Recommendation for "cheaper" digital SLR please

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ds, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. ds

    ds Guest

    Hey eveyrone ill make this quick.

    Thanks for taking the time to give your input.

    Any recommendations on a cheaper digital SLR camera?

    Im looking to spend less then $600

    I know there isnt the biggest selection at the price range..
    I might even do $700

    I see allot of refurbished ones and some new ones for that price.

    If you cant recommend any, is there any certain features I should
    consider when comaparing them?

    Thanks in advance for your time.

    Hal
     
    ds, Feb 5, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ds

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Wait a year and you shall have one brand new.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "ds" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hey eveyrone ill make this quick.
    >
    > Thanks for taking the time to give your input.
    >
    > Any recommendations on a cheaper digital SLR camera?
    >
    > Im looking to spend less then $600
    >
    > I know there isnt the biggest selection at the price range..
    > I might even do $700
    >
    > I see allot of refurbished ones and some new ones for that price.
    >
    > If you cant recommend any, is there any certain features I should
    > consider when comaparing them?
    >
    > Thanks in advance for your time.
    >
    > Hal
     
    Tony Spadaro, Feb 5, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ds

    kb9iji Guest

    my advice? wait a bit longer if you can, save up some more, and hold out
    for the canon digital rebel. or if you need something more professional,
    the 10d is only $600 more. prices will come down eventually. but for the
    quality, the price is great right now, too!
    ---
    75
    http://www.andyjustison.com
     
    kb9iji, Feb 5, 2004
    #3
  4. ds

    Mark Johnson Guest

    (ds) wrote:

    >Hey eveyrone ill make this quick.
    >
    >Thanks for taking the time to give your input.
    >
    >Any recommendations on a cheaper digital SLR camera?
    >
    >Im looking to spend less then $600


    Just buy a film SLR. It'll beat even the best digital, but then you'll
    have to digitize the print or slide.
     
    Mark Johnson, Feb 5, 2004
    #4
  5. ds

    gsum Guest

    DSLRs are way ahead of 35mm film. You need to go to MF
    to beat digital for resolution but MF colour and consistency
    are not as good as digital.

    Graham


    "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > (ds) wrote:
    >
    > >Hey eveyrone ill make this quick.
    > >
    > >Thanks for taking the time to give your input.
    > >
    > >Any recommendations on a cheaper digital SLR camera?
    > >
    > >Im looking to spend less then $600

    >
    > Just buy a film SLR. It'll beat even the best digital, but then you'll
    > have to digitize the print or slide.
    >
     
    gsum, Feb 5, 2004
    #5
  6. ds

    Mark Johnson Guest

    "gsum" <> wrote:

    >DSLRs are way ahead of 35mm film.


    No, they're not.

    Maybe one day. But it might just be a lowly digicam, not a somewhat
    contrived dSLR package. You just don't know.

    Sci-fi has never been able to predict technology. They didn't even see
    the PC coming.
     
    Mark Johnson, Feb 5, 2004
    #6
  7. ds

    Mark B. Guest

    "ds" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hey eveyrone ill make this quick.
    >
    > Thanks for taking the time to give your input.
    >
    > Any recommendations on a cheaper digital SLR camera?
    >
    > Im looking to spend less then $600
    >
    > I know there isnt the biggest selection at the price range..
    > I might even do $700
    >
    > I see allot of refurbished ones and some new ones for that price.


    Right now, there's nothing new you could buy for that. You might find a
    used D30 in that price range, though.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Feb 5, 2004
    #7
  8. ds

    Rupert Guest

    Mark Johnson <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > (ds) wrote:
    >
    > >Hey eveyrone ill make this quick.
    > >
    > >Thanks for taking the time to give your input.
    > >
    > >Any recommendations on a cheaper digital SLR camera?
    > >
    > >Im looking to spend less then $600

    >
    > Just buy a film SLR. It'll beat even the best digital, but then you'll
    > have to digitize the print or slide.


    Yeah, a new film SLRs are fully compatible with your typewriter and
    rotary telephone, so you won't have to worry about upgrading all your
    old stuff. Be ready to spend plenty of money on developings costs,
    however, as you learn how to take photographs.
     
