[westrock]

I'v always loved photogaphy and am thinking about making it a more prominent hobby. Currently I have a Canon A40, which is fine for quick internet how to pictures, but terrible for anything with "quality" attached to it...especially since I like night pictures.

I also just got my first Mac back in February to get my feet wet...and I want to dive in now

So I'm thinking a D-SLR would be my best bet since they have much more support in the market. I'm looking at the Nikkon D50 and the Cannon Digital Rebel XT, and I'm leaning towards the Nikkon since its a little cheaper and comes with a lense to get you going. Although the Nikkon only has 6.1MP while the Rebel XT has 8.0MP I believe. Also the Nikkon uses SD, while the Cannon uses Compact Flash which is generally cheaper and the Microdrives are pretty good size for RAW stuff. So I don't know I'm on the fences between the two.

Now I want to also get a better computer as well, though not just because of this. I was thinking about just going all out and getting the Quad 2.5 and a 30" ACD and proabably add 2Gb of RAM. Since I have never really used Photshop, I was thinking Aperture would be better for me since it would also allow me to organize stuff in addition to basic photo enhancements. Then later on once I'm comfortable with what a good natural shot is I can move on to manipulating programs. Aperture also supports the two cameras I'm looking at, and others I may move onto someday. I figure the Quad Mac would run Aperture real smooth, and more Desktop space is always better. Since Macs cost so much to begin with I figure I may as well spend the extra money and get whats current now, so that I can hopefully get 5-7 years out of it, before I have to replace it. Hopefully the 30" monitor will be good for longer.

I think I'm going to sign up for a Intro to Photography next semester, so I can learn more about AF, focal lengths and all that good stuff, plus the Student Discount is better for these type products than the employee discount Apple offers my company. But on that note is there a difference in the "academic" version over the regular version? With my employee discount the regular version of Aperture is $450, but the academic version is $250....are they both the same?

I think I'll also get Final Cut Express put on there, because I've had a DV camera for about a year, and the Mac actually lets me do something with it Rather than just a bunch of crappy unedited DV tapes sitting around.

The "no game" argument just pales to me now as I get older.....you can actually do productive stuff on a Mac!

[CaptainHaddock]

The Canon Digital Rebel XT seems to be a very well-regarded camera. I don't think you could go wrong with it. I'm currently looking for one myself.

Now I want to also get a better computer as well, though not just because of this. I was thinking about just going all out and getting the Quad 2.5 and a 30" ACD and proabably add 2Gb of RAM.

If you're serious about your hobby and can afford it, this sounds like the dream set-up for a photographer.

But on that note is there a difference in the "academic" version over the regular version?

No, I don't think so.

[jersey]

The construction quality of the Nikon is much better (by far) than the Cannon. I have used a both, and would buy the Nikon hands downs. See if you can get them at a store side by side. Handle them, notice the Nikon is considerably heavier. Actuate the shutter and you'll notice the Nikon sounds like a camera should and the Cannon doesn't even come close.

Mp isn't that big of a deal until you are hitting 20 x 24 or higher in print size, then it's not a huge difference. I print 16 x 20 (sometimes with a lot of cropping) to send to galleries all the time, and they are flawless.

Get the best, fastest, robust computer you can afford. I'm sure aperture will be great, but there will be no replacing photoshop. Get it, learn it.

Intro to photo will teach you basic camera mechanics and operations. But you wont be allowed to use you digital, youll have to use a manual camera and it will also put you in the darkroom, which is the exact opposite reason for going digital. But check with your school, they may have an intro digital w/o a pre-req.

[CaptainHaddock]

Jersey, your advice on Canon vs Nikon is very helpful. I'll keep that in mind when I go to the camera shop tomorrow.

. I'm sure aperture will be great, but there will be no replacing photoshop.

Honestly? I think there will be little use for Photoshop unless you're doing compositing or graphic design work. Using Photoshop for photography is like using a Swiss army knife for the scissors.

[production_coordinator]

I would also recommend calling local photographers and asking if they had any need for a free assistant on any shoots. It's a great way to learn the trade (and get local contacts in the field).

[production_coordinator]

Side Note: Take this for what it is, but I wouldn't go "all out" with the highest end Mac and then turn around and buy a pro-sumer level camera. I would reverse those. I would spend more money on the camera and MUCH less on the Mac.

