Another "Which Camera" Post

I started long ago with the Vivitar 450, a basic, manual 35mm, which
worked well for a long time. I kind of drifted into the Pentax line
of SLRs, just because.

For digital, I had a Nikon 950, traded up to a 990 which does a lot of
what I want, but with some problems.

The optical viewfinder rarely shows me what I want to see, what with
the goodies I hang on the front of the lens. My vision has degraded
(presbyopia) to where I can't see the LCD viewer without an optical
aid, and when I add that, the resolution isn't good enough.

Most of what I want to do is close-up, macro work, and all I can do
with the Nikon is generally point it and hope it focuses on the right
thing. Occasionally it does.

I considered the Pentax *IST, thinking I could recycle my glass.
However a look at :
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM

is somewhat discouraging, it looks like I could get better quality
from the Nikon 990 than the Pentax.

The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a
lot of automation, low shutter lag is too much to hope for anymore.

Are there any other cameras I should be considering?

It would be nice if
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM

told us which lens was being used on the cameras which can use
interchangeable lenses, or maybe they do and I just haven't found it
yet.

thanks for any info/opinions.


--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 07:24:18 GMT, Charles wrote:
snip

The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a
lot of automation, low shutter lag is too much to hope for anymore.

I love my dRebel. Shutter lag is trivial ... you can rattle off 4 shots in quick
order in RAW format, more in jpg. Definition is superb, especially with the low
cost 50mm/1.8 lens. See http://www.splatco.com/david/kids-web_deploy/index.htm

With the dRebel you will feel, after the CP990, like you are using a Real
Camera. Trust me, my previous camera was the CP990. Good (brilliant?) for still
macros, lousy for candids or anything requiring responsiveness. The dRebel has
manual controls that are usable if slightly different to an old fashioned SLR or
range-finder. As a bonsus the instant feedback on the LCD and the histogram let
you make on the fly adjustments. Unlike the CP990 you can also get useable
results at ISO1600.

Are there any other cameras I should be considering?

It would be nice if
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM

told us which lens was being used on the cameras which can use
interchangeable lenses, or maybe they do and I just haven't found it
yet.

thanks for any info/opinions.

"Charles" wrote in message
...
[]
The optical viewfinder rarely shows me what I want to see, what with
the goodies I hang on the front of the lens. My vision has degraded
(presbyopia) to where I can't see the LCD viewer without an optical
aid, and when I add that, the resolution isn't good enough.
[]
- Charles

Charles,

You might want to look for a camera with an Electronic View Finder (EVF).
This is like the optical finders in (D)SLR cameras, but without the wieght
and other penalities of the (D)SLR designs. Although I can't recommend
the camera for other reasons, the EVF on the Minolta A2 is vrey good, and
it can swivel to the vertical position which may be helpful if you want to
take macro photos of flowers etc.

A different set of possibilities opens up if you wish to go the DSLR
route, of course.

Cheers,
David

The *!st,is a very nice camera.Check out the Pentax forum at DP review.It is
much more capable than the Nikon 990,or the Canon Rebel! I own a Canon 10D
and two Nikon D70s.I would put the D70 well over the Rebel.I used the Pentax
for a weekend and loved it.It is smaller,so it did not fit my big hands
though.It is very well built,and used Pentax lenses are much easier th find
at a good price.Try it,you may like it!
"Charles" wrote in message
...
I started long ago with the Vivitar 450, a basic, manual 35mm, which
worked well for a long time. I kind of drifted into the Pentax line
of SLRs, just because.

For digital, I had a Nikon 950, traded up to a 990 which does a lot of
what I want, but with some problems.

The optical viewfinder rarely shows me what I want to see, what with
the goodies I hang on the front of the lens. My vision has degraded
(presbyopia) to where I can't see the LCD viewer without an optical
aid, and when I add that, the resolution isn't good enough.

Most of what I want to do is close-up, macro work, and all I can do
with the Nikon is generally point it and hope it focuses on the right
thing. Occasionally it does.

I considered the Pentax *IST, thinking I could recycle my glass.
However a look at :
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM

is somewhat discouraging, it looks like I could get better quality
from the Nikon 990 than the Pentax.

