If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:54:43 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote: tony cooper wrote in : On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Yeah, $500 is absolute upper limit - $300 is preferable upper limit. A "Pro" setup simply is not in the budget. Why did you wait so long to bring this up? At $300, you are limited to compact cameras and to a camera that may not have the feature you want the most: manual focus. At $500, you are limited to the Nikon D40 with just the 18/55 lens for a dslr, or some of the better compacts. (I don't know the compacts) You can forget Canon or Pentax dslr unless you go used. I suggest you read Steve's Digicams at http://www.steves-digicams.com/ and read the specs very carefully of the cameras in your price range. OK, I looked here http://www.steves-digicams.com/deals.asp THis doesn;t look bad, is pushing the budget but they have a discount for first-time buyers: http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/Produc...tCode=10007881 That's for a camera body only. No lens. The lens will add a couple of hundred dollars. Note that ZipZoomFly does not accept returns. A very bad sign! Here's something else you need to check out: the reliability of the store. ZipZoomFly has a rating of 6.2 out of 10 at http://www.resellerratings.com/store/ZipZoomFly Almost 40% of their buyers were unhappy after the sale. Check any vendor at ResellerRatings. ZipZoomFly is not the worst, but they aren't great. Some vendors are absolute rip-offs. Your most dependable vendors are Adorama, Abe's of Maine, and B&H Camera. Many of the others push accessories, cancel orders if you don't buy accessories, add and over-charge for accessories included by reliable vendors, or supply you with gray market (no US warranty) items. These also don't look at all bad to me, but it might just be that I don't know any better: http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?i...=NKD402LK&l=CJ The Nikon D40 is new, not reburbished. That's the set-up I have. Two lenses. http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?i...KD401855K&l=CJ THey're refurbished, I think, but if the refurbisher is reputable, is that a bad thing...? Abe's of Maine is a dependable vendor. Buying used is a gamble. Digital cameras are more delicate and more prone to problems than are the old slrs. Electronics, you know. I'd consider a used lens from KEH, but I wouldn't buy a used dslr body. You can Google for all of the names I've mentioned. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Chris Malcolm wrote in
: Kris Krieger wrote: Full manual sounds closest to my old film camera. I often like to do things like, get close to, say, a big palm frond, and focus on, say, a tree frog that I've "placed" in the lower third of the frame, so that it will be what is in sharp focus. So that's why I have reservations about auto-focus - it sounds cumbersome, BUT that might just be because it isn't what I think it is... In your manual focussing SLR you probably had a special central focussing aid, such as a split prism. Yup - and I *loathe* it. It is a huge distraction and I've never used it. So you pointed that at what you wanted to focus on, got the focus right, and then swung the camera round to compose the shot as you wanted. Nope, I place the subject (say, frog on palm leaf) where I want it, IOW move the camera (which is usu on a lightweight tripod) to get the subject placed correctly in the viewfinder, then "fiddle" with the lens until the subject looks crisp - while trying my best to ignore the obnoxious facetted-circle-thingy in the center of the viewfinder. When the subject looks crisp, I snap (using an extender, so I don't juggle the camera by pressing the button directly). I don't know of any good digital camera which doesn't allow you to use its autofocus in the same way. You first set it to central spot focus and single shot focus (if applicable). You then aim that central focus point (indicated by aiming marks in the viewfinder or LCD) at what you want in focus, and half press the shutter button. That autofocusses on the chosen thing, and locks that focus so long as you keep the button half pressed. You then swing the camera round to compose the shot, holding the focus, and finish pressing the shutter when you're done. Unless you have one of the more expensive DSLRs with unusually accurate focussing aids this is not only much the fastest way of focussing, it is also the most accurate, because good modern autofocus systems are better than even the trained manual eye and hand. There are the usual special exceptions of course, such as shooting through wire netting or twigs when the autofocus will probably choose the wrong thing to focus on. Exactly my point. It sounds to me like something I'd have to learn to work around. Granted, I didn't knwo anythign about it before, but at this point, it sounds like somethign that I could adjust to, but would probably find annoying, like that thing that's plopped into the center of my film- camera's viewfinder - whihc I *did* try using, and which screwed my photos up every time, perhaps because it played havoc with my astigmatism. That's one big reason I'm "down" on autofocus. As an analogy: I also prefer to drive a stick shift - and only drive auto now because of arthritis, but