If money IS an object...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by normanstrong, Dec 18, 2003.

  1. normanstrong

    normanstrong Guest

    What digital SLR would you recommend?

    The Lumix FZ10 fascinates me. I'd like to have sufficient resolution
    to routinely print 11 x 14 prints that look as good as ones made from
    35mm film. If that proves too expensive, I'd settle for 8 1/2 x 11,
    with a very skinny border.

    Of course the next question is: How much memory will it need?

    And the next: What software does one need to edit and 'fix' problems
    with the end result.

    As you can tell, I have no experience with digital photography, but
    loads of experience with film photography, both in 35mm and 6x6cm
    sizes. What I really would like is your recommendation of the best
    primer on digital photography for people like me who need only info
    related to the difference between digital and film.

    Thanks,

    Norm Strong
     
    normanstrong, Dec 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. normanstrong

    Jim Townsend Guest

    normanstrong wrote:

    > What digital SLR would you recommend?
    >
    > The Lumix FZ10 fascinates me.


    This camera isn't an SLR.. You aren't looking through the lens in the same
    manner. There is no mirror.

    The Lumix FZ10 does look through the lens, but it uses an electronic
    viewfinder... (A mini LCD screen in the eyepiece).

    Not a bad camera though.. 12X optical zoom and it's reported to have almost no
    shutter lag..
     
    Jim Townsend, Dec 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. normanstrong

    Angel Guest

    Is that what 'SLR' is about?- you look through the lens as opposed to a view
    finder or LCD? (complete photo novice here!).

    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > normanstrong wrote:
    >
    > > What digital SLR would you recommend?
    > >
    > > The Lumix FZ10 fascinates me.

    >
    > This camera isn't an SLR.. You aren't looking through the lens in the

    same
    > manner. There is no mirror.
    >
    > The Lumix FZ10 does look through the lens, but it uses an electronic
    > viewfinder... (A mini LCD screen in the eyepiece).
    >
    > Not a bad camera though.. 12X optical zoom and it's reported to have

    almost no
    > shutter lag..
    >
    >
    >
     
    Angel, Dec 18, 2003
    #3
  4. "normanstrong" <> wrote in message
    news:VgmEb.594917$Fm2.545791@attbi_s04...
    > What digital SLR would you recommend?


    I wouldn't. Nikon 5700 or Minolta A1 offer far better value for money.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 18, 2003
    #4
  5. "Angel" <> wrote in message
    news:zPnEb.639$...
    > Is that what 'SLR' is about?- you look through the lens as opposed to a

    view
    > finder or LCD? (complete photo novice here!).


    Single Lens Reflex, been around since the '40s, I guess. As opposed to twin
    lens reflex (box cameras).

    Juan
     
    Juan R. Pollo, Dec 18, 2003
    #5
  6. normanstrong

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Angel wrote:

    > Is that what 'SLR' is about?- you look through the lens as opposed to a view
    > finder or LCD? (complete photo novice here!).


    SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex.. The reflex being a mirror that is used to
    direct the image from the focal plane of the camera up to the eyepiece
    viewfinder instead. The mirror flips out of the way when the shot is taken.
    Hence the term reflex.

    Just about *all* digicameras display what's going through the lens on an LCD,
    but they aren't SLR's.

    Most SLR's *can't* display the image electronically on an LCD since the mirror
    blocks the sensor.

    Here's a link to a better explanation:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-lens_reflex_camera



    > "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> normanstrong wrote:
    >>
    >> > What digital SLR would you recommend?
    >> >
    >> > The Lumix FZ10 fascinates me.

    >>
    >> This camera isn't an SLR.. You aren't looking through the lens in the

    > same
    >> manner. There is no mirror.
    >>
    >> The Lumix FZ10 does look through the lens, but it uses an electronic
    >> viewfinder... (A mini LCD screen in the eyepiece).
    >>
    >> Not a bad camera though.. 12X optical zoom and it's reported to have

    > almost no
    >> shutter lag..
    >>
    >>
    >>
     
    Jim Townsend, Dec 18, 2003
    #6
  7. normanstrong

    Christian Guest

    David J Taylor wrote:

    > "normanstrong" <> wrote in message
    > news:VgmEb.594917$Fm2.545791@attbi_s04...
    >> What digital SLR would you recommend?

    >
    > I wouldn't. Nikon 5700 or Minolta A1 offer far better value for money.


    Both of these aren't DSLRs though.
     
    Christian, Dec 19, 2003
    #7
  8. normanstrong

    Christian Guest

    normanstrong wrote:

    > What digital SLR would you recommend?