    Rupert, Feb 5, 2004
    #8
  9. (ds) writes:

    > Hey eveyrone ill make this quick.
    >
    > Thanks for taking the time to give your input.
    >
    > Any recommendations on a cheaper digital SLR camera?
    >
    > Im looking to spend less then $600
    >
    > I know there isnt the biggest selection at the price range..
    > I might even do $700
    >
    > I see allot of refurbished ones and some new ones for that price.
    >
    > If you cant recommend any, is there any certain features I should
    > consider when comaparing them?
    >
    > Thanks in advance for your time.


    You might find a refurbished DSLR for $700, but you won't yet find a new one
    for that price. Note, that the cheapest price on DSLRs is without a lens, or
    memory card, so you need to figure that into your price. As a side note, the
    Olympus E10 and E20 are DSLRS but are not interchangable lens cameras, but most
    of the other DSLRs have interchangable lenses.

    I would recomend the various so called prosumer cameras that have fixed lenses,
    but are not technically 'DSLRs'. Many of these produce great pictures. There
    are many different choices in this arena.

    For $600-700, I might go for the Panasonic FZ10 that Ritz/Wolf/Camera World
    sells for $599. It is not a tiny camera, but SLR sized, it has full manual
    controls, and it has an image stabalized 12x zoom lens (which means at the long
    end of the zoom, your pictures won't be blurry due to camera shake). You might
    want to pick up an additional memory card, since the cards included with
    cameras are just starter cards and don't hold many pictures.

    Slightly cheaper, and without the image stabalization (ie if not in bright
    sunlight you need to use a tripod at full zoom), the Fuji S5000, Minolta Z1, or
    Olympus C750UZ might be interesting for a high zoom camera.

    What type of pictures do you want to take (zoom, wide angle, etc.)? Are you
    going to want to take pictures where an external flash might be helpful? How
    big do you want to print the pictures? Do you want manual controls are you
    only ever going to use the automatic options? Every camera is a tradeoff, and
    it is a matter of figuring out what tradeoffs work for you.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Feb 5, 2004
    #9
  10. ds

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <4021f589$>,
    gsum <> wrote:
    >DSLRs are way ahead of 35mm film.


    Not sure I'd go that far, but the 6 megapixel bodies are certainly
    competitive. Slide film has a bit of a resolution advantage, print film has
    a dynamic range advantage. On balance, the convinience and consistency of
    the DSLRs probably does make them a more attractive proposition than 35mm
    film for most uses these days, however, but I wouldnt' go as far as to
    describe them as way ahead. Of course, this is a bit subjective and depends
    on your requirements.

    This is assuming fine grained, slow film. Once you get to higher ISOs, the
    digitals are pretty much unbeatable all-round.

    The "35mm film has 3 squillion megapixels because that's the resolution of
    my scanner" crowd are, of course, just being silly. Firstly, comparing
    absolute resolving power of the two media and using it to determine which is
    "better" is a pointless exercise because a film image will degrade under
    enlargement long before it reaches that limit due to other factors (most
    importantly, grain noise), wheras DSLRs are much closer to having pure
    resolution as the limit.

    Secondly, counting the number of pixels in a csan says nothing about the
    qualuty and resolution of the input. The "it must be higher than the
    scanner's resolution because I get more detail if I scan at an even higher
    resolution" argument is also bogus, and betrays a lack of understanding of
    the concept of cumulative erros and MTFs. You will *always* recover more
    detail by scanning at a higher resolution, simply because a theoretical
    "perfect scan" of the negative/slide is an asymptote that you can only
    approach, but never reach. This does not mean that the negative/slide has
    infinite resolution - it just means that you can never sample all the
    information it contains, but there is such a thing as diminshing returns.

    By a similar token, you will always get better image quality by increasing
    the pixel count in cameras, because capturing all the lens information is a
    similarly unachievable asymptote. Again, there will come a point when the
    bother of storing that extra data isn't worth the diminishing returns it
    gives you, but given what I've seen from the 1Ds, and the fact that the 6 MP
    cameras have a higher sensor density over their field of view, I think that
    we could usefully go to at least 20 megapixels with current 35mm lens
    technology, perhaps even higher if we limit ourselves to the best lenses
    from the likes of Canon and Nikon. If the noise can be kept under control,
    that will give us image quality that we would never have dreamed possible
    from 35mm lens systems in a few years.

