Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Fujifilm dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 1, 2003, 7:47 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4
Default Digital SLR or not???

Hi, everyone.

I have been lookin gofr the answer to this qhestion for a little while now and have been unable to find a difinitive answer. Hope you can help...

Are the FujiFilm models s3000, s5000, and s7000 digital SLR cameras or are they only designed to look like it?

If these are not really digital SLRs, what can you recommend for a beginner as far as a true digital SLR goes?

Also, the reason why I want a digital SLR is because I figure in the long run it will be cheaper for me over using a regular 35mm SLR as I would not be paying for film and development. Also, I figure that it will be an easier and faster way wo learn photography since I can view the results of my settings quickly. Unlike a 35mm SLR where I would have to keep a journal of my shots and settings and then wait to have them developed to see the results and what I amdoing wrong or right.

What do you think about this reasoning?

Thanks for any help in advance.
cxm322 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 1, 2003, 11:21 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 851
Default

The ONLY fuji model that is a true dSLR, is the Fuji S2. A true dSLR has the following features: optical through the lens viewfinder and interchangeable lenses.

To the best of my knowledge the fuji models you list do not have interchangeable lenses, nor an optical viewfinder, but an electronic viewfinder (EVF).

There is one other really big difference between true dSLR's and the *other* cameras, and that is sensor size. The dSLR's all have image sensors that are much bigger. This yields better images.

I have an S2 and a Minolta D7. My S2 images are head and shoulders above the D7, yet the D7 does create very good images.

I am reading into your posting, that you are fairly new to photography and do not have a vested interest in a particular line of lenses. That being the case, you could go Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus.

From a price standpoint, the Canon 300D is the least expensive entry level dSLR (as of today). But you also might want to consider the advanced consumer digital cameras (I hate the prosumer term). Such as the Minolta A1, Sony 717 or 828, the Fuji models you mentioned or others. Most of these cameras can take accessory lenses to increase telephoto range and some even take wide angle adaptors. Most of these high end consumer models will be in the same price range as the Canon 300D.

After that the dSLR's take a jump to about the $1500 - $1800 mark. Good cameras all.

I have been doing photography for over 30 years semiprofessionally. A few years ago I bought the Minolta D7 as my entry into the digital arena. While I liked the camera, I also found it had serious shortcomings with respect to the film cameras I was used to using. Namely, slow and inaccurate AF, shutter lag and viewfinder. Then I moved to the S2.

The S2 (and the other dSLR's) handle like thier film cousins. They are fast and responsive, much more so than the non-dSLR cameras.

Anyway, sorry to ramble so much. Hope I have given you some food for thought.

Declan
amazingthailand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 1, 2003, 11:44 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4
Default

Yes, you are right. I am very new, but I do know alittle about photogrphy. I do want a camera that is able to take both telephoto and wide angle lenses, so I will have to look around. ALso, given that, sounds like I will be shelling out more cash than I care to.

Thanks for your reply.

As for the last half of my initial. post. Anyone have anythiing to say about my reasonig for starting out with a digital SLR rather than a 35mm SLR?
cxm322 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 12:00 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

You can learn a lot from instant gratification, but there's a point where shooting at will can be to the detriment of photo quality. I mean, you take 100 shots of a subject because you have a large enough memory card, and out of this 100 you only really like 20 or so. With film you are forced to shoot only 36 at go, so you tend to be more careful in choosing just the right moment. That way you get more keepers than otherwise shooting digital. There's no doubt people shooting with dSLR's would save money in the long run, but with the plethora of support equipment you need, and the electric bill to keep your computer, printer, batery chargers and supplies running.... sometimes I have doubts if I'm really saving money
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 12:42 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero
You can learn a lot from instant gratification, but there's a point where shooting at will can be to the detriment of photo quality. I mean, you take 100 shots of a subject because you have a large enough memory card, and out of this 100 you only really like 20 or so. With film you are forced to shoot only 36 at go, so you tend to be more careful in choosing just the right moment. That way you get more keepers than otherwise shooting digital. There's no doubt people shooting with dSLR's would save money in the long run, but with the plethora of support equipment you need, and the electric bill to keep your computer, printer, batery chargers and supplies running.... sometimes I have doubts if I'm really saving money
I understand about the overshooting thing. That certainly may prove to be a problem. I used to have a Nikon FM10 with just the 35-70mm lens that it comes with in the kit. One thing about learning photography with a regular SLR for someone who is a complete beginner...I tend to forget exactly what I saw in my imagination by the time I ge the print back. I'd look at a picture it took. If it came out good as far as quality, that is fine but would I remember axactly the image I had pictured I wanted to shoot in my head. Very rarely. So you see, it was hard to see if I even remotely acheived my goal with a certain picture/subject.

