Close but not quite ready for a DSLR

MarkH wrote:
"Steven Toney" wrote in
ink.net:

It's still tight debate on whether to get say the Olympus C8080 or
Nikon equivalent and wait another year or two on the DSLR to let
things mature a bit more or just do it on the 20D?? I feel it very
close for me to jump into DSLR versus the other mid-high digitals
with exchangable lens -- but still just feel things are not quite
there yet to make the switch.

So what is missing from the 20D that you are waiting for? Without
knowing this I couldn't say whether I think it is worth waiting for
the next model.

What are the "mid-high digitals with exchangeable lens"? I can't
think of any non-SLR digital cameras with exchangeable lenses.


snib

I have a Nikon Coolpix 8700 and a Nikon Coolpix 5000. With convertors
they cover 480mm to 19(nineteen)mm equiv. A year ago I was as happy as
I ever thought I would be, or need to be. They made good
pictures—still make good pictures when I give them a chance.

The thing of it is, I found some money, and rather than preparing to
buy a new computer, I was researching DSLRs. Suddenly I had a 20D.
Taught me I had _no_ _idea_ what happiness is.

While the Nikon period was not a total waste, it was a kind of slo-mo
step in evolution. For those who are inhibited more by the prospect of
being held accountable for a slightly misdirected decision than by the
responsibility of putting out the money for a superior piece of
equipment and all that entails, other-than-DSLR is likely a good
alternative to consider.

Another "responsibility" aspect has to do with the loss of "inferior
equipment" as an excuse for producing less than excellent results.

What brought you to photography was probably not analysis and
discrimination with regard to equipment, although that is fun too, but
making pictures. The baseline is now D70-350XT. Good pictures can come
from superior and from inferior kit. The appliance behind the camera
will operate more comfortably and confidently with a DSLR than with a
"lesser" camera.

To make a more direct statement, I'd advise choosing your DSLR and
getting to work.

--
Frank ess

Thanks All

I think I'll get me a 20D and the lower focal length EF USM IS zoom -- no
sure what the range is 28-130 something with F2.8 before my September
Trip -- then work some other lenses later, probably the 70-200 USM IS and a
good macro Prime for flowers and bugs and things -- I'll do the lens
research soon -- suggestions are welcome - top 2-4 lenses for everyday
things indoors at Christmas, birthdays, to vacation and landscape,
waterfalls, mountains, to macros of flowers, etc faces

MarkH -- I lnow the P&S do no have exchangable lenses - it was a type -
thanks

I'm convinced to make the jump to 20D and a lenses soon after my move to DC
in July and before my vacation in September

I'll keep my two Olympus P&S's for use while actually backpacking - when
size and weight really do matter

thanks again

"birdman" wrote in
:

I have been wrestling with my D70 for 6 months. I hated it at first
until I became one with the zen of RAW. If one is only going to shoot
jpeg I believe there is little reason to use a dSLR. I do not think
there is any overwhelming reason for someone who is happy with P&S/EVF
type cameras (I like a lot of them) to move to dSLR unless you are
going to learn how to use RAW format. The potential of a dSLR is only
realized in the RAW format that allows you tune images to your liking.

Some additional advantages to a DSLR:

a) an optical viewfinder that gives a clear image.
b) faster autofocus than with a P&S digicam.
c) ability to use shallower depth-of-field for creative purposes.
d) lower image noise at higher ISOs.
e) high-quality f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses.
f) provision for external flash units with TTL metering.
g) 3fps or higher frame rates with good-sized buffer.

--
Witold.

"Steven Toney" wrote in
.net:

I'll keep my two Olympus P&S's for use while actually backpacking -
when size and weight really do matter

Not a bad idea, it can be hard for one camera to be the perfect tool in
every situation. Many D-SLR owners are also P&S owners.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 3-May-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

On Sun, 08 May 2005 16:52:59 GMT, "birdman"
wrote:

If you want P&S type shooting you can get it with a dSLR but I do not see
the point of lugging a dSLR size camera and lenses around if that is your
goal. Digital P&S cameras, especially higher end, are capable of very good
quality for what they are. P&S/EVF cameras sure weigh a lot less when you
are trekking around on an extended vacation.

I have been wrestling with my D70 for 6 months. I hated it at first until I
became one with the zen of RAW. If one is only going to shoot jpeg I believe
there is little reason to use a dSLR. I do not think there is any
overwhelming reason for someone who is happy with P&S/EVF type cameras (I
like a lot of them) to move to dSLR unless you are going to learn how to use
RAW format. The potential of a dSLR is only realized in the RAW format that
allows you tune images to your liking. JPEG tunes by immutable computer
algorithms built into the camera processing chip and renders a dSLR image no
better than the JPEG processing chip built into a P&S/EVF camera.

If the _only_ reason för using a dSLR is the RAW option, why doesn't
one stop at a PowerShot Pro, a Coolpix 8400 or a Dimage A200, which
all can output RAW, are considerably cheaper than a dSLR body plus
corresponding lenses, a lot less heavy and bulky than same, and a lot
more hassle-free as well?

I mean, if one doesn't want or need a minimal shutter lag, a superior
performance at high ISO, a real focussing screen allowing you to see
well enough to focus manually, or the possibility to obtain lenses
with a performance way outside anything that sits on a
point-and-shoot, RAW or no RAW, why bother with more?

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

In article ,
Witold wrote:
"birdman" wrote in
:

I have been wrestling with my D70 for 6 months. I hated it at first
until I became one with the zen of RAW. If one is only going to shoot
jpeg I believe there is little reason to use a dSLR. I do not think
there is any overwhelming reason for someone who is happy with P&S/EVF
type cameras (I like a lot of them) to move to dSLR unless you are
going to learn how to use RAW format. The potential of a dSLR is only
realized in the RAW format that allows you tune images to your liking.

Some additional advantages to a DSLR:

a) an optical viewfinder that gives a clear image.
b) faster autofocus than with a P&S digicam.

Not just faster autofocus, but overall faster button to exposure
time -- at least comparing my D70 with the CoolPix 950 which preceded
it.

The CoolPix took quite a few seconds to turn on, longer time to
zoom (you had to use the buttons to zoom, so you were limited by the
speed which they thought appropriate for zooming), longer time to
autofocus (with no way to bypass the autofocus stage, other than half
pushing the button with it pointed to something the same distance you
expect your subject to be, and hoping that the camera did not time out
before your proper moment of exposure arrived).

In contrast, I can switch on the D70 as I'm raising it to my
eye, and by the time it is to eye level, it is ready to focus and shoot,
and (in reasonable lighting) the autofocus is quite acceptably brisk.

If you don't notice these differences, it may be that your
shooting practices are different -- carefully posed subjects, instead of
capturing a fleeting moment of life.

c) ability to use shallower depth-of-field for creative purposes.
d) lower image noise at higher ISOs.
e) high-quality f/1.8 or f/1.4 lenses.
f) provision for external flash units with TTL metering.
g) 3fps or higher frame rates with good-sized buffer.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---