The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a
lot of automation, low shutter lag is too much to hope for anymore.

Are there any other cameras I should be considering?

It would be nice if
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM

told us which lens was being used on the cameras which can use
interchangeable lenses, or maybe they do and I just haven't found it
yet.

thanks for any info/opinions.


--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others

Charles wrote in message . ..

I had a Nikon 950, traded up to a 990 which does a lot of
what I want, but with some problems.

I'm sure I could guess at the plethora of problems.

The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a

Yeah, it will promise to deliver you plenty of headaches.

Are there any other cameras I should be considering?

You have left out the most obvious choice. The Sigma SD10 is probably
the best camera you can buy today. Any minor shortcomings of this
remarkable creation are easily outweighed by the enormous advantages
it has over other digital SLRs: image quality, resolution, build,
lenses/accessories, you know...the most important things people want
in a camera.

There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.

There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.

****in hell not this guy again. Are Sigma really that desparate they have to
resort to spamming newsgroups?

On 26 Jun 2004 07:31:28 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" wrote in message t...
"Biff Mullins" wrote in message
m...

Thinking about buying the Sigma DSLR. Either the SD9 or the SD10.
Is the SD10 worth the extra money? What would be the best lens to
start out with.

Oh yeah, does anyone know when that Foveon point and shoot will be
available?

If you need higher ISO settings, the SD10 is the better choice. If
you shoot at lower ISO settings as I do (I'm just a causal
photographer) than the SD9 is just fine. IMO the 50mm EX lens is a
great starting point with either camera.

I don't know of anyone who knows anything about digital who shoots
above the lowest ISO setting.
He does get dummer the longer he is awake

On 26 Jun 2004 08:10:58 -0700, (Giorgio
Preddio) wrote:

Charles wrote in message . ..

I had a Nikon 950, traded up to a 990 which does a lot of
what I want, but with some problems.

I'm sure I could guess at the plethora of problems.

The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a

Yeah, it will promise to deliver you plenty of headaches.

Are there any other cameras I should be considering?

You have left out the most obvious choice. The Sigma SD10 is probably
the best camera you can buy today. Any minor shortcomings of this
remarkable creation are easily outweighed by the enormous advantages
it has over other digital SLRs: image quality, resolution, build,
lenses/accessories, you know...the most important things people want
in a camera.

There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.

Sorta proves it

More lies from the troll who calls himself George Preddy and various
other things. THe Sigma cameras are teh worst abominations of dead end crap
on the market and to be avoided. Even Preddy (not his real name) does not
own one, and he spent yearsa similarly "promoting" the Atari computer -- you
all remember the Atari computer don't you? No. Goodness.

--
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
"Giorgio Preddio" wrote in message
om...
Charles wrote in message
. ..

I had a Nikon 950, traded up to a 990 which does a lot of
what I want, but with some problems.

I'm sure I could guess at the plethora of problems.

The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a

Yeah, it will promise to deliver you plenty of headaches.

Are there any other cameras I should be considering?

You have left out the most obvious choice. The Sigma SD10 is probably
the best camera you can buy today. Any minor shortcomings of this
remarkable creation are easily outweighed by the enormous advantages
it has over other digital SLRs: image quality, resolution, build,
lenses/accessories, you know...the most important things people want
in a camera.

There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.

Thanks for the advice, but I think you missed my point. I already can
take bad pictures, I want to be able to take better ones.


--

- Charles
-
-does not play well with others

Tony Spadaro wrote:

More lies from the troll who calls himself George Preddy and various
other things. THe Sigma cameras are teh worst abominations of dead end crap
on the market and to be avoided. Even Preddy (not his real name) does not
own one, and he spent yearsa similarly "promoting" the Atari computer -- you
all remember the Atari computer don't you? No. Goodness.

Yes, many of us remember the Atari computer. I used a 1040ST from 1986
through 1995. Last I heard, it is STILL WORKING. Nice machine, but the
company didn't have a CLUE what to do with it.

Excessive cross-posting deleted.