    If you really want a DSLR then the EOS 300D is the best value for money.
    You're looking at approximately twice as much (including lenses) to go up
    to a 10D. If you already have lenses for Nikon or Canon then go with this
    system, Nikon have a 300D competitor coming (or so they say).
     
    Christian, Dec 19, 2003
    #8
  9. normanstrong

    PhotoMan Guest

    "Jim Townsend" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Angel wrote:
    >
    > > Is that what 'SLR' is about?- you look through the lens as opposed to a

    view
    > > finder or LCD? (complete photo novice here!).

    >
    > SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex.. The reflex being a mirror that is

    used to
    > direct the image from the focal plane of the camera up to the eyepiece
    > viewfinder instead. The mirror flips out of the way when the shot is

    taken.
    > Hence the term reflex.


    Actually, the image is reflected before it reaches the focal
    plane...........
    Joe Arnold
     
    PhotoMan, Dec 19, 2003
    #9
  10. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:33:29 GMT, "Juan R. Pollo"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Angel" <> wrote in message
    >news:zPnEb.639$...
    >> Is that what 'SLR' is about?- you look through the lens as opposed to a

    >view
    >> finder or LCD? (complete photo novice here!).

    >
    >Single Lens Reflex, been around since the '40s, I guess. As opposed to twin
    >lens reflex (box cameras).
    >
    >Juan
    >

    Since before 1910, IIRC. Graflex made SLRs long before they made the
    Speed Graphic. They made them in sizes from 6X9 cm. to 8 x 10 inches.

    No pentaprism. You looked down at the ground glass through a tall
    leather hood.



    Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a


    "In this house we _obey_ the laws of thermodynamics." --Homer Simpson
     
    Rodney Myrvaagnes, Dec 19, 2003
    #10
  11. normanstrong

    Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit> wrote in message news:<NDoEb.479$>...
    > "normanstrong" <> wrote in message
    > news:VgmEb.594917$Fm2.545791@attbi_s04...
    > > What digital SLR would you recommend?

    >
    > I wouldn't. Nikon 5700 or Minolta A1 offer far better value for money.


    SLR has faster auto focus, higher sensitivity, large aperture prime lens, ...

    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
     
    , Dec 19, 2003
    #11
  12. normanstrong

    none Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:23:06 -0500, Rodney Myrvaagnes
    <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:33:29 GMT, "Juan R. Pollo"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Angel" <> wrote in message
    >>news:zPnEb.639$...
    >>> Is that what 'SLR' is about?- you look through the lens as opposed to a

    >>view
    >>> finder or LCD? (complete photo novice here!).

    >>
    >>Single Lens Reflex, been around since the '40s, I guess. As opposed to twin
    >>lens reflex (box cameras).
    >>
    >>Juan
    >>

    >Since before 1910, IIRC. Graflex made SLRs long before they made the
    >Speed Graphic. They made them in sizes from 6X9 cm. to 8 x 10 inches.
    >
    >No pentaprism. You looked down at the ground glass through a tall
    >leather hood.
    >
    >
    >
    >Rodney Myrvaagnes J36 Gjo/a
    >
    >
    >"In this house we _obey_ the laws of thermodynamics." --Homer Simpson


    In the sense that we now use "SLR" to refer primarily to 35mm cameras
    with focal plane shutters, pentaprism viewing directly through a
    removeable lens, the first company to make them was Ihagee of Dresden
    Germany in 1936 with their Exakta line of cameras.
     
    none, Dec 19, 2003
    #12
  13. normanstrong

    HRosita Guest

    Hi,

    If weight was no consideration (it is for me) I would definitely go with the
    Canon 10D.
    A camera for serious photographers.
    While the Rebel 300D is an OK camera as a starter, soon you would have to buy
    some serious lenses that cost the same if you get them for a 10D or a Rebel.
    My thought is that I would get much longer use from the 10D and even if a new,
    improved model came to market that I absolutely had to have, the 10D would hold
    value much better.
    Look at the D60, still sells for $1149 used at B&H.

    Rosita
     
    HRosita, Dec 19, 2003
    #13
  14. normanstrong

    Sloopy Guest

    In article <>,
    none <> wrote:

    > In the sense that we now use "SLR" to refer primarily to 35mm cameras
    > with focal plane shutters, pentaprism viewing directly through a
    > removeable lens, the first company to make them was Ihagee of Dresden
    > Germany in 1936 with their Exakta line of cameras.


    Good answer, except that the removeability of the lens is irrelevant.