    I noticed you did get a token "film is still vastly superior" response. This
    sort of war-of-words was common when DSLRs were at 3 megapixels, but 6
    megapixels seems to be something of a sweet-spot, and it's very noticable
    that the number of those vocally defending the True Faith(tm) of 35mm film
    and its supposed tens of megapixels equilavence has dwindled away
    dramatically.

    The >6 MP bodies, such as the 1Ds and 14n are probably more usefully
    compared with medium format.
     
    Chris Brown, Feb 5, 2004
    #10
  11. ds

    Mark Johnson Guest

    Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:

    >The >6 MP bodies, such as the 1Ds and 14n are probably more usefully
    >compared with medium format.


    The over 10-15 more likely. But that's probably true. Particularly
    landscape photographers would often consider 35mm too limiting.

    But as you say, it's the comparison between perception and data. A mp3
    at 256 may sound so much like a live, original recording, that all the
    data lost is data one wouldn't have appreciated, anyway. It depends.
     
    Mark Johnson, Feb 5, 2004
    #11
  12. ds

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    My scanner has 4 squillion megapixies. Beats your old 3 squillion model
    by a 100 acres in those cornfield size enlargements.
    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > In article <4021f589$>,
    > gsum <> wrote:
    > >DSLRs are way ahead of 35mm film.

    >
    > Not sure I'd go that far, but the 6 megapixel bodies are certainly
    > competitive. Slide film has a bit of a resolution advantage, print film

    has
    > a dynamic range advantage. On balance, the convinience and consistency of
    > the DSLRs probably does make them a more attractive proposition than 35mm
    > film for most uses these days, however, but I wouldnt' go as far as to
    > describe them as way ahead. Of course, this is a bit subjective and

    depends
    > on your requirements.
    >
    > This is assuming fine grained, slow film. Once you get to higher ISOs, the
    > digitals are pretty much unbeatable all-round.
    >
    > The "35mm film has 3 squillion megapixels because that's the resolution of
    > my scanner" crowd are, of course, just being silly. Firstly, comparing
    > absolute resolving power of the two media and using it to determine which

    is
    > "better" is a pointless exercise because a film image will degrade under
    > enlargement long before it reaches that limit due to other factors (most
    > importantly, grain noise), wheras DSLRs are much closer to having pure
    > resolution as the limit.
    >
    > Secondly, counting the number of pixels in a csan says nothing about the
    > qualuty and resolution of the input. The "it must be higher than the
    > scanner's resolution because I get more detail if I scan at an even higher
    > resolution" argument is also bogus, and betrays a lack of understanding of


    > the concept of cumulative erros and MTFs. You will *always* recover more
    > detail by scanning at a higher resolution, simply because a theoretical
    > "perfect scan" of the negative/slide is an asymptote that you can only
    > approach, but never reach. This does not mean that the negative/slide has
    > infinite resolution - it just means that you can never sample all the
    > information it contains, but there is such a thing as diminshing returns.
    >
    > By a similar token, you will always get better image quality by increasing
    > the pixel count in cameras, because capturing all the lens information is

    a
    > similarly unachievable asymptote. Again, there will come a point when the
    > bother of storing that extra data isn't worth the diminishing returns it
    > gives you, but given what I've seen from the 1Ds, and the fact that the 6

    MP
    > cameras have a higher sensor density over their field of view, I think

    that
    > we could usefully go to at least 20 megapixels with current 35mm lens
    > technology, perhaps even higher if we limit ourselves to the best lenses
    > from the likes of Canon and Nikon. If the noise can be kept under control,
    > that will give us image quality that we would never have dreamed possible
    > from 35mm lens systems in a few years.
    >
    > I noticed you did get a token "film is still vastly superior" response.

    This
    > sort of war-of-words was common when DSLRs were at 3 megapixels, but 6
    > megapixels seems to be something of a sweet-spot, and it's very noticable
    > that the number of those vocally defending the True Faith(tm) of 35mm film
    > and its supposed tens of megapixels equilavence has dwindled away
    > dramatically.
    >
    > The >6 MP bodies, such as the 1Ds and 14n are probably more usefully
    > compared with medium format.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Feb 6, 2004
    #12
  13. ds

    ds Guest

    wow, thanks for all the great respones and info.
    I would by lying if i didnt say im more confused now then ever though,
    hehe. Maybe I should wait to purchase

    Anyhow.. The more input the better.