still find the auto-transmission lack of control VERY annoying. The best modern autofocus systems can also do all sorts of new wonderful things, but only if you specifically ask them to do them, such as select the best compromise focus for a group shot, or track the rapidly changing focus of a bird in flight even when you can't keep it in the centre of the image. The bird-in-flight is the main reason I'm considering it. When I'm interested in a group of objects, what I've done with film is either use the shorter lens to get the group (tho' it also includes more background, which can distract from the main subject), or use the longer lens an dselect which item in the group (flower, rock, etc.) I want to be Primary. But that's a matter of desired composition - and it depends upon what it was aboutthe group of objects that caught my eye in the first place. So I don't know how that relates to DSLR vs P&S, or auto-focus... If I were to photograph people as subjects, I'd approach that like any other subject - look for the thing that caught my eye in the first place, which is almost always an abstract compositional factor, be it light, color, shape of a pose, etc. I don't knwo how to explain it better The same kind of choose-and-lock facility can be selected for autoexposure as well, e.g. in a portrait of someone looking at a sunset you can choose to set and lock the exposure on the face and then compose the shot. If I did that, I'd prob want to focus really tight-in, for example catch the reflection of the sunset in the eye. Other than that, people don't usually interest me as subjects. So portraiture, while certainly a worthy art form!, is just not a factor for me personally I know it's a bit weird, but there it is. So to be honest, I don't knwo how to even relate it to my research; teh idea of having to focus on somethign centraly and then go through a procedure to get teh camera to focus on my subject in the place where I want it to bein the photo and then focus onit there...to be honest, it sounds like a headache. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just trying to clarify my questions (both for the group, AND for myself, too!) I suggest you borrow the manual of a camera you fancy, or print a copy from the maker's web site, and have a good lengthy browse through it. I think you may be in for some pleasant surprises :-) I've started looking at mfgr sites as I'm seeing camera models that look interesting, so downloading manuals as a preview-assist is a good idea, thanks! - Kris |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
ASAAR wrote in news:29dc35ts9al3gjvtb808qm2to9oljukgt0@
4ax.com: On 15 Jun 2009 11:28:46 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote: I don't know of any good digital camera which doesn't allow you to use its autofocus in the same way. You first set it to central spot focus and single shot focus (if applicable). You then aim that central focus point (indicated by aiming marks in the viewfinder or LCD) at what you want in focus, and half press the shutter button. That autofocusses on the chosen thing, and locks that focus so long as you keep the button half pressed. You then swing the camera round to compose the shot, holding the focus, and finish pressing the shutter when you're done. I've done that too, but it won't guarantee that the intended subject is precisely focused after swinging the camera round, but it may be good enough for many people. Now THAT is good to know! If it's not a guarantee, then it's not useful to me - I know how to do it fast'n'EZ with my old Minolta (my film camera), and adding multiple steps to the process, *especially* with variable results!, is definitely not good enough to me. I think it would work well if the lens's field of focus was spherical, but I think that most lenses are somewhere between spherical and the flat fields that are a property of macro lenses. If lenses were generally of the spherical focus type, even stopping down to get a large DOF probably wouldn't generally be enough to take edge to edge sharp multi-person portraits of people standing in a straight line. Or so it's said by Thom Hogan and a number of other photographers having similar knowledge, if lesser accomplishments. Using a corner or edge AF sensor (if available) is the best way to go. Ah, I Googled Thom Hogan and got his website - good stuff, thanks! - Kris |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:33 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
ASAAR wrote in news:2hlb35ha9pl40aj7ecnr96v3514ir18o6f@ 4ax.com: On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. Since I don't know squat about them, that wouldn't be hard LOL!! Anyway, thanks for all the great info, and links! Virtually all of it intended to be misleading. This was, after all, the pathetic anti-DSLR troll you were responding to, who is easily recognizable and changes his name *very* frequently because he knows that if he doesn't do so, most people will quickly add his name to their newsreader's kill files. It's true that some *good* P&S cameras are capable of taking excellent photos and they may be that you need, but they *all* have severe limitations in many areas. First, if there isn't enough light available, all digital cameras need to increase the ISO (in other words, boost their light sensitivity - ISO