[V12]

Well DSLR cameras have a lot more option on them and all, plus its really simple to get the pics on the computer, however i am only a beginner and the price seems right with a nikon SLR such as the n55 or n75...but then i have to get the film developed, then scan the negs to import them (will the epson 1670 photoscan be good enough?)


AHHH

[spiky_dog]

if you shoot more than ~1000 frames per year you should get a dSLR just for cost savings imo. if you do go with film (if you love velvia or some such) then make sure to get a dedicated slide scanner. flatbeds with slide attachments don't cut the mustard.

[Daniel_R]

[This thread is probably one for the lounge forum, but anyway]

If you're only a beginner, you're probably better off buying a mid-range to prosumer digital camera if you're really looking to go digital. Most models in the upper end of the compact / non-swappable lens market will both allow you to start of using automatic settings and then progress to more manual control as your experience grows.

DSLR's offer the ability to customise almost every aspect of their operation. The downside to this is that you have to pay significant amounts of money for this fuctionality (that you may not use). Generally, to get the best results out of DSLR you'll really have to know what you're doing.

Recommendation:
If you want to buy a camera that you can grow into as your experience builds up, look at something like the Canon PowerShot G6 / ProShot S1 or the Nikon CoolPix 5400 / 5700. There's similar offerings from Sony, Olympus and Fuji.

dpreview.com has some good reviews on a number of cameras. Also have a look in their forums.

film route:
If you decide to go film with the N55 (aka F55 outside US, which is a good beginners film SLR), consider a dedicated film scanner. The low end film scanners deliver better quality scans than the flatbed styled document scanners with transparency adaptors. They're also a faster option if you're scanning a lot of film.
The Nikon dedicated film scanners do cost a fair bit, and would defintely favour just buying a digial camera. The Minolta Dual-scan IV is quite ok for consumer type films for a reasonable price. I have one and have found it is excellent.

[edit] fix typo

[michaelb]

Film is dying for general use, and it will have increasingly specialized uses in the future. If you want to manipulate images on the computer anyway, there's no question. Digital is the way to go.

I have a Nikon D100, but I wouldn't hesitate to get a D70 either.

The Canon EOS 300D is a very popular digital SLR as well. My cousin has one and got quite a lot of specs for the price, but it feels a bit plasticy and cheap to me. The 10D is more solid, but also closer to the D70/D100 in price, and Nikons tend to have a reputation of making better pro cameras.

Make sure you budget for some decent lens(es) too, as the real value of an SLR is in the lens - it's the main factor that sets an SLR apart from a compact.

Hope this helps!

[bells0]

not many people ever seem to recommmend Minolta [not sure why??]

but i have the A2 which is a prosumer camera with a fixed lens of 28 to 200mm and all the manual controls of shutter speed, aperture etc and with a manual zoom and focus ring. Also has anti-shake which is awesome!

a lot less complicated for a beginner compared to a dslr and takes great pics [though is not a point and shoot - u still have to learn the basics]

Minolta have recently brought out the A200 which is a bit less complicated and seems more geared towards point and shooters wanting to gain more experiance.

[tonton]

Originally posted by bells0:
not many people ever seem to recommmend Minolta [not sure why??]

but i have the A2 which is a prosumer camera with a fixed lens of 28 to 200mm and all the manual controls of shutter speed, aperture etc and with a manual zoom and focus ring.

a lot less complicated for a beginner compared to a dslr and takes great pics [though is not a point and shoot - u still have to learn the basics]

Minolta have recently brought out the A200 which is a bit less complicated and seems more geared towards point and shooters wanting to gain more experiance.

I'm constantly recommending the new Minolta DSLR, the Dynax(Maxxum)7D. Based on the awesome Dynax 7 prosumer body, it has all the bells and whistles plus an anti-shake system which will generally add up to 2 f-stops to whatever you shoot. That means sharp low-light photography. Combined with a fast lens, you can take sharp indoor photos without a tripod, no problem. And the quality has gotten rave reviews.

Helps if you have Minolta lenses already (I happily used a 700si SLR for years).

Nice price. About $1500.

[mbryda]

Originally posted by michaelb:
The 10D is more solid, but also closer to the D70/D100 in price, and Nikons tend to have a reputation of making better pro cameras.

Canon and Nikon both make equally good pro cameras. Most sports pros shoot with Canon and I would imagine they are quite hard on their gear.

