Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 7, 2006, 12:10 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

The only issue with the R1 is price. The OP is looking for a cam between $300-$500! You're not getting the R1 for that price.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 12:17 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 260
Default

Ok, some of these posts are not devoted to the original post. The Sony R1 should not even be talked about. He was looking for a camera between $300-$500. Now if you find a website selling it for under $500 then please direct us to the website. This guy needs help choosing a camera with his needs in mind and within his price range.
KALEL33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 2:46 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

camera between $300-$500.

I'm sorry.

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________

The Kodak P880 is a very goodenthusiast camera in my opinion.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/p880.html

This camera was onmy number onelist; when the camera search engine displayed my results. (And that has got nothing to do with prices at all)

You can trythe camera search engine below.It is nice and extensive.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cgi-bin/m/pl.cgi?cajs

TheP880 is alsolisted on Steves' list of "Best Cameras"

http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html

EDIT: Just read two big reviews about it; great camera!



BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 7:23 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

digraph wrote:
Quote:
I've decided to start looking for a replacement camera, and here's my list of requirements:
  1. Better focusing/exposure accuracy. [/*]
  2. Good low light performance (and by that I mean indoors, not asking for the impossible). [/*]
  3. Quicker recycle and focus time than I have - this camera is ~4 years old, I think things have changed a lot since then. [/*]
  4. GREAT in-camera color/picture accuracy. The LAST thing I want to do is post process my photos in photoshop or the like. I don't mind red eye reduction or cropping, but I do not want to mess with color, sharpening, etc... [/*]
  5. I've been thinking I want to experiment with a wide angle lens.[/*]
Digraph

Personally I was in a similar situation about a year ago, I had an excellent Fuji S7000 camera but wanted something with better handling. I looked at the Fuji S9000 and the Sony R1 and found both wanting, the reason was that I missed the immediate response of an SLR (also a K1000 owner). I eventually took the plunge and got a Pentax *istDL. I started out with the kit lens (a very nice 18-55mm, equivalent to about 27-83mm), a 28-80mm AF lens that came on a used MZ-7 I bought cheap and my old MF lenses, a 28mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.7, a 135mm f2.8 and a 500mm f8 mirror lens. I soon found a used 100-300mm Pentax AF zoom for $70, a brand new Sigma 24-135mm f2.8-4.5 for $100 (including shipping) and an excellent MF Pentax A 70-210mm f4 for $45. I still have the old flash unit I had back then which works fine with the Pentax.

I am glad I did. I now have immediate response, an excellentlive optical view (not the small but significant lag of an EVF), and the capability to expand my visual range whenever I can afford new lenses.

The DL does not produce jpeg images that are as printer perfect as the K100D, or most EVF cameras for that matter, but post processing usually involves just applying an auto-levels touch and a little sharpening (USM) in Photoshop elements. If I wanted to go directly to print I would set the in-camera sharpness higher. I think this is true, to varying degrees, of all DSLR cameras.

For your price range I would suggest The Fuji S6500 or the Kodak 880 since both offer a manual zoom (essential in my mind). But if you do decide on a DSLR, the Pentax DL is still available at some dealers for a price well within your budget. All three of these cameras are far larger and less portable than your current Canon, but if you hang onto the Canon it will make a great pocket camera for those times when the "serious" camera is too bulky.

I don't think a DSLR is for everyone, but if you have been an SLR user in the past you will enjoy the experience of using a DSLR far more than an EVF. The old lenses will operate with just one extra step for metering (on M of course) which is very similar to using an old K1000.

Good luck in your decision,I don't think anyof the cameras you listed in your original post would disappoint.

BTW: SelrahCharleS made some excellent points, the old lenses can be very satisfying to use, especially if you have time. Also the limited Depth of Field of an old prime like a 50mm f2 or f1.7 or f1.4 will make it an excellent "artistic" portrait lens, you will not get that level of selective focus with the smaller sensor cameras.

Aside: I know it is not in the budget range but since it was brought up..., as for the Sony R1, great camera but big pricetag especially since it still has most of the limitations inherent in an EVF camera. I think if landscapes and studio portraits were my most frequent work I could live with the Sony but it does not have the growth potential of a DSLR. It's lens andimage quality is exemplary in the EVF arena but its cost is high.

Ira


Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 9:14 AM   #15
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
The only issue with the R1 is price. The OP is looking for a cam between $300-$500! You're not getting the R1 for that price.
Yes, it's selling for around $799 from reputable dealers now.

I didn't mean to imply that it was the best camera to meet the OP's requirements. I just wanted to correct the misunderstanding about it's zoom range (since the marketing specs show the "35mm equivalent" versus actual focal range).

It's not the fastest camera in the world either (relatively small buffer size with write speed to media leaving something to be desired given the larger image sizes from it). So, it wouldn't be my first choice for action sequences.

But, it's got very nice glass on it, and you'd be hard pressed to duplicate it's focal range in a single zoom for a DSLR with quality as high.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 9:51 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

Yes, it's selling for around $799 from reputable dealers now.


Seems likethe R1 is getting really cheap mann!

A camera that was claimed to have it's lens cost U.S. $1000 when it was released. Miraculous!

I think it is now a very superb bargain! (I am getting drawn toward it, if I'm not already) :|

BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 11:35 AM   #17
DRL
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22
Default

My Photo teacher always told us, There's too much emphasis on camera

equipment. And less emphasis on photography. The camera is only as good

as the person behind the camera. Thats was in 1981 andit still holds true

today. I have had 15 SLR35mm cameras's over the years and 4 digital camera's.

