Cameras?

[mdauben]

Olympus's top of the line telephoto long range lenses are 3-400 dollars while most of Canon's and Nikon's are around 2,000.

While its true that Canon and Nikon's consumer level lenses are pretty equivalent to the competion, the idea that a $2,000 Canon L-series (professional) lens is "not that much different" than a $300 Olympus is laugable. If all you are doing is family snap shots, yeah, you will never notice the difference. If you do professional work, large prints, fast action, or distant subjects you will most definetly see a major difference. The high-end Canon and Nikon lenses are faster, clearer, and sturdier than anything Olympus, Pentax, etc, sells. By far.

That said you are also taking the chance that 2 weeks after you buy it the autofocus motor will croak and Canon will say "too bad, your fault"

Can't comment on this, as with 20+ years of using Canon SLR and DSLR cameras, I never had any problems which would require me to use their customer service. This does seem to be a recurring complaint about Canon point-and-shoot cameras, however, and not one I have heard in relation to their DSLR line.

 

[PayetteRucker]

While its true that Canon and Nikon's consumer level lenses are pretty equivalent to the competion, the idea that a $2,000 Canon L-series (professional) lens is "not that much different" than a $300 Olympus is laugable. If all you are doing is family snap shots, yeah, you will never notice the difference. If you do professional work, large prints, fast action, or distant subjects you will most definetly see a major difference.



Can't comment on this, as with 20+ years of using Canon SLR and DSLR cameras, I never had any problems which would require me to use their customer service. This does seem to be a recurring complaint about Canon point-and-shoot cameras, however, and not one I have heard in relation to their DSLR line.

The fact of the matter is their shitty customer service and warranty should be considered before making a 1,000 dollar investment, whether or not their SLRs have the same lens error issue or not. As for Olympus/Canon lenses, I haven't compared either personally but the guy at the local camera shop says Olympus's 300 dollar telephotos are just as good as the high end Canons.

 

[mdauben]

The fact of the matter is their shitty customer service and warranty should be considered before making a 1,000 dollar investment,

I agree. The kind of cutomer service you describe is unacceptable IMO. I was just offering the thought that their DSLR stuff seems less prone to problems than their point-n-shoot stuff.

the guy at the local camera shop says Olympus's 300 dollar telephotos are just as good as the high end Canons.

Then to be perfectly honest, he is either lying or does not know what the hell he is talking about. Seriously.

Yes, a $300 Canon or Nikon lens is going to be pretty much equivalent to a $300 Olympus lens. It is not even in the same ball park as a $2000-3000 dollar Canon or Nikon high end lens. If you wanted to dig into the subject, there are lots of independent test results of different lenses available on line and in the photography press and the high end Canon and Nikon lenses are quite simply better in any number of quantifiable ways. There is a reason that professional photographers are willing to pay so much for those high end lenses, and its not just to impress the other camera jockeys.

 

[PayetteRucker]

On second thought he may have just been trying to sell me what he had in stock, he didn't have any lower end telephotos behind glass when I was there...

 

[mdauben]

On second thought he may have just been trying to sell me what he had in stock, he didn't have any lower end telephotos behind glass when I was there...

Heh, it happens.

Don't get me wrong, either, Olympus has a reputation for producing consumer lenses that are as good or better than the competition. If that's what you want, you probably can't go wrong with Olympus. They just don't compete in the high-end, pro and prosumer market.

 

[smersh]

Yup, apples and oranges. In the consumer range, Olympus makes plenty of decent lenses, but they don't even try to compete in big glass. Olympus has stuck to some of the principles that made them desirable decades ago -- compact bodies and lenses with excellent image quality, but which didn't necessarily compete directly with the big two.

This is all complicated by the fact that they're now on different sensor sizes, making comparisons tricky. With the crop factor of 4/3, Olympus has some fast mid-teles that are indeed cheaper than what you'd need to get a similar image size with Canon or Nikon full frame -- but it's not really a fair comparison.

Olympus makes some good lightweight stuff for travel, though.

I've heard similarly dopey stuff from camera salesmen -- the truly well-informed pro shop is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, except for a few holdouts.

