thinking about getting a still camera

[Cheesesailor77]

I'm thinking about getting a still camera and am still deciding whether to go film or digital. suggestions?

Because I'm just getting started, I of coarse want a really good camera and then am disgusted by how much quality equipment costs lol

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11105238&whse=BC&Ne=4000000&N=4001459&Mo=29&pos=2&No=2&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&cat=83&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&Sp=C&ec=&topnav=

this camera at costco looks like quite a deal. whats wrong with it >:(

anyway, any suggestions on cameras to look into are appreciated

THANKS

[Digigenic]

Well, the Olympus DSLRs are an interesting breed that come with a couple of interesting tradeoffs.
One tradeoff is the type/size of the sensor.
The second is the type of lens which comes as a result of the unique sensor they use.

The sensor used in Olympus DSLRs and the new Panasonic DSLR is based on 4/3.
It's definitely a step up from a point and shoot sensor, but it's not quite as big as the APS-C sensors, which are most commonly used in other DSLRs such as Canon's Rebel series, the 20D/30D, and all of Nikon's DSLRs.

The signal to noise ratio tends to be better on a sensor that is larger, and allows for a greater amount of megapixels to be crammed onto the sensor before creating a mess of high ISO shots.
As a result, people tend to find more noise in high ISO shots with 4/3 type sensor than an APS-C type sensor.

You might find yourself in an uncomfortable position when you decide you want to purchase a different lens or two for an Olympus DSLR.
And the reason for that is the premium cost, and limited choices of the lenses made available for use with such a unique camera.

The brands of lenses you'll find for that 4/3 type DSLR will be Olympus Zuiko, Leica, and possibly Sigma.
I think that's it.
Other factors like the flash system and software, I'm not well read on, so I can't really comment on.

The build quality of the Olympus Cameras and optics are pretty solid, and the overall IQ of the final images definitely rival those of competitors.

[Cheesesailor77]

the lens issue is something I'm glad you told me.

Of all the cameras with the larger sensor, what might be my best bet for under $1000?

[Digigenic]

Yeah, that's really not an easy one to answer.
I strongly recommend going to a camera store and handling them to get a better understanding of what suits you. See if you can fire off some jpegs to your own card at various settings and take them home to review. That's the best thing I can suggest.

Given the price range you've specified, the options to consider are the Nikon D80, Nikon D50, maybe Nikon D70, Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D), Canon Digital Rebel XTi (400D), and maybe the Canon 20D if it can still be found.
Others to consider are the Sony Alpha a100, and possibly some Konica Minolta models that have been discontinued, but should still be serviceable by Sony.
You might even want to look into a Fujifilm S3 Pro.

Some of these cameras are offered as kits, like the Olympus you linked to.
As a beginner, those lenses should suit you fine, but it's important to remember that most site provided samples/examples you've seen come out of the camera are from the best glass available, and it doesn't take long before you find yourself craving a fast prime lens or two, even a stabilized zoom, these things quickly add up to more than the camera's original cost.

Right now, you'll hear many pros advise beginning photographers to just snatch a Nikon D50 or Canon 350D at a low price, and invest in glass. Simply because the camera bodies come and go in 2 to 3 year cycles, but your lenses, assuming they're of good quality, will always stay. Although, if you get lenses specifically for APS-C cameras and eventually move up to a full frame camera, then you're going to have to get a new lens anyway.

[SPZ]

I would suggest either the 400d or the Panasonic L-1. Why the Panasonic? Just go to a store, point to a person and see the image coming out from the camera on a print. Also check out the L-1 webpage and look at the sample images. They use the Leica D lens.

I own a Panasonic LC-1, and I can tell you, for a 5mp camera, this thing takes pictures that can be used in a professional application. I'll try to post some LC1 pictures I took when in Beijing, in September.

[Cheesesailor77]

at the pany website, they only have a L1K with an MSRP of $2000. outa my price range.

I can't spend more that $1000 and am trying to get more than 1 piece of glass

[500lb Productions]

Right now, you'll hear many pros advise beginning photographers to just snatch a Nikon D50 or Canon 350D at a low price, and invest in glass. Simply because the camera bodies come and go in 2 to 3 year cycles, but your lenses, assuming they're of good quality, will always stay. Although, if you get lenses specifically for APS-C cameras and eventually move up to a full frame camera, then you're going to have to get a new lens anyway.

I agree with this 100%.

And I will ADD: DO NOT BUY APS or DX or whatever name they are giving "digital" glass.

If you buy ONLY full 35mm lenses, and buy ONLY the best quality glass (the pro's know which lenses are good and will help you find them), then you are buying an investment that will retain value and will last a long long time.

