A newbie request help selecting digital camera

Hello!

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
develop "experiments".

So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
go digital.

But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the
huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying
to make my way through this site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...al-SLR-Camera-
Reviews.aspx
but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup
where I might be able to get some basic guidance.

So here I am.

WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects,
such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes)
been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to
see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice
to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops
develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make
their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my
Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens.

What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).

At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price
is a consideration

Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I
wouldn't reject that ability, either


So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
confused newbie to a good starting place to look?

Many Thanks in Advance!

Kris K.

http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf

"Charles" wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1
@news.eternal-september.org:


http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf




Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're early-
1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a camera body -
that will save me some grief

I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the website in
a new window

THanks!

- Kris

"Kris Krieger" wrote in message
...
"Charles" wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1
@news.eternal-september.org:


http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf




Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're early-
1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a camera
body -
that will save me some grief

I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the website
in
a new window

THanks!

Kris, you are most welcome. It's always a good idea to build on what we
already have and what we already know.

As to modern digital SLRs, they are mostly all very good. I don't think you
can go very far wrong.

"Charles" wrote in
:


"Kris Krieger" wrote in message
...
"Charles" wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1
@news.eternal-september.org:


http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf




Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're
early- 1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a
camera body -
that will save me some grief

I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the
website in
a new window

THanks!

Kris, you are most welcome. It's always a good idea to build on what we
already have and what we already know.

As to modern digital SLRs, they are mostly all very good. I don't think
you can go very far wrong.


Ah, OK, good to know, thanks Despite the "firestorm" I'm getting some
great info and links, so I think i'm getting a great launching point to look
into this. I guess maybe most people go throguh several cameras, but I tend
to be a person who expends much thought deciding about my purchases, so I can
get something that will be a companion/partner, so to speak, for many years.

- Kris

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
develop "experiments".

So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
go digital.

But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the
huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying
to make my way through this site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...al-SLR-Camera-
Reviews.aspx
but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup
where I might be able to get some basic guidance.

So here I am.

WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects,
such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes)
been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to
see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice
to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops
develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make
their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my
Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens.

For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.

By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm
film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with
55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an
82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta
lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for
Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs,
but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3,
D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or
Full Frame) that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't
be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these
tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide
angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX
DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR.
But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm
on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable
for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or
480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers
prefer using DX DSLRs.


What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).

That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest.
It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to
ask about them.


At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price
is a consideration

Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I
wouldn't reject that ability, either

Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for
following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken
with much cheaper P&S cameras.


So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
confused newbie to a good starting place to look?

Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums
might be a better place. See

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

and check out these forums:
Beginners Questions
Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000
Nikon D300 - D100
Nikon SLR Lens Talk
Sony SLR Talk

as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't
have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR
also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may
seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than
30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually
become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page
that's near the end of each "full" review.

ASAAR wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]

For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.

Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.

I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler


By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm
film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with
55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an
82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta
lenses.

OH!! I had seen info via another link that the DSLR sensors are smaller, btu
I didn't realize that woudl magnify the image! THanks 4 that info , I'll
have to think about that one - unsure whether it'd be an advantage or a
disadvantage. Depending upon what's seen on the little "screen" (neo-
viewfinder), it might not be a good thing...

The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for
Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs,
but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3,
D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or
Full Frame)

Another great explanation, thanks!

(THe people in Best Buy sure didn't know any of this!)

that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't
be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these
tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide
angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX
DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR.
But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm
on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable
for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or
480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers
prefer using DX DSLRs.

Ah! Good to know!

It sounds like I need a good book...



What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away
my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed
to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So
I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like
they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to
decent-quality photographs).

That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest.
It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to
ask about them.

'S'OK, you're giving me loads of info I didn't know about


At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so
price is a consideration

Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video,
tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either

Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for
following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken
with much cheaper P&S cameras.


So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?

Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums
might be a better place. See

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

and check out these forums:
Beginners Questions
Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000
Nikon D300 - D100
Nikon SLR Lens Talk
Sony SLR Talk

as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't
have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR
also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may
seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than
30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually
become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page
that's near the end of each "full" review.

Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
Google but didn't know how to limit the search.

So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
started.

Thanks again!

- Kris

On 2009-06-14 17:12:26 -0700, Kris Krieger said:

ASAAR wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]

For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.

Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.

I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler

One thing to remember with the DSLR and some of the bridge & P&S
cameras is the ability to have focus points other than the center of
the viewfinder.
With my D300 for example you can have up to 51 different AF focus
point. These can be select for composition as you frame the image, they
can be set to track a moving target, or any number of variables.
AF is not all bad (pretty good actually) and could probably deal with
most of your demands..


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote in
news:200906141800187987-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom:

On 2009-06-14 17:12:26 -0700, Kris Krieger said:

ASAAR wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]

For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.

Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the
info about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd
like to take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking
into in detail.

I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still
not, interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace
other than dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be
able to handle that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler

One thing to remember with the DSLR and some of the bridge & P&S
cameras is the ability to have focus points other than the center of
the viewfinder.
With my D300 for example you can have up to 51 different AF focus
point. These can be select for composition as you frame the image, they
can be set to track a moving target, or any number of variables.
AF is not all bad (pretty good actually) and could probably deal with
most of your demands..


I learned a few other tidbits about that from a couple of posts in addition
to your reply - your info is something I'd not realized; I especially had
no idea about the "tracking a moving target"!

The info I'm getting from you all is helping educate me even more than I'd
hoped, thanks! I'll remove "auto-focus" from my "deal-breaker" list and
give it a rethink

THanks!

- Kris

On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

ASAAR wrote in
:

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]

For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.

Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.

I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler


By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm
film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with
55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an
82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta
lenses.

OH!! I had seen info via another link that the DSLR sensors are smaller, btu
I didn't realize that woudl magnify the image! THanks 4 that info , I'll
have to think about that one - unsure whether it'd be an advantage or a
disadvantage. Depending upon what's seen on the little "screen" (neo-
viewfinder), it might not be a good thing...

The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for
Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs,
but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3,
D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or
Full Frame)

Another great explanation, thanks!

(THe people in Best Buy sure didn't know any of this!)

that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't
be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these
tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide
angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX
DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR.
But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm
on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable
for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or
480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers
prefer using DX DSLRs.

Ah! Good to know!

It sounds like I need a good book...



What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away
my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed
to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So
I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like
they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to
decent-quality photographs).

That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest.
It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to
ask about them.

'S'OK, you're giving me loads of info I didn't know about


At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so
price is a consideration

Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video,
tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either

Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for
following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken
with much cheaper P&S cameras.


So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?

Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums
might be a better place. See

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/

and check out these forums:
Beginners Questions
Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000
Nikon D300 - D100
Nikon SLR Lens Talk
Sony SLR Talk

as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't
have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR
also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may
seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than
30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually
become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page
that's near the end of each "full" review.

Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
Google but didn't know how to limit the search.

So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
started.

Thanks again!

- Kris


You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even
held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and
read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and
tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography.
He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some
kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head.
ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone
who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this.

Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-)

Too too funny! LOL!