I was in a similar situation with D-Rebel vs 10D. The DR seems plasticky, which didn't really bother me too much. What got me was some of the limitations of the DR's firmware that you lost some creative control, which I like.

In the end, I paid the extra $500 for the 10D and have been very happy ever since!

I just wish Canon would add ECF (Eye controlled Focus) to the D-SLR's. I shoot an Elan 2e and love that feature!

[OreoCookie]

If you shoot a lot of pictures: get a DSLR, if you want to manipulate them. I have an Epson 1660 Photo and I spent almost three (!) days to scan about 400 pictures.

Now I have a DSLR and it's very easy and convenient to organize pictures now.

I would recommend that you take a look at cameras like

Olympus E-300
Nikon D70
Canon EOS 300D

The Olympus is brand-new and I've seen it for around 1000 € with 8 MP.

If you would also consider a used one, some suggestions are

Olympus E-20 (that's what I have)
Canon EOS 10D
Canon EOS 60D

If you buy one of the used Canons, make sure that you can get a cheap set of lenses with it (18 mm are only around 28), so a wide-angle zoom is what you are looking for.

If you want to get into photography seriously, even cameras like Canon's G6 won't be what you're looking for. The viewfinder doesn't compare to one of a (D)SLR.

[buffalolee]

Originally posted by bells0:
not many people ever seem to recommmend Minolta [not sure why??]

but i have the A2 which is a prosumer camera with a fixed lens of 28 to 200mm and all the manual controls of shutter speed, aperture etc and with a manual zoom and focus ring. Also has anti-shake which is awesome!

a lot less complicated for a beginner compared to a dslr and takes great pics [though is not a point and shoot - u still have to learn the basics]

Minolta have recently brought out the A200 which is a bit less complicated and seems more geared towards point and shooters wanting to gain more experiance.

I have a Minolta A1 camera. I love it because of all of the manual controls and features. You can get it on Ebay for around <$350. All of the features of a DSLR, but not the price.

[Eug Wanker]

I had a Canon film SLR, but didn't use it much because film development costs so damn much.

Now, with a Canon 20D, I can shoot ten shots of something if I want. I'll just delete the ones I don't want later. Plus, it's great being able to switch from ISO 100 to ISO 1600 and back at any time.

This shot was handheld at ISO 1600, late at night:

[Macola]

Since someone mentioned Minolta, is there a good website or other resource where I can look up lens compatibility? I have a Minolta Maxxum 3xi, with a whole bunch of lenses, and am looking at the possibility of going digital (I already have a consumer-grade digital camera for general use). The problem is that I want to keep my lenses and use them on whatever dSLR I buy.

I wish there was a digital back that I could simply pop onto my existing SLRs

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Macola:
I wish there was a digital back that I could simply pop onto my existing SLRs

There is if your existing SLR is a Leica R9.

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
If you buy one of the used Canons, make sure that you can get a cheap set of lenses with it (18 mm are only around 28), so a wide-angle zoom is what you are looking for.

I hope you are joking ? Cheap lenses is the last thing you want.

Of a tip for the original poster: even the most expensive prosumer cameras will disappoint if you are a bit serious about photography I had a few and no thanks, never again. Slow, mediocre quality (high noise ratio), plasticky, bad ergonomics. etc.

DSLR is still way to expensive compared to a film SLR.

That's why I went with a second hand F5 not too long ago. If you get a film camera then get a seconds hand pro camera instead of a nikon N-model. You can find great gear very cheaply these days since a lot of people are buying digital.

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
There is if your existing SLR is a Leica R9.

Leica needs to fix the spelling on their website. "Shutter cocking" anyone ?

[tonton]

Originally posted by Macola:
Since someone mentioned Minolta, is there a good website or other resource where I can look up lens compatibility? I have a Minolta Maxxum 3xi, with a whole bunch of lenses, and am looking at the possibility of going digital (I already have a consumer-grade digital camera for general use). The problem is that I want to keep my lenses and use them on whatever dSLR I buy.

I wish there was a digital back that I could simply pop onto my existing SLRs

[Professor Farnsworth voice]Good news, everybody![/Professor Farnsworth voice]

All of your lenses for the 3xi will be compatible. As well as your flashes (if you have them).

[tonton]

I would like to add that while I absolutely love my Minolta SLR and can't wait to get my 7D, my ex has a small recent model Minolta digital camera and I absolutely despise it. After using a Fuji FinePix F402 and then my current F420 (which I also adore), going to the Minolta to take pictures at my daughter's birthday was like pulling teeth. Shutter lag or focus lag or SOMETHING was just so slow that it was impossible to capture anything that was moving. At a 6 year old's party that becomes a problem. My Fuji, on the other hand, is quick as mercury (except for flash recharge, which is horrible).

