What DSLR brand do YOU have, and why?

[kwajo.com]

Interesting, thanks. I think if I did upgrade I would think about selling the whoel screwmount kit, but it's certainly good to know that older lenses can be used on a digital SLR. I've always bought older second hand lenses in the past, and if I could continue doing that with a dSLR that would be great.

sorry for being slow to reply, but yes you can use those lenses for the most part. I have at least 3 screw mount (M42) lenses that I use on my *ist DS all the time. They work with full metering too, it's really quite impressive considering that they are 40 years old. I have a 30mm 1:1.7 screwmount that is perhaps my clearest lens, I love using it. Now it should be noted that you need a piece of metal to adapt the screw mount to the k-mount, but they are cheap, around $10-30. The only ones worth using are the genuine Pentax ones, as some others do not allow you to focus to infinity.
almost all previous k-mount lenses since the 70s work as well, without adapters and with full metering support. basically they work just like any manual focus lens you would buy today. Pentax has therefore achievd perhaps the best legacy support of any manufacturer, this was a key part of my decision to buy my current camera body

I know what you mean about second hand lenses, I buy them too, and there are lots and lots of pentax ones around, especially with people selling them as they move digital. for whatever reason people think Canon and Nikon are the only options, but there is still a very large Pentax market as well, so there is no danger of them disappearing any time soon.

if there are any more questions about this I'll be glad to try and help, I'm almost as much of a Pentax freak as I am a Mac freak

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

Do you mean larger sensors or larger pixels? I haven't seen the article you're referring to, but in general smaller pixels resolve finer details. In the same way, conventional film with RMS 13 (very small grains of silver halide or other emulsion) resolves finer detail than the same film with RMS 20. Packing density and fill factor contribute to resolving power.

The article tried to compare equal megapixels between the two systems. TheMF showed better detail than the 1D camera from Canon.

Sensors can be made of any size. Even large and expensive ones can be driven down in cost over time. The real question, however, is not about sensor size, but about the entire system. Smaller and lighter is generally more practical and more usable by more people in more situations.

I keep hearing about smaller and lighter systems. But the laws on optics get in the way. Maybe not for telephoto lenses; but the 12-24 optics are no smaller, lighter, or maybe sharer than the 17-35 optics for 35mm film.

 

[kwajo.com]

to me the smaller and lighter thing is silly, the 4/3 system bodies are no smaller than any other dSLR, and the lenses aren't really either, especially since there aren't any 4/3 pancake lenses that I'm aware of

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

to me the smaller and lighter thing is silly, the 4/3 system bodies are no smaller than any other dSLR, and the lenses aren't really either, especially since there aren't any 4/3 pancake lenses that I'm aware of

I was thinking the same in this discussion. Though one needs to look at the the likes of the Olympus 300/2.8 lens; and think about what a 600mm f/2.8 lens would cost and its weight and size.

 

[revmac]

Nikon D50

I love my D50. Just got it, paid $600 w/lens, and it is better than I ever thought it would be. I contemplated going with a higher MP, but this suffices. I intend to get a 35mm camera body also so my lenses will interchange. For somethings, you can't beat the look of film.

BTW, I have an extra D50 Nikon that I bought to get the $600 price for mine. If anyone is interested, I will sell for $575. It has not been opened, and comes with a Nikon 28-80mm Lens.

 

[kwajo.com]

i suppose that is a good point, I don't think in terms of telephoto very often, but that would be a significant savings in size and weight in many cases

 

[mchendricks]

Nikon

I shoot with two Nikon cameras (F-100 and D-100). I like the build of the cameras. I added the vertical grip to both bodies and have decided that I will NEVER buy a camera without this feature. I went with these models as I didn't need the pro models with the pro prices. Both cameras have served me well over the years.

I found that the glass is as important (if not more important) as the body. I've started replacing my glass with faster, sharper glass and the results are obvious. I have not given in to the Nikon DX format since I still shoot film. I'll stick with full frame lenses for the time being.

Nikon and Canon make great cameras, just remember that you are choosing a system, not just a camera body.

Happy shooting,
Mike

 

[bousozoku]

I was thinking the same in this discussion. Though one needs to look at the the likes of the Olympus 300/2.8 lens; and think about what a 600mm f/2.8 lens would cost and its weight and size.

It's still something like $6500. However, I suppose a 600 mm lens is something where I'd want to have some help carrying.

Considering the actual focal length, the Olympus lenses seem about the same but for the effective focal length, they're quite a bit smaller to me. I'm not sure the lenses I have are that much lighter than their equivalents but that's mostly what I have.