    What would one say is the minium puchase price for a good SLR? What
    should i be shooting for as far as saving for it?

    And as far as waiting. For what? i mean, any perticular camera and
    release date? (lets say a price range of less then $1500 for arguments
    sake)

    I know these are probably some random questions but ive been wanting
    to get an SLR for some time and any info you give me is new info as
    far as im concerned.

    Thanks again for all your polite help in this matter.

    Hal
     
    ds, Feb 6, 2004
    #13
  14. ds

    Charlie Self Guest

    dannnk asks:

    >What would one say is the minium puchase price for a good SLR? What
    >should i be shooting for as far as saving for it?
    >
    >And as far as waiting. For what? i mean, any perticular camera and
    >release date? (lets say a price range of less then $1500 for arguments
    >sake)


    Many people seem to be happy with the current Canon 300D, at $1000. That price
    should drop shortly.

    PMA is, what, next week? Within a week then, the current list will be turned on
    its head, with features added (some of which might eve really be new), and a
    horde of cameras on the way for a later in the year.

    If you're determined to have a new camera, I suggest you not think too much
    about model and brand right now, but wait out the week and see what crops up.
    Figure your price range: that's dropping all the time, so a body-only DSLR in
    the $1000 to $1500 range should do excellent work whenever you're ready (this
    is already the case, but newer models will have more features).

    Good luck.

    Charlie Self
    "A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other
    way." Mark Twain
    http://hometown.aol.com/charliediy/myhomepage/business.html
     
    Charlie Self, Feb 6, 2004
    #14
  15. "Michael Meissner" <> wrote in message
    news:-meissners.org...
    > (ds) writes:


    > You might find a refurbished DSLR for $700, but you won't yet find a new

    one
    > for that price.


    By far the best DSLR available at any price is the $630 SD9. The SD10 has a
    few minor differences.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #15
  16. "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:
    >
    > >The >6 MP bodies, such as the 1Ds and 14n are probably more usefully
    > >compared with medium format.


    Bayer DSLR's are no where near 35mm film quality, except at >10MP when the
    target is B&W. In color 35mm film wins by a factor of 4. The 10.3MP Foveon
    is a 56mm medium format capable digital sensor, but only when enlarged less
    to than 40 inches.

    > The over 10-15 more likely. But that's probably true. Particularly
    > landscape photographers would often consider 35mm too limiting.
    >
    > But as you say, it's the comparison between perception and data. A mp3
    > at 256 may sound so much like a live, original recording, that all the
    > data lost is data one wouldn't have appreciated, anyway. It depends.
    >
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #16
  17. ds

    bob Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in
    news:bvvuer$pof$:

    >
    > "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> >The >6 MP bodies, such as the 1Ds and 14n are probably more usefully
    >> >compared with medium format.

    >
    > Bayer DSLR's are no where near 35mm film quality, except at >10MP when
    > the target is B&W. In color 35mm film wins by a factor of 4.


    [...]

    Until you print it, maybe. I know the Wal-Mart prints from my Nikon CP
    5000 are vastly superior to the best prints I ever got from the best
    photo finishers in my area when I was using good Nikkor lenses and slow
    color film.

    You can probably retort with some comment about how good the best lab in
    my area is, and you would probably be right. But unless a person is one
    of the very few who send all their work out to high end custom labs, your
    point is mute.

    Bob
     
    bob, Feb 6, 2004
    #17
  18. "bob" <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
    news:Xns94876917918AEj123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
    > "George Preddy" <> wrote in
    > news:bvvuer$pof$:
    >
    > >
    > > "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > >> Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >The >6 MP bodies, such as the 1Ds and 14n are probably more usefully
    > >> >compared with medium format.

    > >
    > > Bayer DSLR's are no where near 35mm film quality, except at >10MP when
    > > the target is B&W. In color 35mm film wins by a factor of 4.

