looking for digital SLR

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What in the groups collective opinion is the best bang for the buck for a
DSLR? I just want to be able to change lenses, use rechargeable batts, and
have some decent low light capability....I would like to stay around 1000
bux US, but might go higher if I have to. I have no existing lenses except
for some old Canon lenses I use on my old AE-1. My current digital camera
is a 4mp minolta P&S, pretty good but low light is problematic...

I've read some reviews, but would like some user opinions...

thanks in advance!

rm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Charles Schuler wrote:
> "Ricardo Morte" <none@none.not> wrote in message
> news:uvWdnc1fB8QylkXfRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
>> What in the groups collective opinion is the best bang for the buck
>> for a DSLR? I just want to be able to change lenses, use
>> rechargeable batts, and have some decent low light capability....I
>> would like to stay around 1000 bux US, but might go higher if I have
>> to. I have no existing lenses except for some old Canon lenses I
>> use on my old AE-1. My current digital camera is a 4mp minolta P&S,
>> pretty good but low light is problematic...
>> I've read some reviews, but would like some user opinions...
>
> The best sellers are the Nikon D70, the Canon 300D, 350D and 20D. In
> my opinion, you can't go wrong with any of those. Also, there are
> others worth looking at.
>
> Since your requirements seem to be modest, maybe you should go to some
> stores and handle them and pick the one that seems to suit you best.

For bang for the $ I would say D70 or 20D today. Next week, who knows
:-)

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ricardo Morte" <none@none.not> wrote in message
news:uvWdnc1fB8QylkXfRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
> What in the groups collective opinion is the best bang for the buck for a
> DSLR? I just want to be able to change lenses, use rechargeable batts,
> and


Best bet is a Canon 300. Battery life is very good, and you can buy a couple
extras for around $40 ea. I use a 300 as a backup for my 1D. Use the same
lenses and external flash on both.

Stay away from the Nikons, they have noise issues, especially using higher
ISO. What little noise you get from the Canon's you can eliminate with Neat
Image

js

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>> Stay away from the Nikons, they have noise issues, especially using
>> higher ISO. What little noise you get from the Canon's you can eliminate
>> with Neat Image
>
> Nikon noise at ISO 200 to 1600 is so close to that of the Canons as to be
> indistinguishable. (There is at least one dSLR that does have noise
> problems, though.)

What size magnifying glasses are these people using???

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <db9a1e$piu$2@nnrp.gol.com>,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>Nikon noise at ISO 200 to 1600 is so close to that of the Canons as to be
>indistinguishable. (There is at least one dSLR that does have noise
>problems, though.)
>
>Also, the noise reduction in the (free) Rawshooter Essentials RAW converter
>is very good.

Yes, but if the noise reduction is consistent from camera to camera,
then you can underexpose the camera with less noise (push it, a stop or
two), and get similar results. IOW, noise reduction does not level the
field.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ricardo Morte" <none@none.not> wrote in message
news:uvWdnc1fB8QylkXfRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
> What in the groups collective opinion is the best bang for the buck for a
> DSLR? I just want to be able to change lenses, use rechargeable batts,
> and have some decent low light capability....I would like to stay around
> 1000 bux US, but might go higher if I have to. I have no existing lenses
> except for some old Canon lenses I use on my old AE-1. My current digital
> camera is a 4mp minolta P&S, pretty good but low light is problematic...
>
> I've read some reviews, but would like some user opinions...
>
> thanks in advance!
>
> rm
>
Happy with my D70, but I already had a bunch of Nikon lenses before I got
it. You're always going to get the Nikon/Canon debate here. Try to ignore
the knives and arrows flying around the group. It's usually a good idea to
go into a store and handle the cameras you are interested in. It makes a
big difference.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:aOmdnUEOntPmH0XfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
>
> "Ricardo Morte" <none@none.not> wrote in message
> news:uvWdnc1fB8QylkXfRVn-pA@adelphia.com...
>> What in the groups collective opinion is the best bang for the buck for a
>> DSLR? I just want to be able to change lenses, use rechargeable batts,
>> and have some decent low light capability....I would like to stay around
>> 1000 bux US, but might go higher if I have to. I have no existing lenses
>> except for some old Canon lenses I use on my old AE-1. My current
>> digital camera is a 4mp minolta P&S, pretty good but low light is
>> problematic...
>>
>> I've read some reviews, but would like some user opinions...
>>
>> thanks in advance!
>>
>> rm
>>
> Happy with my D70, but I already had a bunch of Nikon lenses before I got
> it. You're always going to get the Nikon/Canon debate here. Try to
> ignore the knives and arrows flying around the group. It's usually a good
> idea to go into a store and handle the cameras you are interested in. It
> makes a big difference.

