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

View Poll Results: My top picks are:
Olympus E-330 3 4.55%
Olympus E-500 9 13.64%
Nikon D50 15 22.73%
Nikon D70s 3 4.55%
Canon Rebel XT 9 13.64%
Canon 20D 11 16.67%
Pentax *ist DL2 5 7.58%
Waiting for Panasonic's DSLR 2 3.03%
Waiting for new announcments this month 6 9.09%
Haven't decided yet !? 3 4.55%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 17, 2006, 6:16 AM   #71
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
rjseeney wrote:
Quote:
Also, if you're looking to add a little more reach to your set up, the 80-200 is a great inexpensive lens...it can be had for around $100USD from KEH.
You mean Nikon's 80-200 or other manufacture ?
Yes, I'm refering to a Nikkor lens

In terms of the Oly E-330.....I'm sure it will be a solid camera, but will still suffer from the two inherent Oly issues...lowlight performance due to the smaller sensor, lack of inexpensive/readily available glass, and no real upgrade path. If you think photography is something you're going to get serious about, Canon and Nikon provide the most complete lineup of bodies from entry level to pro with several stops in between.

The other issue with the Oly has nothing to do with the camera's performance....it's waiting!!!! You have spent several days and many posts trying to decide which camera to get. You've received many opinions, and besides probably getting too much info, you are missing opportunities to use your camera!!! As has been said, none of the DSLR's available are bad cameras...in fact they are all excellent. None are perfect, and all have some minor issues with performance, none of which are deal breakers. I say its time to jump in feet first. I commend your attention to detail and attempt to get all the info but I think you are close to over analysis and the more questions you ask the muddier the water is going to get and the tougher your decision will be. Go with your gut....the Nikon is a good camera and will do everything you need.

Good Luck!!!




rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 6:18 AM   #72
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
My other question is does P&S Ulra-zoom cameras suffer from distortions like the cheap DSLR lenses ?
Even the cheapest of DSLR lenses will yield images as good as, if not better than P&S cameras, especially at higher iso's and in low light.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 6:21 AM   #73
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

What cameras have you been using since your entered the Digital-Photography area ? And which lenses have you got ?
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 7:50 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
What cameras have you been using since your entered the Digital-Photography area ? And which lenses have you got ?
I started digital with a Canon SD100, then the SD230. I switched to Sony and got another small P&S, the DSC-p93 and I also have a prosumer for more serious work without the bulk and extra lenses,the Sony DSC-V3. I still own and use the two Sony cams.

In terms of DSLR's, I have a D50 and D70. I owned a Nikon N80 film camera, which made my transition to Nikon DSLR's a no-brainer. I've always preferred Nikon's flash system and ergonomics compared to Canon SLR's and DSLR's. I started out with a Minolta SLR 11 years ago and used it for many years before switching to Nikon, and only switched because of Minolta's late entry into the DSLR market. I wish I had kept my lenses.

My current lens arsenal is:

Nikon 18-70, Nikon 18-55, Nikon 50 /1.8, Nikon 105 f/2.8 micro, Nikon 80-200, and Nikon 24-120 VR. I also have 2 SB600 flashes with stofen diffusers.

I shoot alot of sports, some portrait and group photos, and some stock work. My next lenses will probably be 24mm and 85mm prime lenses, but I'm fairly comfortable with what I have and am in no rush. Don't take what I own and use as the end all perfect setup....its what works for me and what I like to do...what works for others (including yourself) may, and probably will be completely different. Only you can decide what is right for you.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 7:54 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

I am looking towards the Sigma/Tamron 18-200 cause I want an all-around lens that is cable taking good photos. I was looking at photos at pbase and was impressed with the quality of the lens even though that many people say that an all-around lens except Nikons 18-200VR is not that good, what do you have to say about this lens for me, consider that I am transfering from P&S to a DSLR and want an all-around lens with good optics capatability.


I really want an all-around lens and not carry extra lenses with me, I want a travel lens and most of my photos I intend to shoot outdoors.
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 8:51 AM   #76
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Idan wrote:
Quote:
I am looking towards the Sigma/Tamron 18-200 cause I want an all-around lens that is cable taking good photos. I was looking at photos at pbase and was impressed with the quality of the lens even though that many people say that an all-around lens except Nikons 18-200VR is not that good, what do you have to say about this lens for me, consider that I am transfering from P&S to a DSLR and want an all-around lens with good optics capatability.


I really want an all-around lens and not carry extra lenses with me, I want a travel lens and most of my photos I intend to shoot outdoors.
Then go for it!! Again, I'm not impressed with those lenses, and they really don't suit my needs....but that's what is right for me. Optically those lenses are not great, especially when shooting at extremes of aperature and zoom range. They won't be great indoors or macro because of distortion, but as you state, this isn't your focus. I would still go for the kit lens as it is very inexpensive when purchased with the camera, small, lightweight and a solid if unremarkable performer. You may find you'll need the focusing speed at times, and it will certainly have less distortion at the wide end. It's also going to be better optically. NOW GO GET THAT CAMERA!!!!
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 17, 2006, 10:44 AM   #77
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Does the EISA or DIWA awards mean anything to you ?
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2006, 7:53 AM   #78
Senior Member
 
Idan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 267
Default

Can somebody answer this question above about the awards ??
Idan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2006, 8:15 AM   #79
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

A camera or lens can win an award, because of technical achievement. That doesn't mean that it's the best lens or camera for your needs.

For example, tt's tough designing a lens with a wide focal range (difference between widest and longest focal lengths) keeping it in a compact package.

That doesn't mean it's going to be better than products with less lofty goals for focal range in a single lens.

For example, I bought a Tamron 35-105mm f/2.8 not long ago. This lens got an EISA award for "Lens of the Year" in 1992. But, it's a bit soft wide open, and any prime I've got will outperform it. A number of zooms from that same era could also outperform it.

It probably got the award, because it was very unusual to see a lens with a constant f/2.8 aperture with it's focal range (35--105mm), with better than expected quality for a lens with that focal range and brightness.

That doesn't mean you can't find a better lens, depending on what your needs are (and you could then, too).

Any lens is a compromise (size, weight, cost, focal range, brightness, optical quality, flare resistance, ergonomics, etc.), and each user will have different preferences and needs.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 19, 2006, 8:54 AM   #80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 436
Default

Actually, I don't think I'll get a dSLR at all. I still have my Contax film SLRs and a dozen Zeiss lenses and I haven't seen anything that has tempted me to switch.

Contax film cameras are not cheap. My RX body was about $2,000. One Zeiss lens costs more than mySony V3 so I'm not scared of spending money but none of the current dSLRs (even the $7,000 ones) have offered enough incentive to get me to switch.

As with all SLRs, part of the cost you have to consider is the extra lenses that you are going to buy. If you never get anything more than the 'throw-in' kit lens that comes with the camera...you may as well stick with azoom lensdigital (like the Sony R1). So, not only are the digital SLR bodies significantly more expensive than their film equivalents BUT you have to lay out more $$$ for decent lenses. For people on a tight budget (like most of us) that puts the dSLR out of the question.


Meryl Arbing 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 2:42 AM.