is practically the same as the ASA value used with film). Because they use much smaller sensors than DSLRs, even a slight increase in sensitivity degrades the image considerably. "Practically the same"? ASA and ISO are the same when it comes to exposures, idiot. Proving once again that you don't even know what cameras and film are all about. You're such an obvious pretend-photographer DSLR-troll. Really ASSAR, go get a real camera someday. Go out and use it. You'll find out that 90% of what you say is utter nonsense. You'll hang your head in shame realizing how much crap you have spewed onto the net all these years while living in your basement. ASSAR, haven't you been paying attention? He's been shooting with ISO100 (ASA100) film all his life. He doesn't need your high ISOs that you keep going on about it (the one minor thing that DSLRs are sometimes better at). Pros are like that, they don't need high ISOs. I never find a need to go above ISO200 because I know what I'm doing. There is no more noise in the images from a good P&S cameras at ISO200 than a DSLR at ISO800. Get a clue will you? But that's impossible, you have to actually own and use cameras for you to be able to get a clue. ***OH!!*** OK, that's important to me!! With my fil camera, I can open the lens aperture and/or increase teh exposure time, but *have* been able (when I get it right) to get soem beautifully crisp images in shadow, and in backlit situations. Here is somethign I'd like to photograph, *if* I ever see it again: I was in the woods one time, and came across anopening where a shaft of light illuminated a huge spider-web that spanned teh space between two trees - and the "threads" of the web were refracting the light, creating hair-fine "rainbows". I have quite a few photos just like that. I just looked through them and was going to post one for you. All taken with P&S cameras. But now I believe we are all being trolled from two sides and there's no reason to entertain trolls nor hand out valuable shooting experience for free to them. I could give you some simple pointers on how to ensure you capture those web-rainbows correctly (it's not as simple as you might think at first, no matter what camera you use). That's one sort of photography I want to do, but didn't know whether digital was capable of handlign that sort of contrast and color-range. But it does sound like DSLR would be stronger in that sort of situation. Why would that be so? All of my rainbow-hued web photos look just fine here taken with all manner of P&S cameras. Oh what the hell, let's entertain the trolls. Here's one of my scrapshots (meaning not anywhere near good enough for commercial use, the only kind I will ever rarely post to the net a few times a year). Don't bother to zoom in looking for details. I use a lot of downsizing and extra-high JPG compression, enough to destroy all details so nobody can use these photos for anything of importance. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/...e63d510046.jpg Before the pretend-photographer DSLR-trolls start spouting their nonsense, sensor-blooming artifacts and aliasing artifacts have absolutely nothing to do with all the myriad rainbow-hued colors that you see in this photo. I know the difference and am 100% certain. I realize that basement-living trolls never get out into the real world, but yes, spider webs from certain species of spiders actually do look this way in sunlight from the proper angles. See what you are missing? Not enough incentive yet for you to crawl out of your troll's basements? I thought not. When the low base ISO is boosted to 200 or 400 the images from P&S cameras become "noisy" and is often easily seen without substantial magnification. Many DSLRs can be used at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and produce cleaner images than P&S cameras. I have several of the better Canon Powershots and they're nice, but they turn into little noise boxes when the lighting is low. OK, that would definitely not cut the proverbial mustard... Second, P&S cameras focus using contrast detection, which is *much* slower than the phase detection used by DLSRs, which under similar conditions is much quicker and more accurate. Try them out in a camera store that allows you to test them. You'll see, easily. THat's another term I can add to my list - I previously would not have even known to ask abotu that! So Thanks! Contrast focusing CAN be slower, so much depends on light levels. DSLRs cannot auto-focus in low light no matter what, which makes them infinitely slower than any P&S camera on earth. And then the light-levels are so low that you can't focus a DSLR by using the optical viewfinder either, lose-lose. Something that DSLR-Trolls conveniently seem to forget when going on about them. They've never actually used any of these cameras that they talk about in real-world conditions. Contrast focusing is much more accurate and can focus in light levels so low where you would normally put away any SLR type of camera. Contrary to what ASSAR says. He knows not of what he types. I am also 100% certain of that. P&S cameras have several other drawbacks (which others can point out if they wish), but they still serve a purpose and most DSLR owners find it convenient to also use a P&S. So if you get a one and find that its limitations are sufficient