If you buy cheap glass, consumer glass, or any brand other than Nikon or Canon, then you are spending money, which should be considered depreciated to zero once spent. Nothing wrong with spending money. Just recognize it as spent not invested.

If the lesson is worth the price of the cheap lens, and you can't justify the "investment in the difference in price", no problem, get the cheaper one. But if you can justify and afford the better glass, then you won't be sorry.

When buying a digital body, expect your investment to last from 4-5 years. In 4-5 years, you will probably want, and be able to justify a new body.

If you went with nikon or canon 35mm lenses, then your lenses will still be in service.

[Cheesesailor77]

wow thanks for the info.

Yeah, my budget still holds, but I'm not the kind of person that wastes money. I go with nothing over going with something not good.

The two cameras mentioned, the D50 and 350D, how are those and how much would they probably be?

[Digigenic]

And I will ADD: DO NOT BUY APS or DX or whatever name they are giving "digital" glass.
Well, there are some very impressive lenses for the 1.5x and 1.6x cameras.
I'd hate to just dismiss them when the quality is so good, but given the potential shortened lifespan of the format, I see where you're coming from.
What I find particularly interesting is how popular 35mm prime lenses remain, even for Nikon, and they've done away with their film cameras.
Not only that, they've started working with Zeiss to produce more 35mm primes for the Nikon mount. Now, why would they do that?
Sure, they can be used on the cropped cameras and produce stellar results, no doubt - BUT, we all know that's not what it's intended for.
All signs appear to be pointing to full frame.

[Digigenic]

The two cameras mentioned, the D50 and 350D, how are those and how much would they probably be?
You can find good comparisons here (http://www.dpreview.com/)
Look up the reviews and go into the comparison charts.
Then of course, compare the images, and final conclusion of the review to weigh the pros and cons.

[Cheesesailor77]

can you explain further about the difference between the DX lenses and 35mm lenses? Most of the places I'm looking at have DX lenses for the D50-D80.

for example, this sounds good: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/ele/204217095.html

[Digigenic]

Nikon DX lenses, or Canon EF-S lenses are set up for cropped sensor cameras only. (Nikon's 1.5x crop and Canon's 1.6x crop)
Unless marked otherwise, these lenses are always packaged by the manufacturer with these types of cameras.
They were developed with the same mount as existing full frame models, Nikon F and Canon EF, but can only be used effectively on the cropped sensors.

Traditional 35mm lenses, like 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm primes, to name a few popular examples remain usable on all cameras. But, there's a magnification factor when using these lenses on a cropped camera, so you don't get the same field of view as one would traditionally get with the 35mm full frame format it was intended for.

The DX lenses available with that D70s package you linked to will work well for that camera.

However, those lenses begin to show certain imperfections when placed over a higher quality, higher resolution sensor like Nikon's D80, D200, or D2x. That's not to say they'll be obsolete if you choose to upgrade to a higher resolution cropped camera, but they'll definitely begin to show some limitations on the higher end cameras.
Not to mention they will never be usable on a full frame model, assuming Nikon actually does release one, and many people suspect they will.
Canon users have always discussed the dead end of APS, and with good reason because they have a full frame camera upgrade path.
Meanwhile, Nikon users are a little more comfortable with APS, considering it's the only alternative available, absent the discontinued Kodak 14n, and Nikon has assured its users that it remains dedicated to APS without elaborating on the possibility of introducing full frame.

[Digigenic]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y228/WICKEDPIXEL/photography/sensorsizes.jpg

[Digigenic]

Side note of interest: "full frame" for 35mm still photography is not the same as "full frame" for 35mm cinematography/digital cinematography.

[joemondello]

Since Nikon's August introduction of their D80, they have reduced the price of the D70s.

If you are serious about getting into still work, you will want to buy into a system that can grow with your development. Nikon or Canon would serve you well.

The Fuji will use Nikon glass and Sony's new alpha system has a broad range of K-M lenses which have been re-branded for the Alpha system.

Two things to remember: "Buy your last camera first" and "the poor man always pays twice".

Have fun!

[500lb Productions]

can you explain further about the difference between the DX lenses and 35mm lenses? Most of the places I'm looking at have DX lenses for the D50-D80.

for example, this sounds good: http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/ele/204217095.html

Also, if your camera COMES WITH a DX lens in a kit, don't sweat it, so long as that lens is costing you less than $100. Use it. Enjoy it. Just don't buy anymore like it ;-)

Aside from the "frame size" of the lenses, is the fact that DX lenses are "consumer" lenses, and should be compared to the "consumer" full frame lenses.