Buy the base model PowerMac and shift the extra $1200+ towards the camera. If being a pro (or near pro) photographer is your goal, the highest end PowerMac (vs. the base model) won't do much to get you there... a higher end camera will.

Just my 2¢

[jersey]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Side Note: Take this for what it is, but I wouldn't go "all out" with the highest end Mac and then turn around and buy a pro-sumer level camera. I would reverse those. I would spend more money on the camera and MUCH less on the Mac.

Buy the base model PowerMac and shift the extra $1200+ towards the camera. If being a pro (or near pro) photographer is your goal, the highest end PowerMac (vs. the base model) won't do much to get you there... a higher end camera will.

Just my 2¢

This is probably good advise.

As well, you should look at the newly released Nikon d200. 10+ mp and not too much more $. Plus, Nikon glass is cheaper than Cannon glass, by a good bit.

If you want to go with a "pro camera" remember you'll only be looking at a 4-5 mp camera, but it's full frame sensor(= to 35mm in actual size) unlike all the pro-sumer rigs, which are only about half the size.

[jersey]

DP....f'n db.

[iomatic]

p_c, if being a pro photographer is a goal, doing lots of research, knowing photographic processes, understanding color and light theory, studying art and photographic history and having a certain amount of talent and schooling, are far more important than any combination of Macs or cameras.
US$.02

That aside, Nikons are the weapon of choice for pros. We did shoots with a Nikon D-SLR and a Leaf (with wireless PDA for viewing) and they work well, if you're considering commercial location with human subjects. Canons can do the job, certainly, and their lenses are incredible, at least for sports photography; the also have credible DV cameras. I would also lean towards getting the best camera, and a baseline G5.

[mbarton]

Ok, I think you are veering a little off course. If you are really thinking about photography, I would suggest you concentrate on photo equipment before the computer considerations. Like purchasing good lenses like a 24-70mm 2.8? Or a flash? Spend your money on professional glass and a cheap digital body. The glass will hold it's value long after the price of a Digital Rebel drops below $500. I personally shoot Canon gear but Nikon is ok. At this early stage, either system will work for you. But I will say that Jersey's comments about Canon build quality are untrue. I've used Canon gear daily for over 10 years and never had to send anything in for repair (that wasn't my fault). However, I've had to send plenty of Nikon gear to NPS for repairs MULTIPLE TIMES. It got so bad, we ditched all our Nikon gear last year. Ask any pro. However, at the entry level, I'd say build quality is about the same.

I sense you are basing a lot of your choices around the system requirements for Aperture which seems a bit premature. Even if you do shoot RAW (which I doubt in a basic class), Photoshop can handle them fine. Aperture is really marketed to people who need to sort through thousands of RAW files. And you will still need Photoshop for basic cloning, filters, etc. As for hardware, most of us like the flexiblity of powerbooks. But I'd wait until the intel chips hit next year before i'd even think about buying a computer.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by iomatic

p_c, if being a pro photographer is a goal, doing lots of research, knowing photographic processes, understanding color and light theory, studying art and photographic history and having a certain amount of talent and schooling, are far more important than any combination of Macs or cameras.
US$.02

That's a given... but dollar for dollar, a higher quality camera is more important then a higher quality computer. IMHO, I would rather have a $4K digital camera and a high end iMac as compared to a $1200 digital camera and a Quad G5 PowerMac.

Originally Posted by iomatic

That aside, Nikons are the weapon of choice for pros. We did shoots with a Nikon D-SLR and a Leaf (with wireless PDA for viewing) and they work well, if you're considering commercial location with human subjects. Canons can do the job, certainly, and their lenses are incredible, at least for sports photography; the also have credible DV cameras. I would also lean towards getting the best camera, and a baseline G5.

I think you will find good arguments in both directions, but I would buy Nikon if given the option.

[OldCodger73]

There's an eternal Canon/Nikon debate with passonate supporters on both sides. Both offer good products. Canon outsells Nikon in the DSLR market by a considerable amount. I've used Nikon F3 film cameras in the past. This spring, when I finally decided to go from an Olympus C3030, after examing both Nikon and Canon DSLRs, I decided on Canon primarily because I liked their lens selection better. As to the remark that Nikon is weapon of choice for pros, that's very debatable, especially when it comes to digital.

