Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Darkus Lordus on 02 December 2008, 18:21:18
-
Now I've seen the Photo Competition, it's got me thinking.
I've been saving up for a DSLR & my father has a Nikon D50 which I quite like. I'm preferably after a Canon rather than a Nikon but I'm led to believe that there isn't that much difference between the two nowadays.
The company I work for give out vouchers as bonuses which I can change for vouchers for up to 90 different shops.
At the moment I currently have £210 worth of vouchers to change & I'm hoping to use them to offset a huge chunk off the retail price.
Problem is, I'm still trying to decide which manufacturer & camera to go for.
What's your opinions on the range of DSLRs?
-
Thinking about it, I'd preferably want a metal body not plastic too. Not that I'm picky o anything! ;D
-
I've just sold one of these http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_300D/index.asp and bought one of these http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/EOS_450D/index.asp Paid £470 for mine but they are around £430 now and you get £50 cashback from Canon as well. Not had chance to try it out properly yet, but so far so good I am pleased with it.
Mick
-
Platic bodies can feel remarkably sturdy these days. Just make sure the lens mounting plate is metal, though, as these wear with use. Plastic bodies are also much lighter and pro or semi-pro cameras which tend to have the best construction are obviously much more expensive.
TBH, it's horses for courses so have a think about what you want to do with it. Forget the specifications in most cases as there's very little to choose between them and they will all appear to take very good pictures.
It's the detail that matters, and what makes the difference between the cheap and the expensive in most cases - how fast and accurate is the focussing? Is the exposure spot on? How good does it "feel" to use? It will have loads of Megapixels but what's the image quality really like? Look at sharp edges in the picture for odd effects.
In other words, you need to have a proper play with one rather than picking one from a catalogue.
I must admit, I bought a relatively cheap DSLR (Pentax ISTDL2) 2 1/2 years ago on the basis that the bodies that had the performance I really wanted were still much too expensive and dropping in price, but that I wanted one to take on our Honeymoon.
I fully expected to still be using film for the stuff that mattered so I set off with the DSLR and a film SLR loaded with Velvia 50.
The results I got from a "budget" DLSR just blew away what I managed with slide film, TBH. I think my film SLRs have sat in a drawer since.
However, the auto focussing is not great on my DSLR, making it useless for photographing motorsport, for example. Horses for courses, as I say. One of these days I will treat myself to a really decent DSLR as I surprised myself with the one I've got.
Kevin
-
It's a D80 or D200 from Nikon if you are set on a metal body.
I bought a D80 over a D50 purely because it handled so much better.
However, Ken Rockwell prefers a fully plastic D40.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm
Ken Rockwell is definately an opinionated Californian and is not universally respected. He gets on my t!ts a bit - but he does give good advice. :y
-
Thre are ony two real options for main stream SLR's....and that is Canon and Nikon.
I personaly prefer the Canon, I find they are are lot easier to use and the lense range is better but in relaity, performance wise, there is little between them.
I currently have an EOS 30.....film based. I have not upgraded this yet as I cant get a reasonably priced digtal one which is as good!
Clearly, I will get a Canon as I have a number of good lenses.
-
Thre are ony two real options for main stream SLR's....and that is Canon and Nikon.
I personaly prefer the Canon, I find they are are lot easier to use and the lense range is better but in relaity, performance wise, there is little between them.
I currently have an EOS 30.....film based. I have not upgraded this yet as I cant get a reasonably priced digtal one which is as good!
Clearly, I will get a Canon as I have a number of good lenses.
Ok if you're getting a full frame digital but I wouldn't necessarily let it cloud your judgement otherwise. I think the only lenses I have used from my pre-digital days on a digital SLR are a 50mm prime lens which works Ok as a portrait lens in low light, and a 300mm telephoto when I was desperate for a long lens.
Kevin
-
I've been using a Canon EOS 10D since it came out, a very nice piece of kit, well made and takes some good pictures...obvioulsy its a bit outdated now, but the best i have seen to match it so far is the EOS 40D unless you want to start paying silly money for a EOS 1D at IRO £2k....
-
Thre are ony two real options for main stream SLR's....and that is Canon and Nikon.
I personaly prefer the Canon, I find they are are lot easier to use and the lense range is better but in relaity, performance wise, there is little between them.