I have some wonderful images from all of them.



Danny Lamontagne.

Thats my Opinion.
DRL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 11:55 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Quote:
I don't think that the image qualities of the R1 is worse than a dSLR. In fact, the R1's Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* optics is higher in quality than most good dSLR lenses.
I think this is only a bit of an exaggeration. What's difficult to match there is the zoom range. The image quality is good, but if you start comparing to good DSLR lenses, it can be beat. It will beat most kit lenses, though. For one thing, most kit lenses won't be as bright as f2.8 at the wide end.

But you can get reasonably priced lenses with a bit less range, or a bit different range, that match or exceed that quality. The Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 for example, looks pretty comparable in quality to me on those tests at slrgear.com.

http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...uct/349/cat/31

That would cover a 25.5mm-105mm range in a Pentax, Nikon, or Sony/KM mount, or a 27mm-112mm range in a Canon mount for under $400.

Or, in an Olympus mount, there's the Zukio 14mm-54mm f2.8-3.5 which covers a 28mm-104mm range with what I believe to be even higher quality glass (if you are picky), for under $500.

So how important is it to cover the extra 1.5mm-4mm on the wide end? Adding another lens to match the perfomance on the telephoto end isn't as difficult, since you are talking f4.5-4.8 at the telephoto end of that lens, and some of the better kit telephotos will be comparable at the wide end of their zoom. Add a good quality telephoto super wide as well, however, and your costs are really starting to add up. But you would also then be covering a larger zoom range as well.

A lens with that range, in that quality, would however easily sell for near the price of the R1 camera (or more), for the convenience of the large zoom range alone. So it is a nice value if it's what you really want.

But if you really want some of the additional benefits of a DSLR, you don't really have to give up that much zoom range to get similar image quality (and better is possible) for a reasonable price. And for many people the quality of the kit lenses might be fine as well, even if they aren't quite as bright or don't score quite as highly on some tests.


kenbalbari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 1:24 PM   #19
Member
 
digraph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Yes, you bring up a lot of points that are important to me - It seems that it takes a lot of patience and learning to get good at using a flash. My quick fix is indoors, I just don't use the flash - so obviously a lot of shots just don't work. Your post prompted me to start searching for exposure and metering, and indeed it is an incredibly deep issue. I need to learn more.

It seems also that getting a camera with a hot shoe might be valuable for me, which really wasn't on the top of my list before.

thanks for the comments!!


JohnG wrote:
Quote:
You might say, I shot film and I don't remember this issue. But, my guess is - if you still have film shots you probably did have issues - under/over exposure wasn't as pronounced because film had more dynamic range. But, the issue was likely still there - it's just with digital everyone takes 100 times more photos than they ever did with film and standards have gone WAY WAY up.

SO, my advice - find a camera that allows you to set sharpening, color and saturation in-camera so you can reduce the need for those activities in PP. And if you take a lot of flash shots, get a camera with a hot shoe because the built in flashes on most cameras - dslrs included really do stink.

Hope that's helpful!
digraph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2006, 1:32 PM   #20
Member
 
digraph's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 48
Default

Yes, I noticed how good the deals are on older lenses, this is something that made me think twice about a dSLR. But it seems that my next camera will be fixed lens. I'll admit, I hadn't used my K1000 for about 13 years (and I'm just in my 30s!), then I used a Yashica P&S and stuck with that till my canon.

Sometimes it seems like there are two things we do: one is lean how to use this camera machine to create a perfectly exposed image (whatever your preferences are), and the other is making a picture that's visually pleasing. It's hard to get the balance right, but I think it's important to find the balance for yourself (sorry for getting heady).

Of course chasing around my 4 month old makes it more of a race just to get the shot when he's not crying!!

I will eventually get a dSLR, just might be in a few years - who knows what the technology will be!

Thanks for the comments

Monza76 wrote:
Quote:
Personally I was in a similar situation about a year ago, I had an excellent Fuji S7000 camera but wanted something with better handling. I looked at the Fuji S9000 and the Sony R1 and found both wanting, the reason was that I missed the immediate response of an SLR (also a K1000 owner). I eventually took the plunge and got a Pentax *istDL. I started out with the kit lens (a very nice 18-55mm, equivalent to about 27-83mm), a 28-80mm AF lens that came on a used MZ-7 I bought cheap and my old MF lenses, a 28mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.7, a 135mm f2.8 and a 500mm f8 mirror lens. I soon found a used 100-300mm Pentax AF zoom for $70, a brand new Sigma 24-135mm f2.8-4.5 for $100 (including shipping) and an excellent MF Pentax A 70-210mm f4 for $45. I still have the old flash unit I had back then which works fine with the Pentax.


For your price range I would suggest The Fuji S6500 or the Kodak 880 since both offer a manual zoom (essential in my mind). But if you do decide on a DSLR, the Pentax DL is still available at some dealers for a price well within your budget. All three of these cameras are far larger and less portable than your current Canon, but if you hang onto the Canon it will make a great pocket camera for those times when the "serious" camera is too bulky.

I don't think a DSLR is for everyone, but if you have been an SLR user in the past you will enjoy the experience of using a DSLR far more than an EVF. The old lenses will operate with just one extra step for metering (on M of course) which is very similar to using an old K1000.

Good luck in your decision,I don't think anyof the cameras you listed in your original post would disappoint.
digraph 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 10:25 PM.