Here are two good photography forums.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/

[production_coordinator]

OldCodger73 is spot on. Historically, Nikon had a bit of an edge over Canon, but those days are arguably gone. They seem to be leapfrogging one another.

[iomatic]

Well, I should clarify: in my experience, Nikons have been preferred; San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Denver, LA. YMMV.

Again, it doesn't matter. Your work could totally rock and be beautifully shot through a pinhole camera.

[Demonhood]

be sure to purchase an obscene amount of compactflash cards. and shoot in RAW. it's worth the extra space. i could fit 1200 jpgs on my 4GB card, but i shoot in raw so it drops to 480. completely worth it.

[CaptainHaddock]

Since some of you seem so knowledgeable, could you tell me what you think of the Nikon D50? It appears to be one of the most affordable DSLRs.

[nbnz]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Since some of you seem so knowledgeable, could you tell me what you think of the Nikon D50? It appears to be one of the most affordable DSLRs.

There is a very comprehensive review here... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/
I have the Nikon D70 and it's a great camera. Although I am a bit dissapointed with the kit lens which could be sharper.

[devmage]

I am doing nearly the same thing as you. I've been looking for a more artistic type hobby and have always liked photography. So I plan to take some classes in the spring and learn the more of the techncial and artistic values in photography.

I have spent a lot of time looking at Digital SLRs too. I don't have vasts amounts of money to spend. I have always been an Olympus Camera owner and took a good look at the Olympus E-500 SLR. It is a very good value. While many professionals will throw around Cannon and Nikon my reasearch indicates that at the E-500s price level it is a very competitive camera with the other brands and worth a look before you buy. I plan to buy mine before we head up to Seattle for Christmas this year again.


my 2cents.

[mbarton]

One of the biggest reasons to choose a Canon or Nikon system is the abundance of used lenses available. Other brands like Olympus or Minolta have much more limited selection and are difficult to find used. For example, I bought my Canon 300mm 2.8L used for $1500. A new one would cost over $3700. Same deal with other speciality lenses like macros and tilt-shift stuff. And if you decide to sell it, Canon and Nikon glass holds its value a lot more than other brands. These are things to consider before you make a big investment in SLR equipment.

[CaptainHaddock]

The Olympus E-500 looks interesting, as well as the Pentax *ist, but neither of them seem to have RAW support in OS X yet.

[jersey]

Originally Posted by nbnz

the Nikon D70 and it's a great camera. Although I am a bit dissapointed with the kit lens which could be sharper.

I'll second both of those.

Another suggestion is to get a used d70 body from B & H, it should be about $600. They warranty them for 90 days and you can buy an additional 3 yrs for about $35. My D70 is used from B&H with no issues, ever.

Lens wise, go prime. Get a prime 2.8 28mm, and a prime 1.8 50mm, each can be had for about $100. I have never been a big fan of the zoom lens. They flatten your image, and honestly, I have never been in a situation where I needed one (of course, that is because of the type of GONE

If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough. - R. Capa

[devmage]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

The Olympus E-500 looks interesting, as well as the Pentax *ist, but neither of them seem to have RAW support in OS X yet.

Apple mentions the Olympus format in Aperture where are you talking no raw support at? I have not owned a camera yet with raw support so it hasn't been an issue for me. I noticed in the latest Tiger patch one of the notes was improved raw support whatever that ment.

I just got finished reading another good review of the Olympus E-500.

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/e500-rev.html

[CaptainHaddock]

See http://www.apple.com/aperture/raw/

The only Olympus camera with optimized Raw support in Aperture at this time is the E1.

[devmage]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

See http://www.apple.com/aperture/raw/

The only Olympus camera with optimized Raw support in Aperture at this time is the E1.

I assumed though I guess we all know what happens when we do that.... That the E-1 is the same RAW format as the E-300 and E-500. When ever they talk about Olypus RAW they call it ORF and don't seem to act like it is a different format for each camera. I have never heard anything to the contrary. However if that's not true I hope Apple intends to support the E-300 and E-500.

[production_coordinator]

With all due respect to Olympus... if you are serious about Photography, you either go with Canon or Nikon. The Olympus may work for some, but I feel you will start to feel the pinch when you start exploring different lenses, specialty filters and support.