to force you to get a DSLR, all is not lost. There isn't room in the budget for me to get two. The above example of things I would like to photograph is tellign, also, I like things such as, small tree frog among a slew of palm leaves (haven't yet developed the fil but tried to get that a couple weeks ago; green tree frong on the still- shrubby Pindo palm in my back yard); or a dragonfly warmign up in the morning light on a blade of the 7'-tall 'Dallas Blues' var switchgrass (near the pindo palm). Or water glinting in the moonlight. In possession of tons of photos just like that. All taken with super-zoom P&S cameras. You won't be able to get the full body of the frog nor dragonfly in focus with any DSLR, not enough DOF. This is where P&S smaller sensor cameras will always excel, for macro nature photography. Not sure whetehr the following clarifies, but here goes =:-o : My "manifesto", is: I don't "do" snapshots. I want to photograph **what __I__ perceive**, not cutesy pic-lets that show someone else touristy views of this place or that - for that, there are postcards, and tourist guides, and visitor booklets. To be totally "rude" about it LOL!, I don't really give a crap whetehr my photos would appeal to people who wabnt to see snapshots. I do these things because I am driven to do them, and wht matters to me is whether *I* am satisfied - and I'm pretty demanding of myself. Yeah, I admit, *occasionally*, I might send a distant relative a "snapshot" of the garden or house or whatever, but overall, nope. So that's the core of my concern - what will best allow me to do the above? I've occasionally changed lenses using my film camera, but usually use (going to check) (OK, am back) the "MD Minolta Celtic f=135" lens, and only VERY rarely use the "MD Rokkor 45mm 1:2" lens, because i'm usually doing something like, picking out a cardinal sitting on a branch are of leaves but loaded with berries, or similar. OTOH, that's what I *do* like about the film camera - I do have the option of using the one that best suits the capture of what *I* am perceiving (again, with the lack of preview being the biggest frustration, along with expense of film-development). So for now, I've been looking at the Flickr site, selecting the photos that are similar to the sort I'd like to take, and seeign what poeple use. So far, tops are Canon EOS series (from 20D up to 50D), and Nikon D-series (D200, D50, etc). SO that seems to be useful info, too... I hope you choose any of them. Then find out that you're going to have to spend well over $5000 in lenses to get comparable images to what you would get from any decent $200-$300 P&S super-zoom camera right off the shelf. Along with all the cumbersome dust-covered sensor problems that come along with any DSLR, only to find out that all your images are ruined when you get back to the computer to view them. Each and every moment lost forever. Been there, done that way too many times, never again. That should make you very happy. It'll be just like sending your photos off to a lab only to have them come back all ruined. Anywhere, that's all very rambling, but I'm sort-of at that "rambling" stage right now in terms of the search, so I guess it fits - Kris This is fun, watching you take the advice a troll who's never even held a camera before. :-) (i.e. ASSAR) |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
"David J Taylor" -
this.co.uk.invalid wrote in news:8gmZl.42676$OO7.6382 @text.news.virginmedia.com: Kris Krieger wrote: [] My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding out that it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off, or some other flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying... Kris, I think you will find that any of today's DSLRs will do what you want. They all have fine control over the colour rendering - but it may be up to you to get the colour temperature correct for your shots or using manual colour balance and a white card. You can usually adjust the sharpness for the JPEGs produced by the camera. My prime camera is a Nikon D60 - the bottom of the range - and I've been very pleased with it. I usually carry the 16-85mm and 70-300mm VR (image stabilised) lenses, giving me a "35mm equivalent" focal length range of 24-450mm. I also carry a compact P&S camera - the Panasonic TZ3 - for those times when I need a "pocket-sized" camera. Cheers, David Thanks, yes, I started looking at the Nikon D-series. Good not ebaout color adjustment!, I didn't know you could do that, either! Amazon has a new one for apx $170.50 with shipping. They have, for $399, a NikonD60 Body Only (wondering whether my Minolta 45mm lens and Minolta Celtic 135mm lens will fit onto it...my impression is Yes...) ALso, refurbished Nikon D60 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for $450 with shipping. THere is aplain-old- used one for an insignificant amount ($50) less. The PITA about trying to shop online is that, when you put in "Nikon d80 DSLR", you get everythign from bags to straps to all sorts of other drivel, as opposed to just CAMERAS (or even camera "kits" with lenses). - Kris |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Chris Malcolm wrote in