However, generally speaking, the consumer glass is never as sharp, bright, contrasty, colorful (etc) as the pro glass, and often vignettes terribly.

Some of the cheapest consumer lenses vignette so bad that it's even noticable on a D1 (APS Format) camera.


As an aside, APS format for 35mm still is approximately the same size (on the longest dimension, which is what matters for a lens) as full frame for 35mm movie film. This is explained by the fact that 35mm movies are really 24mm movies, because all 35mm film is really 24mm WIDE, and the 35mm dimension in a still camera is along the LENGTH of the film.

Ah doncha love it when industry standard terms are technically misleading?

EDIT: typos suck.

[Jeremy Ordan]

To chime in, I actually disagree with some of the comments regarding the DX glass of the Nikon line (or digital glass in general).

One of the highest quality pieces of glass is the 18-70mm DX in Nikon. If you check out www.dpreview.com you can see tons of examples of this glass and the high quality results.

What is being said about the crop factor is true, but looking at Nikon you will not find a full frame camera yet, and Canon's full frame starts at $3000 for body only.

The Canon versus Nikon debate has raged forever. The only way to decide what is important to you is to go to a store and hold them both. Personally I chose Nikon because I found the grain at higher ISO's to resemble film, the image and gamma to be closer to traditional film and warmer in general, and because the ergonomics felt better to me. That being said, Canon makes a great camera and across the board their glass is 10-20% less expensive for similar quality glass.

Who has the better glass? This is a debate that no one can answer. Personally I like Nikon because they are an optics company and Canon also makes copiers, but I have seen some mind numbing and amazing pictures out of Canons, and their wide angle glass kills the Nikon.

That being said, it honestly doesn't matter which camera you buy, you are going to be happy with the results.

Now keeping within your budget of $1000 here are the questions and answers.

1. Do you want a point and shoot that will give you a ton of manual options or are you looking for the flexibility of a DSLR?
#1 Answer: The D-SLR is more expensive because you are constantly wanting to add more glass. Therefore if it is a hobby and something you just want to play with get a great point and shoot, but if you are considering using photography as a serious hobbiest or move into light professional work consider going the DSLR route keeping in mind that you will buy glass that costs 2-5x the cost of your camera.

2. Canon or Nikon?
#2 Answer: Go to a store and hold them both.

3. If I choose Nikon, which model?
#3 Answer: There are three bodies, already named in this thread, within the Nikon line that will work well for you: D50, D70s, D80. The D50 is a 6.1 MP camera lacking some dedicated manual controls, top lit LCD, and commander feature (to control a wireless flash out of the camera). The D70s has 6.1MP, commander function, and two command dials and is slightly larger. Between the D50 and D70s the D50 actually has a more pleasing, lower noise,and better performance at a higher ISO. I prefer the RAW image out of the D50 to the D70s, but that Commander function is awesome (a $300 flash will give you this function also, but then you are looking at $600, one on camera to control the other off camera to use wirelessly). The D80 falls right in the middle of function of the D50 and D200 (a $1600 camera body). The D80 has a 10MP sensor, the performance with signal to noise of the D50, the body of the D70s, and the commander of the D70s. It's frame rates are in the range of the D50 (3FPS I think). The body of the D50 is $550, D70s $750, D80 $1000. These are body only.

4. I get the body, which glass do I get?
In your price range you need to factor in glass cost and range of use of that glass. Assuming you are looking for a single lens that can do most functions then the ONLY Nikon lens that does that is the 18-200mm VR which is $800-$1200 (availability of this much desired walk around lens causes the price to go crazy constantly). It's a nice piece of glass, and the VR helps with the slowness of the lens, but this is a nice walk around lens. The problem? This glass costs AS MUCH as the cameras you could afford... The other question is primes versus zooms... Personally I see a use for both and think that the 18-70mm DX glass is the tool I turn to the most because it is sharp and it has a nice range. That being said, I have built a massive collection of glass: 10-20mm Sigma, 18-55 DX, 18-70 DX, 24mm 2.8, 30mm 2.0, 50mm 1.8, 105mm 2.8 Macro, 70-210mm 2.8. That's a lot of glass, and I think I'm forgetting a couple...A good starter lens you wont outgrow is the 18-70mm DX. I personally think that regardless of camera the best glass you can buy would either be a 24mm 2.8 or a 30mm 2.0 prime. This will force you to learn how to frame your shot without the benefit of a zoom. Each of these is in the $300 range new, but they are fast and good all around pieces of glass, very sharp and perform well.

