviously specific) seems somehow unwise.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-03 02:43 pm (UTC)[1] Actually cousin once removed.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 01:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 01:50 pm (UTC)Go and try them in a shop. Find one that fits your hand and that you feel comfortable withthe location of the controls.
IMO, erganomics is one of the key things when buying any camera.
I happen to be a Canon film camera person, and I find the larger Canons work best for me. I don't get on with Nikon SLRs at all, though their compact digis are quite good.
Point of interest, while the 350D is incredible value for money, some of the design decisions on it suck so badly, I would say that it's unusable. But that's strictly for me.
Do remember to budget for buying a decent lens. Personally, I'd buy a body on it's own and a lens to go with it, rather than a kit, because thebundled lenses are generally so awful you negate the quality of the rest of the camera. The glass you put on the front of the camera is probably more important than any of the bells and whistles in the body, except for the CCD/CMOS.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 04:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 05:24 pm (UTC)I have no personal contacts who have bought a Nikon in the past 5 years, so I can't say one way or the other about them, really.
I grew up using a selection of manual Canon SLRs, so they were the obvious choice for me when I moved back into photography.
My general feeling from watching the digi market with half an eye, since I'm a dedicated film photographer, is that Nikon offerings are generally nice, but behind Canon in both technology release date and value for money.
I'm entirely happy to be proved wrong, about this, but I'm far too invested in Canon kit to change brand at this point.
I'm also concerned by the 'not all Nikor lenses work seamlessly on all Nikon bodies' thing. For me, this seems odd, as in the Canon world, every EF mount lens will work with every EF mount body, and some of the D-SLRs will also take the specially designed EF-S mount lenses.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 04:45 pm (UTC)If you already own some an old slr of some make and have lenses then it's worth your while starting with the reviews of the same make you already have.
If you don't have one then dive into the reviews! Look at all makes - I'm personally going for a Nikon D70 myself v. soon. Kodak, Pentax, Olympus...more...all make good dslrs. It's just a matter of what you feel is important for the type of photography you like to do as to what might suit you.
Once you've read reviews and got an idea of some you might like then I'd strongly reccomend going down to the shops and asking to try some! Something you though might be right might suddenly feel ippykak in your hands. Comfort in the hands is a big factor in having the camera right for you - if it doesn't feel comfy you aren't going to want to use it! Always get the feel for the camera before you buy I say.
Consider buying with a kit lens - if you don't own any of the same make as you buy then if gives you a starter lens. However make sure you know the comments on the kit lenses - if they say they are *really* bad then consider buying seperates. If it's middling to good then I'd say get it and call it your 'starter' lens. Like I said - the 18-70 with the D70 is a brilliant lense and totally worth the investment as a kit.
Good Luck! Enjoy the camera once you have it. The make don't matter, it's the photographer that does :) I hope you find the camera suitable for you and get a lot out of it!
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 06:30 pm (UTC)I've used the Canon 300D a medium amount, the 20D a lot, and taken some shots with the Nikon 70D
All three are pretty credible cameras. After 6000 shots with the 20D and I am still happy that I went with it.
All three are fairly easy to pick up and shoot with if you are familiar with SLR's, and both the Canon and Nikon have a massive range of lenses behind them. The lens support is a good thing if you are intending to take things up seriously. A rule of thumb from the film days was that your first body should have in front of it at least the same value of glass. Not quite so true in the digital age (Since the entry level is more expensive) but you should still conside which lens(es) you get with it.
If you want to play with mine and try out the various lenses that I have so that you have some idea of the focal lengths that you might be interested in then feel free. I can probably offer more opinions on cameras in person as well.
Do you know what sort of things you want as subjects?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 06:42 pm (UTC)A real plus over my earlier digicams is how acceptable the results are at higher "ISO" settings. In the context of digital, this means that you get a higher light sensitivity at the expense of noise in the image. 200 (the minimum) up to about 600 produce barely noticeable noise; up to the maximum of 1600, which is still tolerable, especially when it allows you to take indoor/low light shots you would otherwise be unable to take.
As said elsewhere in the comments to this post, the 18-70 lens is the one to get. Definitely worth the extra money.
In addition to DPReview, Steve's Digicams (http://www.steves-digicams.com/) is a good site.
I have seen it said that one of the strong points of the D70 is the UI - Nikon cameras are traditionally popular with photojournalists, and the UI will 'get out of the way' and let you get on with the business of taking pictures, which I would certainly agree with. The main reasons I chose it over the Canon were its rapid-fire performance - it can do 3 maximum-quality JPGs per second, and keep this up for around 140 shots (IIRC), whereas the Canon at the time (300D) bogged down very quickly; and the battery life, which is up to around 2000 shots.
Shout if you have any questions about the D70, though...
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-02 06:58 pm (UTC)I'd call it a "digital SLR" since it's (a) digital and (b) has some sort of device for letting the viewfinder look through the main lens, but you can't remove and swap the lens bit.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-12 09:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-06-21 06:43 pm (UTC)