: Kris Krieger wrote: John Navas wrote in : On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:28 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" wrote in : Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography. True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great pictures without a great photographer. My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding out that it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off, or some other flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying... You can make your own comparisons of picture quality from different cameras by checking out public photosharing sites such as Flickr and sites with plenty of technical discussion on user forums such as dpreview, Digital cameras store camera model and the technical details such as focal length and aperture along with the digital image, and these details are still often present and examinable along with the screen display of the image. Yup, someone had posted a flickr link - talk about addictive LOL! But it's giving me soem idea about what kind of photos are available using which models, so that's a very useful link! Same with dpreview THanks!, - Kris |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:33 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
Here is somethign I'd like to photograph, *if* I ever see it again: I was in the woods one time, and came across anopening where a shaft of light illuminated a huge spider-web that spanned teh space between two trees - and the "threads" of the web were refracting the light, creating hair-fine "rainbows". I failed to mention some important things which may not be apparent to you at first. DSLRs will be unable able to capture these web-rainbow photos properly. The lighting conditions in which they need to be shot preclude the use of very small apertures needed in ALL DSLRs for enough DOF. At the small apertures required by a DSLR for enough DOF you'll need to use flash--instantly destroying the very lighting that causes this effect. A P&S camera does not have these huge drawbacks. If using a DSLR you cannot line up the angle of the web to the camera in a flat plane to get enough in focus while getting any kind of decent composition while also making sure the angle of the sun is where you need it to be and still see and photograph the refraction rainbows. The most you will ever hope for with any DSLR is to get a few strands in focus that will show one color at best, all the rest being just a huge smear of out of focus blobs, never being able to focus on the large expanse that shows all the hues of the rainbow at once. Which is precisely what makes the sight so spectacular in the first place. Otherwise it's not even worth photographing. I speak from many many years of experience doing all manner of photographs just like this, a minor subset of the types of nature-photography that I do. Here's a good example of someone attempting this with a DSLR, the best I could find. http://www.flickr.com/photos/11957541@N08/1198711037 I found a lot of great shots online of rainbow-refracting webs from P&S cameras (many of them far better than the example scrapshot that I posted, that's why it's a scrapshot), but this is all I could find from a DSLR user that was good enough. None of the rainbow-hued strands are in focus. Smearily artistic perhaps, but not a good representation of nature and the awe inspiring sight you are trying to capture. If they align the DSLR to get a flatter plane and get more in focus then they lose the rainbows. Been there, done that. A waste of time and effort, and a total waste of the thousands of dollars spent on the camera and lenses you'll need in attempting to do so. Sorry, no DSLR on earth will ever cut it for decent macro nature-photography. No matter what all the DSLR-Trolls in newsgroups might whine about to the contrary. They know not of what they speak. None of them have ever used any of the cameras that they cry about in real-world nature photography shooting conditions or they'd instantly know better. This is precisely how I know that they are pretend-photographer DSLR-Trolls and nothing more than that, nor will they ever be more than that. Buy a DSLR to bolster some pretentious "wannabe pro" pride while cutting off 90% of all great nature photo opportunities. A bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's up to you. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:50:43 GMT, nick c wrote:
I found all this very interesting. After reading this post several times, I have to say it's a great post. It's well written and may be very helpful to anyone who may be interested in having two systems. Agreed. I archive only a small number of newsgroup posts, and they're most often the ones that are either interesting or contain useful information. That's why I saved his (your son's) and more recently yours. When I was active, I used 35 mm cameras, 2-1/4 cameras and Speed Graphic (sheet film 5x7 and 8x10) cameras, all at the same sequence of time so I think nothing of someone being happy using two systems. By all appearances it does sound like something I would write but unfortunately it wasn't from me. Upon further investigation I found it was written by my son, Alex, using one of my laptop computers, which he borrowed while his was being repaired. Since he visits me often, he may have written it while he was visiting me. I have several laptop computers 'cause the damn things seem to always