Have you had a chance to deal with the constant maximum aperture zoom lenses Olympus makes? I'm just wondering if there is a huge weight difference. I would expect so.

 

[fuzzwud]

I've a Canon Rebel XT and it's been pretty good. I chose the Rebel XT since I was just starting to get into digital SLR. To me, #1 is lighting, #2 is lens, and #3 is the body so I spent my money accordingly. With an extra $300-500 available that I would have spent getting the Canon 20D, I have 3 lenses: Tamron 28-75 (fast, light, and macro), Canon 100 mm Macro (love the USM, focus and quality), and the Tokina 12-24 mm (my least favorite). If I had to change a lens, I would try something else like a Sigma, Tamron, or Canon for a wideangle. The pictures aren't bad, but I don't like the push pull ring for auto/manual focus.

Yes, even with small hands, the Rebel XT is small, but the difference in features between it and the 20D and 30D just isn't enough for me.

My last SLR was a Nikon FE which I love. I was utterly disappointed and angry at Nikon for the Coolpix 5000 (many years ago - it cost $1000 then). Two months after I bought my Canon, Nikon came out with the D200. I would have reconsidered Nikon, but oh well.

 

[Clix Pix]

I was utterly disappointed and angry at Nikon for the Coolpix 5000 (many years ago - it cost $1000 then).

The first Coolpixes were really the best -- the 995 was outstanding. The 4300 was also a pretty good little camera. When they changed the form factor it seemed as though everything else changed as well, and definitely I was most disappointed in the CP 8700 and the CP 8800. The more recent smaller P&S Coolpixes I haven't bothered with because I knew that there were still issues with shutter lag, response time, etc.

 

[cgratti]

If you want to get serious into photography you cant beat the Canon L lens series.

 

[Clix Pix]

If you want to get serious into photography you cant beat the Canon L lens series.

Well....there are the Nikkor professional-grade lenses....

 

[kwajo.com]

...and some crystal clear, very fast Pentax Limiteds ....

 

[ksz]

I was thinking the same in this discussion. Though one needs to look at the the likes of the Olympus 300/2.8 lens; and think about what a 600mm f/2.8 lens would cost and its weight and size.

Given a 1.5x crop factor for the DX sensor, a 300mm lens in 35mm equates to 450mm in DX, not 600. Regardless, a 450mm f/2.8 lens is larger, heavier, and costlier than a 300mm lens.

But more than this, it seems to me that in order to focus light onto a smaller DX sensor, the diameter of the glass compared to FF can be reduced. Smaller diameter should equate to smaller weight.

However, there is a contravening factor: the lens mount on the camera body is backwards compatible with older lenses and keeps the outer diameter of a DX lens from shrinking as much as it could.

Look at lenses on point-and-shoot digital cameras -- they are proportional in size to the image sensor. So the potential for smaller and lighter is there, but backwards-compatibility is keeping manufacturers from realizing the potential, at least for now.

 

[bousozoku]

If you want to get serious into photography you cant beat the Canon L lens series.

You can get them much less expensive refurbished, too.

 

[homerjward]

If you want to get serious into photography you cant beat the Canon L lens series.

if you want to get serious into photography you need to have skills. amazing glass won't help a bad photographer.

oh yeah, and there's all that "nikon," "olympus," and "pentax" stuff i've heard about--i bet it sucks just like macs

 

[valiar]

And I am a proud owner of a Sigma SD9.
At the time I was buying it (2.5 years ago or so), I chose it over Canon 10D not only because the Sigma was taking better pictures, but also because it was (and still is) one of the few cameras that can be operated without *ever* navigating a menu.
Sigma cameras (SD9 and SD10) use a different kind of sensor than anyone else - it is made by Foveon, and registers all 3 colors in every pixel with no color filters. Foveon sensors do not suffer from color moire and many other annoying defects. Unfortunately, the sensitivity is also somewhat lower than that of comparable Bayer pattern sensors, and long exposure times are not practical.
I am still very happy with my SD9.
For me, its main drawbacks are slow autofocus, and Apple's lack of support for Foveon X3F RAW files.
The pictures still look terrific - even compared to what comes from the latest Canon offerings.

If I were buying today, I would have bought a Nikon D200.
What a terrific camera... Pity Sigma did not release anything at the latest PMA!

 

[Abstract]

True, but a test in American Photo IIRC, did a test with the Canon 1D and a comparable MF digital back. The results showed that larger sensors will help resolve finer details.

...but in general smaller pixels resolve finer details. In the same way, conventional film with RMS 13 (very small grains of silver halide or other emulsion) resolves finer detail than the same film with RMS 20. Packing density and fill factor contribute to resolving power.