[LeChuck]

Aperure is a RAW development program and is not a replacement for Photoshop if you are going to do post-processing. There are others that exist today, such as C1Pro and Bibble for the Mac, and Photoshop's RAW converter if you already own Photoshop or plan to. And frankly, if you're a hobbyist and not a professional, you should not even be worrying about Aperture. It looks cool and powerful, but hardly a need for a hobbyist. And I'm sure buying a Quad would be a lot of fun, but also hardly needed for a hobbyist. I'd get a Rebel XT or an equivalent Nikon, a good all-around set of lenses, storage, an iMac with good amount of RAM (not from Apple), keep the rest of the money at the bank and go from there.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by LeChuck

Aperure is a RAW development program and is not a replacement for Photoshop if you are going to do post-processing. There are others that exist today, such as C1Pro and Bibble for the Mac, and Photoshop's RAW converter if you already own Photoshop or plan to. And frankly, if you're a hobbyist and not a professional, you should not even be worrying about Aperture. It looks cool and powerful, but hardly a need for a hobbyist. And I'm sure buying a Quad would be a lot of fun, but also hardly needed for a hobbyist. I'd get a Rebel XT or an equivalent Nikon, a good all-around set of lenses, storage, an iMac with good amount of RAM (not from Apple), keep the rest of the money at the bank and go from there.

I totally agree except for the Aperture not being a replacement for Photoshop. [Nobody has really used Aperture, so this may be totally off, but...] They are different applications, but if photography was my only goal... and I only had $500, I'm not sure which I would go with. I'm not saying you are wrong... but Photoshop won't help you organize volumes of images... and generally, photographers don't do much more than retouch photos [which Aperture can do]

Like I said... I guess we will have to wait and see what Aperture can really do and what is SJ-RDF (Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field).

[LeChuck]

I am a photographer and I spend a lot of time working with Photoshop. For me, a RAW development program is used to do just that, develop RAW photos. I do not need it to organize my images, as that is simply done using a good folder architecture. And I don't use it to retouch either, but just apply a certain number of standard corrections integrated in a workflow, such as quick contrast, white balance, and color correction, and a nice curve. Retouching is done with a retouching program and that's what PS is. But of course YMMV as we say, and your needs and ways of working.

All I'm asking from a RAW dev program is to be practical at navigating a folder architecture and quick at displaying thumbnails (I mean besides of course being good at color conversion, fast etc.). if Aperture manages files like iPhoto does then it would be a very nasty thing for me. That's a reason why I do not use iPhoto but just a fast shareware image browsing tool to go quickly through my photo folders. The kind of reorganization that a tool like iPhoto does (using its own database) is nice for the average user but not for the professional imho. Although, I have to say that I've worked with RAW images from digital cameras for years using a PC tool that would just download and organize my photos in logical folders witht he push of a button. So it may be a matter of being used to one way or another.

Aperture looks like a great piece of software but we'll have to see what it really does better than the competion (C1 Pro, Bibble, Rawshooters Essentials on the PC etc...) that's already well established. It looks like it's got a lot of eye candy and some features that can be great such as the practical magnifyer, the contact-sheet style thing -if those things are manageable on "normal" machines, but the advantages to photographers will be in the automation capabilities, working speed, good workflow etc. And maybe more stable than some of its competitors...

Depends on what type of photography you do. A wedding photographer who will have to quickly process hundreds of shots will be looking at all the things that can be automatized into a quick workflow. and might not spend as much time touching up afterwards. Then you have the portrait, fashion, fine-art etc.

In any case, its job is not to replace Photoshop. The RAW tools are far from having the retouching capabilities of a program like PS.

[ChrisF]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

...if photography was my only goal... and I only had $500, I'm not sure which I would go with.

I'd definitely pick Photoshop in that instance. It includes Bridge, which while not the most robust image management application I've seen, it is functional, and I still have all the capabilities of Photoshop, including a very effective RAW conversion tool built right in.
Also, it's a big plus that Photoshop actually works on all my computers, and Aperture won't even install on most of them.