need maintenance and are often in the repair shop. A pox be on whoever opened Pandora's computer box. Alex originally bought into Canon because I had bought into Canon. While he was, and I think still is, satisfied with keeping Canon, wasn't. I won't keep what I'm not comfortable with. I changed back to Nikon. This morning when I called him to inquire about this post, I find he's still using the two systems and seems to be content. I noticed this post is signed Nick. That momentarily puzzled me 'cause I don't usually sign my posts. Perhaps Alex thought I was a regular poster in this group 'cause I've often referred this group to him and signing my name, to him, while using my computer may have seemed proper. I neglected to ask him about that. Anyway, AFAIC, I really don't care to know. Shrug. Alex is not into news groups, he's much too busy in the world of finance to become attached to news groups. Now, as for me, I like to lurk and at times, I fire up one of my Ser Jacopo pipes and take a bottle of Port and one of my laptops outside and sit in the shade of the patio and play with my laptop while watching the grass grow. Now, that's interesting. No pipes for me, but maybe a bit of port . . . Have to ask, did the post, in your opinion, contain information that was not correct or informative? If there's beef in this hamburger, I can't find it. I'll tell Alex not to upset the net police again. I don't think he meant to do anyone harm. No, nothing incorrect. The replies (both of them) were interesting and informative. Alex did no harm, needs no warnings, and I certainly wasn't trying to be a net cop. I you look a little closer at my previous post, I was only trying to understand an apparent discrepancy between the two posts, which you didn't have to answer, but you cleared it up nicely. Thanks. I don't understand the "beef" reference. I'd have thought that most people would *want* beef in their hamburgers. At least Clara Peller, the "Where's the beef?" lady in the Wendy's commercials did! I'm 100% Nikon. I even bought my wife the D60 kit and she loves it. Oh,well ... what the hell, she leaves it on "P" and doesn't care to go any further. I guess I don't really care how she uses her camera. Whatever makes her happy tickles me half to death. Besides that, when she's content she tends not to futz around with my toys. She might like Nikon's little P6000. True, it can't do everything a DSLR can do, but it takes some very nice pictures, has all of the manual controls of Nikon's DSLRs, works with Nikon's Speedlights, is much more silent in operation, easier to carry and even has a built-in GPS receiver, so she'd later be able to say "We were at these coordinates when we realized that we were lost." |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
You might want to add the Sony DSC-R1 to that list as well. Thanks , I also want to investigate the Sony A-series (as mentioned on the website luminiouslandscapes.com). You may want to read up on the DSC-R1. It's an interesting camera, but that model was discontinued long ago. It had an excellent lens and a large APS-C sensor, the size used in DX DSLRs. Its drawbacks were that it was expensive for a non-DSLR ($1,000), was slow writing JPG and *very* slow writing RAW files (9 seconds each), high noise levels at high ISO, autofocus wasn't the best, especially in low light, and it was a heavy camera, a real brick. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSCR1/page27.asp |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
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. If you are currently using Minolta manual focus SLR gear and hope to use the lenses on the Sony Alpha DSLR cameras, you may be in for some disappointment. 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 snipped for brevity That may cause you a problem: not having any autofocus lenses. Particularly if you're currently a Minolta film SLR camera user, as their AF mount (called "Dynax" by Minolta, now "Alpha" by Sony) is incompatible (different bayonet and longer mount to sensor distance) with MC/MD manual focus lenses. You might be better served to look for a DSLR camera which can take your lenses, otherwise you'll have to purchase all-new AF lenses. If you're a Minolta MD/MD or Olympus OM user, then you will have to either start from scrath again with lenses or you could use an adapter on a FourThirds DSLR or MicroFourThirds EVIL camera and put up with a 2x crop factor (50mm lens would have the same angle of view as a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera when used via adapter on FourThirds cameras). It's ultimately your money to spend as you like, so the final decision is really up to you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Need help selecting digital camera | Dave Boland[_2_] | Digital Photography | 28 | December 8th 08 11:58 AM |
Selecting new digital camera | Javier | Digital Photography | 5 | November 16th 06 12:34 AM |
Advice request for a digital camera... | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 4 | February 26th 05 03:32 PM |
Need help selecting budget digital camera... | ct | Digital Photography | 3 | February 10th 05 03:30 AM |
>>> Request for Recommendation: Digital camera with specificrequirements | phil w | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 3rd 03 05:46 AM |