[V12]

HMMM....i'm tending to lead towards digital now...the 300d looks tempting from canon and its got a great price too

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
I hope you are joking ? Cheap lenses is the last thing you want.

Of a tip for the original poster: even the most expensive prosumer cameras will disappoint if you are a bit serious about photography I had a few and no thanks, never again. Slow, mediocre quality (high noise ratio), plasticky, bad ergonomics. etc.

DSLR is still way to expensive compared to a film SLR.

That's why I went with a second hand F5 not too long ago. If you get a film camera then get a seconds hand pro camera instead of a nikon N-model. You can find great gear very cheaply these days since a lot of people are buying digital.

Nope, not true. I bought my Olympus E-20 for 60000 Yen (about 450 Euro). They have fixed lenses, but of very high quality. It's ok for me. And it is a real SLR.

Cheap doesn't have to be bad. I recommend taking a look at Tokina and Sigma. My cousin (a professional photographer) has mostly Sigma lenses and I had a Tokina with my deceased F80. All I need to say is that the lenses survived the crash, the camera didn't.

I personally prefer Nikon (and Olympus) to Canon. So, V12, take a look at the D70. I find that it feels much more robust and some features really make the D70 more interesting than the Canon.

Also, this is just my personal `taste', I don't like the Canon user interface concept. Both, my NIkon and my Olympus are (were) far easier to use.

[Goldfinger]

No well, Tokina and Sigma make some very good lenses. What I'm trying to say is please do not buy the lowest end models because they will suck even if they are real Nikon or Canon or other lenses. Mid and high end Tokinas and Sigmas can be very good indeed even better than their Nikon/Canon counterparts even.

The problem for me that prosumer compact digital cameras have is not really the lens, a lot of them have really good lenses but most of them are weirdly constructed (bad center of gravity etc.) and bad ergonomics. Those are my big problems with them. And they still have shutter lag. And if they don't have a real viewfinder I just won't consider buying one.

The E-20 is a good choice tough, one of the better ones out there

You're right about Nikon being better

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
No well, Tokina and Sigma make some very good lenses. What I'm trying to say is please do not buy the lowest end models because they will suck even if they are real Nikon or Canon or other lenses. Mid and high end Tokinas and Sigmas can be very good indeed even better than their Nikon/Canon counterparts even.

The problem for me that prosumer compact digital cameras have is not really the lens, a lot of them have really good lenses but most of them are weirdly constructed (bad center of gravity etc.) and bad ergonomics. Those are my big problems with them. And they still have shutter lag. And if they don't have a real viewfinder I just won't consider buying one.

The E-20 is a good choice tough, one of the better ones out there

You're right about Nikon being better

Well, even the good compact cameras have a slow AF, really slow, that's the reason I sold my first digital one, an Olympus 4040-Zoom. The other one is the viewfinder.

My comment was rather along your lines: it's no good to buy a good body, but save money on the lenses

[buffalolee]

Originally posted by V12:
HMMM....i'm tending to lead towards digital now...the 300d looks tempting from canon and its got a great price too

Don't even consider it. Go for the Olympus E-300 if you are looking in that price range ($1000). You get the body and lens.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by buffalolee:
Don't even consider it. Go for the Olympus E-300 if you are looking in that price range ($1000). You get the body and lens.

I'd rather have a Canon 300D than the all-in-one Olympus, since I don't like being stuck with just one lens.

Then again, I bought the Canon 20D. The 300D is a little too entry-level for my tastes.

For someone with Minolta lenses already though, a Maxxum 7D would be a good choice too, esp. since it has anti-shake in the camera.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I'd rather have a Canon 300D than the all-in-one Olympus, since I don't like being stuck with just one lens.

Then again, I bought the Canon 20D. The 300D is a little too entry-level for my tastes.

For someone with Minolta lenses already though, a Maxxum 7D would be a good choice too, esp. since it has anti-shake in the camera.

The Olympus is not an all-in-one, it has the same Four Thirds lens mount as the E1. It comes with a standard zoom and costs around 1000 € in Germany (slightly less).

I do not recommend the EOS 300D's body, mainly, because I find Canon's UI cumbersome. It's much easier to use my E-20 or I used to use my F80 (both of them I used without even glancing at the manual).