The whole thing and I guess this is where the confusion comes in is similar to video production... what are you looking to do and how long do you plan to keep your camera?

No one can answer a question for you... Canon people can suggest more towards Canon and offer models and glass that I don't know about, but remember, the Canon, Nikon, Sony, or Olympus decision in the SLR world is the most important decision, because your locked to that brand unless you want to replace ALL your glass in the future.

The sony is an interesting addition and the immediate results look promising... The body is available with a nice lens for $1000.

So in my opinion and my suggestion, Nikon D50 with a 30mm 2.0 lens, 2gig SD card... $900 and change.

[Steve_Arm]

I'm thinking to buy a digital too, but what distracts me the most is those digital flares from light sources.


Personally I chose Nikon because I found the grain at higher ISO's to resemble film, the image and gamma to be closer to traditional film and warmer in general.


You think you can mail me an example of high ISO photos/examples you have?

[Jeremy Ordan]

What do you want an example of... I will shoot it tonight and send it to you...

Here are some high ISO macro shots with the D50 and the Sigma 105mm 2.8... Most of these are at 800 or 1600 ISO, no photoshop other than resized.

www.stffilms.com/Pictures/Macro

[Steve_Arm]

Thanks I'm checking them out now.

[Steve_Arm]

OK, the 10-15 last ones should be at 1600, where grain is more noticeable. I think as such high ISOs you can mimick a 100 film pic. Although the grain is still smaller "parts". Here is a film scan 100ISO:

http://www.dvxuser6.com/uploaded/13838/1158097041.jpg

[Jeremy Ordan]

That is a very large image dude...

Yeah, like I was saying the ISO Noise on the D50 is actually pleasing, especially when you look at the blacks (where noise is always dreaded) it perfectly replicates film instead of looking like traditional noise.

Then again, I very rarely shoot with an ISO above 200 (hence why I keep investing in primes).

[Cheesesailor77]

What is being said about the crop factor is true, but looking at Nikon you will not find a full frame camera yet, and Canon's full frame starts at $3000 for body only.

Thanks man, this is exactly what i needed to know. I'll continue doing research and asking questions, but I'm sure I'd be happy with the D50 and a good DX lens or two if a great deal comes my way.

I'll probably have more questions in the next couple days.

[alwayslearning]

WOW ...... Ok, I'm done deciding if I want to do serious digital photography. That is a given for me now. A part of deciding that of course, for me anyway, was to actually buy my first digital camera. It was a $450 consumer Sony H2 (which I feel takes very good pics for it's class). The reason I did that was just to get my feet wet with something that had some manual functions and get an idea if I would like the format as much as film. Well, despite all the drawbacks to the low end camera I bought, I am very excited about digital now. I have no budget for a real camera yet, but I am never shy about doing massive amounts of research first. As usual, dvxuser.com is a good place to start!

I came to this thread THINKING I knew very little. Now I KNOW I knew very little. :)

Two things that I know already that I will do with a DSLR is time lapse and hdr. Also, I have to have RAW data. Even with just an H2 and Photoshop 7.0 I've had great fun with the hdr thing. I can't wait to get CS2 or the beta CS3. I do have a small video production business but as a hobby, I've messed with (film) photography for about 22 years. With a large family (six kids) my hobby was fun, very educational and limited.

The glass I have the most of along with accessories (i.e. ring flash, lense reverser, lots-o-filts, extension tubes, etc.) is the old Minolta A mount. (I mostly used and only owned, a Maxxum 7000). I have been out of it for a few years though and when I started looking into things again now that 4 of the kids are married and out of the house, I discovered the Konica/Minolta thing and now the Sony thing. To the best of my knowledge, the Sony A100 is the only camera that I could use all my glass and accessories on. At 10.2 MP and a body price of around $600, I thought I'd found what I wanted to start saving for. HA! Then I read here and a few other places ... mostly links from here. Imagine my HUGE dissapointment in finding out that the A100 does NOT have time lapse!! How can they do that??!! Arghh ... Does anyone know of a version forthcoming that migh have that?

I am having a blast with my Premiere Pro and high res photos. I love doing pans and scans ... I've gotten pretty good at making a good flow across images as well as transitioning from image to image. A lot of folks tell me that they forgot they weren't watching "video". ;) So, I really want a camera with time lapse. HDR I can do with just about any camera. It willl be a while (this Fall?) 'til I can buy one, and I'm hoping Sony does something about that time lapse issue. It's just hard for me to believe it doesn't have it.

Thanks to all that make this a great site!

Larry