Will do ....thanks for all the replies....in the 35mm days of old, I was a
Nikon F2 guy, but now my only old 35mm camera is an AE-1. I can go either
way :-)

Damn, it's so hard to choose.....but you guys are right....hold them in your
hand, etc....

rm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 15 Jul 2005 21:46:12 -0700, maryweiland@gmail.com wrote:

> I am debating between purchasing the Canon EOS 20D or the Nikon D70. I
> have Nikon film camera, 2 lenses, and a flash for the Nikon. I liked
> the feel of the Nikon as well. My question to the group is - how much
> of a difference is there between the 8.2 megapixel Canon vs 6.1 for the
> Nikon? Is it worth the price difference? I do not envision myself
> enlarging pictures greater than 16 x 20. Will the 6.2 be sufficient
> for this?

I don't think the difference in pixels is as important as a number
of other factors, but only you can really answer your question. One
way to do it without owning both cameras is to download the high
resolution sample photos taken with both cameras from websites such
as dpreview or Steve's Digicam. Print samples from both cameras.
It's not necessary to print the entire image at 16" x 20". If you
crop 25% of the image and print it at 8" x 10" you'll be able to
compare them at the same magnification that would have been used to
make the full 16" x 20" print. More important to me are things such
the camera's 'feel', logical layout of controls (and the menu too),
so that you can more easily operate the camera without having to
perform what to you may be unnatural operations.

Also, did your Nikon film camera good 16" x 20" prints? If so,
what if you notice that both cameras make better prints than the
film camera? Would you then be satisfied with either the 20D or the
D70, or would you then have to more closely scrutinize the prints,
and choose the 20D if its prints are slightly better, even if you'd
find the D70 more comfortable in your hands. And you do realize
that whichever camera you end up with, in a year or two both
manufacturers will almost certainly have a new camera that would
make better 16" x 20" prints than these two, and probably for nearly
the same price. That being the case, maybe for you the 20D or D70
would merely be a temporary solution, to be replaced in a year or
two, making slight differences in today's cameras of less concern.


If you can get to a good camera store that will let you handle
both cameras and take some pictures with each, try to do so. And
bring your own flash card (so you can have something to compare at
home). And if you do this, try do download the PDF manual for both
cameras and try to familiarize yourself as much as possible with
both before heading to the camera store. What you find in the
manual may also help you to select the most appropriate camera.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<maryweiland@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121489172.150340.193790@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I am debating between purchasing the Canon EOS 20D or the Nikon D70. I
> have Nikon film camera, 2 lenses, and a flash for the Nikon. I liked
> the feel of the Nikon as well. My question to the group is - how much
> of a difference is there between the 8.2 megapixel Canon vs 6.1 for the
> Nikon? Is it worth the price difference? I do not envision myself
> enlarging pictures greater than 16 x 20. Will the 6.2 be sufficient
> for this?
>
take a look at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/20dd70.htm

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Welcome, and let me tell you--no matter what you get, it will seem so
improved over a 4mp point & shoot you will be in hog heaven for quite awhile
before you start looking around at what you passed over for what you went
with. Having a real-time optical viewfinder (albeit probably a bit smaller
than what you're used to) and the much quicker reflexes and capabilities of
a SLR--but with the digital advantage--you will love it.