One way around this would be to record with a paper exactly everything I did (setting, etc) plus my thoughts on what I want to acheive. Now if you take that time spent writing all that down into consideration, you'll find that perhaps overshooting with a dSLR might be alittle less time consuming.

As for the electricity bill. Comouters and printers don;t use that much. I only have one of each. Without my computer, my bill is only 3- 5 dollars less per month. Now, if I were to be focusing on studio photigraphy, sure, all the lights and whatnot woud not only cost me money to buy, but also to run.

All in all, it is hard to say what I'll do. Perhaps I will just buy another FM-10 and really save money. This way, I would could spend some money on lenses ad such.

Ahhhh! Decisions, decisions.
cxm322 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 1:16 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

Ah, good lenses are where money should really be invested on, not so much the body Last time I took a batch of film to my lab, the bill was almost ~$920 (film, developing, printing). Had I shot everything digitally I would've paid ~$800. That's about $120 that could've stayed in my pocket! :? If it were up to me I would go entirely digital... clients still prefer film.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 2:45 AM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 4
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero
Ah, good lenses are where money should really be invested on, not so much the body
Yes, I understand when it comes to regular 35mm SLR, money is best spent on the lenses. Perhaps as well as dSLR, but you still need a good body for that. But is the Nikon FM-10 body a decent body? Is there really a need for a newbie to go automatic? (in case you don;t know, the FM-10 is a fully manual body).

Quote:
Originally Posted by marokero
Last time I took a batch of film to my lab, the bill was almost ~$920 (film, developing, printing). Had I shot everything digitally I would've paid ~$800.
$800? For what. Printing alone?

Tell me. What lenses do you suggest a newbie shooting daylight, outdoor scenery should have in his arsenal?
cxm322 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 2, 2003, 11:39 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 851
Default

Well, you can save money with digital. Shoot lots, print few. But... memory cards, storage media (hard disks, DVD-R etc), color photo printer (and especially the paper and inks), not to mention the very high additional up front cost of your digital camera, especially for a dSLR and I am not so sure how much money you really save.

Pretty much EVERY digital camera is full auto, including the dSLR's, but at least all higher end digital cameras allow full manual over ride.

But another item to also consider is the focal length multiplier associated with the dSLR cameras.

With the exception of the Canon 1Ds and the Kodak 14n, which are both full frame sensors, all the other dSLRs have a sensor smaller than the full 35mm frame. This smaller sensor takes it's image from the center of the 35mm image circle resulting in a reduced angle of view than what the full frame would see.

Most dSLR's have a focal length multiplier in the 1.5 - 1.6 range. What this means is that a 20mm lens would have an equivalent focal length of (20 x 1.5 =) 30mm on the dSLR.

Just more food for thought.

Declan
amazingthailand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2004, 8:20 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 24
Default

I have the fuji finepix S5000. I love it. It does have both the electronic viewfinder and the LCD monitor. I used a minolta slr for many years. For a first time digital I would highlyrecommend the S5000 or the S7000. For the money the S5000 can't be beat.
Scrappy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 22, 2004, 11:00 AM   #10
DBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,483
Default

A couple of points here.

1. Unless you're a professional, you DON'T take that many pictures with film. Film and development are costly. We tend to horde our pictures, lookiing for the "good" shots.

Digital is VERY good for the beginner for that very reason. You simply go out and shoot, and thus you LEARN. A bad picture teaches you just as much as a good one. This is a plus for digital, not a negative.

2. To really break even with digital as opposed to film you must take MANY, MANY pictures. Digital equipment is costly, and while it's much cheaper to run a digital set-up, the innitial costs are much greater then for film.

3. Consider a decent 4 to 5 hundred dollar non SLR camera. Such a machine or its equivalents in the film world have taken some of the best photographs ever taken. They are reasonably flexible and easy to use.

You would then find out how much interest you truly have in photography. If at some future date you decided to go SLR, the old camera would make a fine back-up. If you decided that photography would remain a casual hobby, you will have saved the money and STILL have a fine camera for hobby purposes.

Dave
DBB is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:29 PM.