The sensor size isn't the biggest factor when picking up detail. If you have a large sensor, say FF, and you have another camera with a smaller DX sensor, and they both have the same number of horizontal and vertical pixels, the FF sensor will only be better because it picks up more light, making it less noisy if you wanted to take night shots or something. But if the pixel density (say the # of pixels per cm or cm^2) between the FF and smaller sensor is the same, you're going to get more pixels overall with the FF since it's larger, and resolve more detail in your photos compared to an dSLR with a smaller sensor when shooting the exact same object where the subject covers the same amount of area in your viewfinder (if that's a good way to put it).

 

[Blong]

Cannon 20D - at the time, the 350D had just come out and I thought the price was just right to get into DSLR photography - but when I held it, and then compared it to the 20D, the 20D just felt soooooo much better in my hands. So then I bought the 20D.

Hold a camera and have a good play with the controls before choosing.

I chose Cannon over Nikon because I thought the sample images taken with the Cannon were warmer and more silky smooth than the Nikon.

I just picked up a Nikon D70s w/ 18-70 kit lens.

So now I just need a couple more lenses. My next one will be a Lensbaby 2.0

That is all.

The only thing I can say about the Lensbaby is .... get one . The most fun you have ever had with a lens - but only if you like blur, nice bokeh and like it when focusing is a challenge.

Check my lensbaby gallery at http://lensbabies.com/phorum/profile.php?1,673

Cool

Rob

 

[kwajo.com]

oh yeah, and there's all that "nikon," "olympus," and "pentax" stuff i've heard about--i bet it sucks just like macs

lol! best line I've seen on MR in a while. funny and oh so true.

 

[TheMasin9]

nikon d50

i got the d50 due to superior build quality and the shallow differences between 6 and 8 mp. The canon rebel feels like a plasticy toy compared to the d50.

 

[ziwi]

I graduated to a canon DSLR in part due to the triple rebates last October and the familiarity with the controls since I had a canon P&S powershot camera.

 

[ksz]

The sensor size isn't the biggest factor when picking up detail. If you have a large sensor, say FF, and you have another camera with a smaller DX sensor, and they both have the same number of horizontal and vertical pixels, the FF sensor will only be better because it picks up more light, making it less noisy if you wanted to take night shots or something. But if the pixel density (say the # of pixels per cm or cm^2) between the FF and smaller sensor is the same, you're going to get more pixels overall with the FF since it's larger, and resolve more detail in your photos compared to an dSLR with a smaller sensor when shooting the exact same object where the subject covers the same amount of area in your viewfinder (if that's a good way to put it).

You've effectively described "packing density." Sensor technology of today is a good start, but it is just that: a start. Today, it is generally true that larger pixels have less noise than smaller pixels, and thus one can say that larger pixels resolve more detail by virtue of less noise. Fuji's SuperCCD is a step in the right direction. The SuperCCD is composed of an interleaved mix of small and large pixels, providing the industry's best dynamic range.

Another limiting factor is what I called the Fill Factor. Simply stated, this is the percent of the sensor's surface area that receives light. If you look at a high-res image of an image sensor, you will see that the circuitry for a single pixel consists of a light-sensing element and routing (wiring). Both are exposed on the chip surface. If the surface consisted 100% of the light-sensing elements, you would have a perfect fill factor. The larger the interpixel gaps, the less fine detail you can resolve.

 

[fuzzwud]

The first Coolpixes were really the best -- the 995 was outstanding. The 4300 was also a pretty good little camera. When they changed the form factor it seemed as though everything else changed as well, and definitely I was most disappointed in the CP 8700 and the CP 8800. The more recent smaller P&S Coolpixes I haven't bothered with because I knew that there were still issues with shutter lag, response time, etc.

I went from a manual SLR that did everything I needed it to do - except easy importing of pictures into the computer - to a digital camera with limited functions. I actually got a defective camera. It taught me a lesson not to ever buy from a gray market or a dealer that sells at the lowest price. I didn't want to believe I bought a defective camera. All my pictures has a faint strip was yellowish hue on the left side. I thought it was because of sunlight or stray light somewhere. After tinkering with the office setup, I sent the camera in to be fixed twice. I kept thinking it must be something wrong with my skills ... but it was actually the camera. It would have saved me a lot of frustration and time if I just returned the camera.

 

[ChrisBrightwell]

I bought a Digital Rebel XT for one reason: I could get my hands on one.

The other ~$100 DSLRs I was considering were all chained to kiosks or under glass, so I couldn't take any of them for a spin. Most of the pro and amateur photographers I know use Canon hardware, which is also a plus.