 

[mdauben]

I've heard similarly dopey stuff from camera salesmen -- the truly well-informed pro shop is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, except for a few holdouts.

Yeah, most shopping mall camera stores these days are staffed by sales people, not photographers. I've been to a couple big, professional camera stores but generally they are only found in the big cities like New York and Chicago these days.

 

[Wildewinds]

We could go on all day about the pros and cons of each brand, but when all is said an done, all you need to do is to see what the professionals use. Sporting events photographers are like 90% Canon, 9% Nikon. Other professional photographers (when they're not using large format) are 99% Canon or Nikon. The other brands do not compete in the pro photo biz.

For consumers, I couldn't tell you what the market share is for all the brands. I'm sure the other brands make perfectly adequate cameras and lenses.

However... the cutting edge and top of the line products are either Canon or Nikon. Like someone else mentioned, Nikon has some CRAZY high ISO abilities right now. A couple years ago, Canon was the leader in high ISO performance. Canon was the first to offer 1080p video with a DSLR. Nikon soon followed (though many argue that it's not as good). I'm sure the two of them will battle back and forth with new technologies. It's been that way for years and years. Maybe someday another company will be able to join them in that race, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Stormstaff]

Since going digital Cameras have acquired some of the problems associated with computers, mainly quick obsolescence, or at least a short "state of the art" lifespan.
The specs of todays state of the art computer/camera will be the specs of an entry level computer/camera X months from now.
Don't get hung up on getting the highest megapixel camera, because even if you buy the best it will not be the king of the hill anymore in a short span of time.
For sure get a decent moderate megapixel camera with more special attention paid to the features/controls that you like/want in a camera.
I would however try to get the best/most-versatile lenses you can afford in any particular brand you choose. That lens technology is still at least relatively stable.
And if you buy a newer body down the road you will be able to use the lens from the previous camera.
Actually you can even get adapters to use older SLR lenses on DSLR's.
My uncles using his collection of 40 year old Nikon lens's on his Nikon D50 DSLR.
For me I'm figuring on developing a nice little stable of good lenses and just upgrading camera bodies every few years depending on advances in the tech in DSLR's.

Wait. You can use old lenses with new bodies? I have an old Canon AE-1 Program that I loved that I still have somewhere. I don't know how good the lens is but I have a zoom lens for it that I bought used for $150 used if I remeber right......probably 15 yrs ago if I had to guess. Will this work with a new body?

 

[Stormstaff]

Uses will be :

Family vacations
School plays
Scouting events
Zoo trips
etc

As far as price range, I've a Canon Rebel (not sure of model) locally that was like $550 with a "normal" lens.

I haven't started the major hunt & compare yet as I was hoping to get info & advice from folks I trust and/or know.

Please keep the advice coming.

What if I have no local camera shop? Best Buy safe? Places to stay away from?

 

[Wildewinds]

As far as price range, I've a Canon Rebel (not sure of model) locally that was like $550 with a "normal" lens.

I haven't started the major hunt & compare yet as I was hoping to get info & advice from folks I trust and/or know.

Please keep the advice coming.

What if I have no local camera shop? Best Buy safe? Places to stay away from?

That was probably the Canon Rebel XS. Good camera for the price. $100 more and you can get the XSi, which offers a bigger screen and higher resolution. For another $100 you can get the Rebel T1i which offers a better screen, more resolution, the most recent processor, and HD 1080p video.

Local camera shops usually charge more than online stores. Best Buy looks to be about $50 more than other online stores. Two good online stores are: www.bhphoto.com and www.adorama.com

 

[smersh]

Wait. You can use old lenses with new bodies? I have an old Canon AE-1 Program that I loved that I still have somewhere. I don't know how good the lens is but I have a zoom lens for it that I bought used for $150 used if I remeber right......probably 15 yrs ago if I had to guess. Will this work with a new body?

In your case, unfortunately no.

Nikon has kept the basic "F" lens mount consistent from the development of their first SLR through the digital era. The first series of lenses require a simple meter tab modification to mount on newer bodies, but anything from the '70s forward (with the "AI" meter coupling) will mount without modification (albeit with minimal or no meter coupling, and no autofocus).