If you can find a used 300D ("original" Digital Rebel) cheap, that's a solid
choice. It's what I got last year, and I shot Nikons for years--wanted the
D70, but the DR's price was better and "the hack" mitigiated many of the
feature-set advantages of the D70. Now I'm debating going back to Nikon via
a used D70 but then I think about the 20D and how "delicious" it felt, and
how I could stay with what I have for awhile and get a 20D later when the
price falls (of course by then I'll get even less for my 300D if I try &
resell).

Decisions, decisions.

Oh wait, we're talking about YOU here.

Well, the 300D does do a good job. The main thing I had trouble getting used
to (maybe one of the things making me consider a D70?) is how slow its
playback mode is. Yes the "jump" button (which jumps 10 images at once) is
handy, but still--it is SLOOOOW in playback mode. My Nikon Coolpix 5700 was
faster. It zooms in and out fast enough, I'm talking about going from 1
image to another and ESPECIALLY going to "thumbnail" mode. It takes forever.

Everyone complains about its burst mode--only 4 JPEGs (or RAWs) at 2.5 FPS,
whereas many modern cameras can do like 20 or 40 JPEGs at 3 FPS. They also
talk about its 3-second startup time, every other modern D-SLR is pretty
much instant-on. But frankly the slow playback bothers me more.

But otherwise, it is a solid choice especially if you install "the hack."
(Link: http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photo [...] ricks.php)
Its feature set is crippled without this "hack," what this "hack" does it
that since many of these "missing" features actually are present in the
camera's hardware but just turned off in the camera's firmware, the "hack"
just turns them back on--it "unlocks" them. Just know that if you buy the
300D new (harder to do since I THINK it's been phased out now) and install
this hack it may void your warranty unless you remember to revert back to
Canon's own firmware before sending it off for any repairs. But it will add
many essential features, it's so important I wouldn't dare own that camera
without it.

These features:

*Flash exposure compensation. Every other D-SLR on the planet has it besides
this one. A total necessity, thank God the "hack" brings it back
*Mirror lockup
*Ability to turn off "slow sync" flash in Av mode. A HUGE essential to me,
other makers have a special "slow sync" flash mode if you want more
background detail in your flash pictures but Canon typically goes into "slow
sync" by default, can result in blurred photos. I don't care for that, and
don't care for the suggestion that I can just go in manual mode. The "hack"
re-enables your ability to turn it off and still shoot in Av mode
*Can prevent camera from firing if no CF card present
*Ability to select One-Shot autofocus to prevent "hunting" (particularly
useful in macros)
*Can shoot at ISO 3200 (lots of digital noise, though)
*Can specify size of embedded JPEG in RAW mode

The D70 has more features, even if the 300D has "the hack" (though the
advantage is less drastic), and is much faster in its operation. Its flash
capabilties (should you want to go a fancy multi-flash wireless setup) are
second to none. Its noise levels are similar to the 300D at the same ISOs,
it's just that the 300D has ISO 100 whereas the D70 has ISO 200 as its
minimum. ISO for ISO, though, they're highly equal--heck, the D70 at
800/1600 is probably better because its noise pattern is more "film-like"
whereas the 300D is more "blotchy." If most of your shooting is 400 or
below, either will serve you well--maybe the 300D a bit better with its
100-base.

There are other good choices--the D50 sells new for $900 w/18-55 lens, and
has the speed of the D70--but not as many features. Its images supposedly
have more "pop" out-of-camera, not sure if you can get the more common
"straight/neutral" D-SLR look out-of-camera with it or not, waiting to see.

I'd pass on the Canon 350D ("new" Digital Rebel), even though it's faster
than the 300D; it is too small (but you may like its size, that's
subjective) and it has too much menu dependence for a D-SLR in my book.
Ditto the Pentax *ist Ds for the same reason. I'd pass on the Nikon D100
unless you get it for $500 or less, they're pretty obselete nowadays and
sell for way too much as used cameras of its age go. The Canon 10D and D60
are fine if you dont' mind that they don't accept EF-S lenses (including the
cheap but decent 18-55 to get you started).