I currently have an EOS 30.....film based. I have not upgraded this yet as I cant get a reasonably priced digtal one which is as good!
Clearly, I will get a Canon as I have a number of good lenses.
Ok if you're getting a full frame digital but I wouldn't necessarily let it cloud your judgement otherwise. I think the only lenses I have used from my pre-digital days on a digital SLR are a 50mm prime lens which works Ok as a portrait lens in low light, and a 300mm telephoto when I was desperate for a long lens.
Kevin
Er no....good lenses....100-400IS
-
i get my best results with a 28-300mm sigma lens, alos from my film days...
-
Thre are ony two real options for main stream SLR's....and that is Canon and Nikon.
I personaly prefer the Canon, I find they are are lot easier to use and the lense range is better but in relaity, performance wise, there is little between them.
I currently have an EOS 30.....film based. I have not upgraded this yet as I cant get a reasonably priced digtal one which is as good!
Clearly, I will get a Canon as I have a number of good lenses.
Ok if you're getting a full frame digital but I wouldn't necessarily let it cloud your judgement otherwise. I think the only lenses I have used from my pre-digital days on a digital SLR are a 50mm prime lens which works Ok as a portrait lens in low light, and a 300mm telephoto when I was desperate for a long lens.
Kevin
Err - no for another reason. Film lenses are designed to cover a wider area than a DSLR sensor occupies. So you get less vignetting and distortion using them on a DSLR than you did on a 35mm camera. As long as they were decent then, they will be as good or better now.
They do have a longer focal length though, 1.5 times for the current Nikon and Canon sensors. So your old, tight 28mm is now nearly a prime at 42mm...
On the other hand, a 70-210 zoom now goes over 300mm :)
-
Blimey....my 400mm will be soemthing else then.
Must get back following a long term loan!
-
Blimey....my 400mm will be soemthing else then.
Must get back following a long term loan!
Take it to an air show :y
-
Blimey....my 400mm will be soemthing else then.
Must get back following a long term loan!
Take it to an air show :y
I have a few times.....it was bloody good for Africa and the F1 in 2001
-
Err - no for another reason. Film lenses are designed to cover a wider area than a DSLR sensor occupies. So you get less vignetting and distortion using them on a DSLR than you did on a 35mm camera. As long as they were decent then, they will be as good or better now
Yes but at what expense? You will lose resolution over a lens of the same focal length designed for the correct frame size, for example. How much vignetting occurs at the frame edges is just one of the many parameters that goes into designing the lens, and the whole game is a set of compromises. By not using the whole distortion-free frame that the lens is producing you will lose out somewhere else.
Granted it would be foolish to throw away an expensive collection of glass and buy it all over again if the focal length and quality of the lens will remain in a useful range but you win some, you lose some. :-/
Kevin
-
Err - no for another reason. Film lenses are designed to cover a wider area than a DSLR sensor occupies. So you get less vignetting and distortion using them on a DSLR than you did on a 35mm camera. As long as they were decent then, they will be as good or better now
Yes but at what expense? You will lose resolution over a lens of the same focal length designed for the correct frame size, for example. How much vignetting occurs at the frame edges is just one of the many parameters that goes into designing the lens, and the whole game is a set of compromises. By not using the whole distortion-free frame that the lens is producing you will lose out somewhere else.
Granted it would be foolish to throw away an expensive collection of glass and buy it all over again if the focal length and quality of the lens will remain in a useful range but you win some, you lose some. :-/
Kevin
You don't lose resolution since that is a function of the sharpness of the lens. Almost by definition, the sharpest area of the lens is the centre. By using a 35mm lens on a DSLR, you lose only the most aberrated outside area.
What you do lose is:
Minimum focussing distance (now 1.5 times what it was).
Wide angle. As above, a 28mm lens is now 42mm.
Any accuracy in a manual focal length graduation on the lens.
Certainly, anyone with a good collection of 35mm autofocus glass should buy a body to suit and only consider new lenses for the shorter end of the scale.
-
I know not in the 2 chosen types, but Minolta (renamed Sony !) are quite good and well respected. They have anti shake built into the body, and the new Sony Alpha's use the same mount, so you can use a lot of AF lenses from the Dynax 9000 series onwards. There's a lot of lenses and accessories about at good prices.
Ken