Canon, however, changed their mount in moving from manual to autofocus, so a lens for the AE-1 would not mount without some convoluted modification that is more trouble than it is worth for a $150 lens.

So -- I'm sorry to say, you're out of luck.

;- (

 

[lava_lamp]

Couple of follow-ups:

Few communities outside the largest cities have a camera store anymore. Ritz/Wolf/Camera World, which are the same chain are the only one's left. They are staffed by commissioned sales reps (not that there is anything wrong with that) who often make wrong statements through ignorance or bias based on what gets them paid. I have had them tell me, for example, that a Sigma lens is better than a Nikon lens, 'cause the Sigma was made in Japan and the Nikon in Thailand. While it could be true that a Sigma might be better than a Nikon, that isn't a valid reason, and it isn't true in most cases. Ritz is also more expensive than most.

Online camera shops are notorious for ripping people off -- "Wait, you want a battery for your camera? That will be another $100. Oh, and you need the extended warranty for $200 to get the lowball price we quoted..."

These guys are reputable and I've bought from them personally:

www.amazon.com
www.adorama.com
www.bhphotovideo.com
www.beachcamera.com

Like a lot of things, cameras are kind of abstract and the performance is hard to explain. As a result, the manufacturers and dealers tend to talk about things that probably won't matter much to you in the end, but give you a way to compare. Megapixels is the first thing, and while it is true that more is better, if you are coming from a point and shoot, you will not be able to discern any difference between 10 and 12 megapixels.

The D5000 is a good camera and will take great photos. The most significant downside to it is that it only autofocuses with an "AF-S" lens. Those are the lenses with a motor in the camera. That limits your choices a good bit. If you buy the kit 18-55mm lens and the 55-200mm AF-S, it will take care of almost everything, though you may want to add a 70-300mm later. If you come to love photography and start adding other, better lenses, you'll want a new body.

 

[Bob W]

I'm learning DSLR photography on a D5000 from Nikon. No complaints yet.

 

[Old CW4]

This is a great thread and thanks to the originator! I currently have a Nikon Coolpix 8800 which has outlived its six year warranty. Also a little Nikon Coolpix L18 point and shoot which ran about $130 from Sears. I use both a lot.

I have one major problem with the 8800 'big' Nikon--I have yet to use every function on the camera or to fully understand some of the arcane details in the 158 page manual, plus the screwball way the information is presented. I think the camera makers must use the same nerds who write encrypted software manuals to do the same for cameras! A human doesn't have enough fingers for page marks when you try to look something up and get a dozen or more references, then lose yourself flipping back and forth. Damn!

Anyway, the little Nikon point/shoot is an amazing 8 megapixel camera with a heck of a zoom range and image stabilization. I'd recommend something like that for a starter camera and then work your way up. You can always hand off the 'cheapie' to a wife, kid, etc., when you feel the urge to move up.

As for actual phtography, I'm reminded of a test/contest one of the major photo magazines, I believe Popular Photography, ran back in the late 60s, the film days. They got 10 or so top New York City pro photographers to participate. They equipped each one with something like a Kodak Brownie, a $10 to $20 tourist type plastic box and sent them out with observers to shoot up several rolls of film. Now these were the cheapest of 'junk' cameras. However, all of those guys came back with absolutely fantastic shots---architecture, the harbor, parks, people on the street, portraits, fashion, artsy stuff, you name it. Sure, you probably couldn't enlarge their negatives to 40 by 60 inch wall covers but the magazine sure printed a spread of fabulous full page shots from each of them using the cheap cameras with fixed lenses. Point was/is, it's not so much the equipment as the person using the camera.

Oh, one final point. To my limited understanding, the quality and layout of the CCD matrix (the image sensor or 'film') in the camera is about as equally important as the number of pixels. Some high quality CCDs may be lower in megapixels but exceed in color rendering and clarity. Therefore pixels are not the be all and end all....

 

[tholiver]

In your case, unfortunately no.