    -Sloopy
     
    Sloopy, Dec 19, 2003
    #14
  15. "Christian" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    > > "normanstrong" <> wrote in message
    > > news:VgmEb.594917$Fm2.545791@attbi_s04...
    > >> What digital SLR would you recommend?

    > >
    > > I wouldn't. Nikon 5700 or Minolta A1 offer far better value for

    money.
    >
    > Both of these aren't DSLRs though.


    Precisely. "If money is an object" then DSLR isn't the best route. You
    may be paying for a lot of things you don't need. Getting a DSLR may be
    too big a compromise...

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 19, 2003
    #15
  16. <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > SLR has faster auto focus, higher sensitivity, large aperture prime

    lens, ...
    >



    That may be so, but SLR also has higher cost, greater weight, and is more
    cumbersome to carry around.

    "If money IS an object..." then the original poster needs to consider
    carefully if a cost-compromised DSLR is actually the best solution for
    their particular needs.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 19, 2003
    #16
  17. normanstrong

    none Guest

    On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:02:20 -0800, Sloopy <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > none <> wrote:
    >
    >> In the sense that we now use "SLR" to refer primarily to 35mm cameras
    >> with focal plane shutters, pentaprism viewing directly through a
    >> removeable lens, the first company to make them was Ihagee of Dresden
    >> Germany in 1936 with their Exakta line of cameras.

    >
    >Good answer, except that the removeability of the lens is irrelevant.
    >
    >-Sloopy


    Without the ability to remove the lens there could be no practical
    way to have easy cost effective lens interchangeability. In fact the
    motivation behind the early development the SLR was not because it
    was such a superior way to see what you were going to get but rather
    to get around the limitations of a range finder when using different
    focal length lenses. That is the whole reason SLR's use a focal plane
    rather than a leaf shutter-practical lens interchangeability.

    I know SLR's have been made that have no lens interchangability and
    that SLR's have been made with interchageable lenses that have used
    optics with leaf shutters but they have not been the mainstream of
    35mm SLR development.

    I suppose the ability of a SLR to use interchangeable lenses is not
    absolutely necessary but it is hardly irrelevant.
     
    none, Dec 19, 2003
    #17
  18. normanstrong

    stacey Guest

    none wrote:

    > On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 07:02:20 -0800, Sloopy <> wrote:
    >
    >>In article <>,
    >> none <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> In the sense that we now use "SLR" to refer primarily to 35mm cameras
    >>> with focal plane shutters, pentaprism viewing directly through a
    >>> removeable lens, the first company to make them was Ihagee of Dresden
    >>> Germany in 1936 with their Exakta line of cameras.

    >>
    >>Good answer, except that the removeability of the lens is irrelevant.
    >>
    >>-Sloopy

    >
    > Without the ability to remove the lens there could be no practical
    > way to have easy cost effective lens interchangeability.


    So? That has nothing to do with the name SLR.

    > In fact the
    > motivation behind the early development the SLR was not because it
    > was such a superior way to see what you were going to get but rather
    > to get around the limitations of a range finder when using different
    > focal length lenses.


    Nope, it was to fix paralax problems.


    > That is the whole reason SLR's use a focal plane
    > rather than a leaf shutter-practical lens interchangeability.


    But all SLR's don't use focal plane shutters.

    >
    > I know SLR's have been made that have no lens interchangability and
    > that SLR's have been made with interchageable lenses that have used
    > optics with leaf shutters but they have not been the mainstream of
    > 35mm SLR development.


    So? Again it has nothing to do with defining "SLR".



    --

    Stacey
     
    stacey, Dec 20, 2003
    #18
  19. normanstrong

    stacey Guest

    HRosita wrote:

    > My thought is that I would get much longer use from the 10D and
    > even if a new, improved model came to market that I absolutely had to
    > have, the 10D would hold value much better.
    > Look at the D60, still sells for $1149 used at B&H.
    >



    And what was the price when it was "hot" 6 months ago?

    --

    Stacey
     
    stacey, Dec 20, 2003
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. deepak
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    15,510
    Steve Horsley
    Dec 4, 2003
  2. Jeff Walzer

    PIX object groups

    Jeff Walzer, Dec 31, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    490
    Walter Roberson
    Dec 31, 2003
  3. nck

    if money were no object

    nck, Aug 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    964
    Mikey
    Aug 28, 2003
  4. Angel

    If money was no object...

    Angel, Dec 17, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,181
    Don Coon
    Jan 2, 2004
  5. joevan

    Money? What money? It never existed.

    joevan, Oct 11, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    565
    HEMI-Powered
    Oct 13, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page