    >
    > [...]
    >
    > Until you print it, maybe. I know the Wal-Mart prints from my Nikon CP
    > 5000 are vastly superior to the best prints I ever got from the best
    > photo finishers in my area when I was using good Nikkor lenses and slow
    > color film.
    >
    > You can probably retort with some comment about how good the best lab in
    > my area is, and you would probably be right. But unless a person is one
    > of the very few who send all their work out to high end custom labs, your
    > point is mute.


    No, but I would say that in small size prints are not a good measure of film
    format resolution differences, nor digital resolution differences.
     
    George Preddy, Feb 6, 2004
    #18
  19. ds

    bob Guest

    "George Preddy" <> wrote in
    news:c014he$f3v$:

    >
    > "bob" <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
    > news:Xns94876917918AEj123w123x123@216.77.188.18...
    >> "George Preddy" <> wrote in
    >> news:bvvuer$pof$:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > "Mark Johnson" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:...
    >> >> Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> >The >6 MP bodies, such as the 1Ds and 14n are probably more
    >> >> >usefully compared with medium format.
    >> >
    >> > Bayer DSLR's are no where near 35mm film quality, except at >10MP
    >> > when the target is B&W. In color 35mm film wins by a factor of 4.

    >>
    >> [...]
    >>
    >> Until you print it, maybe. I know the Wal-Mart prints from my Nikon
    >> CP 5000 are vastly superior to the best prints I ever got from the
    >> best photo finishers in my area when I was using good Nikkor lenses
    >> and slow color film.
    >>
    >> You can probably retort with some comment about how good the best lab
    >> in my area is, and you would probably be right. But unless a person
    >> is one of the very few who send all their work out to high end custom
    >> labs, your point is mute.

    >
    > No, but I would say that in small size prints are not a good measure
    > of film format resolution differences, nor digital resolution
    > differences.
    >


    I would guess that the people who routinely make color prints at sizes
    larger than 8x10 are probably the same people who send all their work to
    those custom labs.

    For the other 99.9 percent of us, the things you keep writing about just
    don't matter.

    35mm isn't about resolution anyway. If you want detail, shoot bigger
    negatives.

    Bob
     
    bob, Feb 9, 2004
    #19
  20. "bob" <1xwj.ReverseThePartBeforeTheDot@bellsouthnet> wrote in message
    news:Xns948A6730F5940j123w123x123@216.77.188.18...

    > >> You can probably retort with some comment about how good the best lab
    > >> in my area is, and you would probably be right. But unless a person
    > >> is one of the very few who send all their work out to high end custom
    > >> labs, your point is mute.

    > >
    > > No, but I would say that in small size prints are not a good measure
    > > of film format resolution differences, nor digital resolution
    > > differences.
    > >

    >
    > I would guess that the people who routinely make color prints at sizes
    > larger than 8x10 are probably the same people who send all their work to
    > those custom labs.
    >
    > For the other 99.9 percent of us, the things you keep writing about just
    > don't matter.
    >
    > 35mm isn't about resolution anyway. If you want detail, shoot bigger
    > negatives.


    35mm film is higher resolution than any Bayer DSLR sensor made, if the
    target is in color. If it's a B&W target the Kodak 14n might get there. In
    contrast, Foveon stops beating medium format film at about a 40"
    enlargement... http://foveon.com/faq_technology.html#FAQ_tech_13

    This is a lot like people not understanding that you need lots of clean
    Watts to play music softly, you do, it's not just for loud. Same for
    enlargements, smaller pics look much better if you have the resolution to go
    bigger. That isn't to say a 10D or 1Ds won't print a nice 5x7 or even 8x10,
    that is, until you see a much high color resolution sensor's output next to
    it. Have a look at the Reader Comments at the bottom...
    http://www.tow.com/photogallery/20021009_coba/
     
    George Preddy, Feb 9, 2004
    #20
    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. Lionel
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    767
    Ken Tough
    Sep 17, 2004
  2. Newsgroups
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    434
    ASAAR
    Jun 1, 2005
  3. alex

    Film SLR Flash unit on a Digital SLR - Possible?

    alex, Jun 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,025
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,054
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. Digital SLR recommendation please

    , Jan 26, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    714
    Bob Williams
    Jan 29, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page