Nikon has kept the basic "F" lens mount consistent from the development of their first SLR through the digital era. The first series of lenses require a simple meter tab modification to mount on newer bodies, but anything from the '70s forward (with the "AI" meter coupling) will mount without modification (albeit with minimal or no meter coupling, and no autofocus).

Canon, however, changed their mount in moving from manual to autofocus, so a lens for the AE-1 would not mount without some convoluted modification that is more trouble than it is worth for a $150 lens.

So -- I'm sorry to say, you're out of luck.

;- (

Maybe not.
Before i bought my XSI i specifically looked to see if i could find an adaptor mount to use the old FD lenses on new Canon Digital SLRs.
Found a few on ebay, can't remember the brands though.
And yes it was specifically an adaptor to fit fd lenses on the Canon IOS xs/xsi etc cameras.

 

[FoxholeAtheist]

I recently picked up a Panasonic GF-1, after literally years of waiting to buy a Nikon DSLR. The problem that I have with DSLRs is that they are just too damn big! They take great photos, and you have lots of options with them, but they're so heavy (especially if you're lugging around a few extra lenses) that you just won't want to carry it with you.

Enter the 4/3rds (and Micro 4/3) system cameras. Basically they are an in-between step between a P&S and a DSLR. You get interchangeable lenses, decent sized sensors, and fast response time, but without the prism/mirror stuff that makes a DSLR so big. I easily carry my GF-1 inside my Fatboy Jumbo (inside a small stuff sack to avoid scratches) and it doesn't weigh me down. So far I'm just using the 20mm (40mm equivalent) lens that came with it, but I'm probably going to sell some of the Nikon lenses I've been holding onto for years and finance another lens or two for the GF-1.

Some info on the 4/3 system cameras....

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PanasonicGF1/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/index.html

 

[glockman99]

Unless you NEED a NEW camera, you might want to take a look at a "2nd-hand, low-use" Nikon D70s with a Nikon AF-S 50mm f/1.8 lens...That's an excellent DSLR & lens to start out with.

 

[mdauben]

Enter the 4/3rds (and Micro 4/3) system cameras.

I think the fourth thirds system (or something like it) is probably going to be the enventual standard for digital SLR cameras. While I have not checked out the latest offerings in this style camera, I'll offer a couple of comments to consider if you are thinking of going with a fourth thirds camera.

The micro fourth thirds system eliminates a lot of the bulk and weight of the standard DSLR by eliminating the mirror & prism of the optical TTL viewfinder. This is theoretically a great idea, but given current technology I still find optical viewfinders supperior to electronic ones. This is sure to change eventually (and in the very latest cameras, it may already have) but it is a concern for someone taking close ups, fast action or long telephoto shots.

Another way the fourth thirds system saves size and weight is with a much smaller sensor. This can be something of a trade off, as all other things being equal, a larger sensor provides a better picture. This is one reason why only consumer DSLRs utalize the APS-x size sensors while professional (and more expensive consumer) DSLRs utalize "full frame" sensors. Now, the sort of differences we are talking about probably would not be noticable to the average hobby photographer. For demanding professional or advanced amature uses (large englagements, high quality reproductions, etc.) it can make a difference. Again, improvements in both sensors and image processing make smaller sensors better every year, but they also make large sensors better, so the larger ones will always be better, although eventually the small sensors will be so good that the differences will not really matter any more.

So, the fourth thirds cameras have a lot of advantages for amature photographers (especially those who might have to hump their gear up and down trails!) but there are still some disadvantages to be aware of, so as to make an informed decision.

 

[MVF]

I don't know if this would do it for you, but I got a Canon SX10is for our vacation last summer and it ROCKED- as far as I could tell anyway. 20x zoom with image stabilization let me get some ridiculous pictures, and it gives you the option of using all or partial manual settings. I went through my whole vacation on "Auto" and it worked great. It seems to me like an intermediate step between a regular "point and shoot" and a DSLR- but I know nothing!

Can you DSLR guys tell me how much I could gain by learning to use manual settings? I understand about better glass and larger sensors with a DSLR, but do they have an "Auto" setting? In other words, can they be used like a really expensive "point and shoot"?