[LeChuck]

Originally Posted by ChrisF

I'd definitely pick Photoshop in that instance. It includes Bridge, which while not the most robust image management application I've seen, it is functional, and I still have all the capabilities of Photoshop, including a very effective RAW conversion tool built right in.
Also, it's a big plus that Photoshop actually works on all my computers, and Aperture won't even install on most of them.

It's a solution that doesn't offer to professionals what they need in terms of workflow (the reason for dedicated tools) but very good for a hobbyist, and the one that makes more sense I think.

[westrock]

Thanks for all the replies.

The reason I want a high end computer is because I also use computers as well, so the purchase would serve multiple purposes, not just photography. I also want the computer to last quite some time with how expensive Mac's are. I don't see spending $2000 now to replace it in 3-4 years, when I can spend $3000 and keep it for 5-7 years.

Also remember this is just a hobby for me, I don't think I need to buy a camera thats better than what most poeple use as a profession. It may not have any benefit to me if I don't know how to use it. Later on when I'm more knowledgable about what is involved I can buy something nicer, thats also more advanced than whats out now....hell a D50 or Rebel may last me 5 years, when 20MP cameras are down to $1000

Im not sure about Photoshop just yet, like I said I don't want to get over zealous and rely on it to fix my mistakes, or make me do bad things to my photos! Plus I like the way Apple designs programs...I'd probably be more comfortable in Aperture.

Anyone know if the Quad 2.5 uses the same CPU family as the 2.7Ghz? I'm assuming they do. Think you could swap in 4 2.7's later on?

[chrisutley]

Canon and Nikon camera bodies are great. I think for most average DSLR users, Canon's lens selection gives you more options and quality/value from the high-end all the way to the bottom of the lineup. I've had a Rebel, D70, and then went back to Canon and the 20D when I realized that all the lenses I wanted only worked on Canon cameras.

[chrisutley]

Aperture is not a replacement for Photoshop. Photoshop is what I'd call an essential tool for anybody that is taking photography seriously (includes the hobbyist). There might be some cheaper alternatives out there which duplicate most of the Photoshop functionality you need, but either way you should have these tools at your disposal and learn to use them well.

Your camera will probably come with Photoshop Elements which would be perfect for you. Don't worry about relying on PS to fix problems. Photoshop can't do much about a poorly composed picture, and that's what it's really all about. Sooner or later you will learn how to consistently get good eposures, and when you do have a problem Photoshop and shooting RAW will have your back.

My advice is go get a Rebel or 20D, a 50mm lens (the 1.4 is a GREAT lens), and go start shooting pictures. Shoot lots of pictures. Worry about the other gadgets later - they don't make great pictures. In other words, a lousy composed picture will still be lousy if you edit it on an iMac or a Quad G5.

Sorry if I sound like some preachy, dork. I just see lots of people throwing tons of money into this hobby before they know how to operate their camera. Your money will be much better spent if you can shop with some photography experince under your belt. Lenses are much better investments that top of the line computers that depreciate at the speed of light, while a good lens can retain 75% of its' value for many years if maintained well.

Originally Posted by westrock

Im not sure about Photoshop just yet, like I said I don't want to get over zealous and rely on it to fix my mistakes, or make me do bad things to my photos! Plus I like the way Apple designs programs...I'd probably be more comfortable in Aperture.

Anyone know if the Quad 2.5 uses the same CPU family as the 2.7Ghz? I'm assuming they do. Think you could swap in 4 2.7's later on?

[devmage]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

With all due respect to Olympus... if you are serious about Photography, you either go with Canon or Nikon. The Olympus may work for some, but I feel you will start to feel the pinch when you start exploring different lenses, specialty filters and support.

I wasn't going to bother replying I feel almost like i'm defending Nintendo over Sony or Mac over PC but decided one more :b

I have read TONS about all the cameras in my price range. I mean TONS I don't do anything without massive research. If I could afford to spend $3k then I might be buying a Canon 5D instead of an Olympus. However right now I can only afford around $1200. When I compare the features of an Olympus to the equivalent price ranged Canon or Nikon the Olympus wins IMHO. The feel of the Rebel in my hand alone compels me not to buy it. It feels cheap and is not that comfortable for a person with larger hands to hold. While Canon and Nikon may have tons of lenses from there non digital days I have read countless things that say they are not quite as good as using a lense specifically designed for digital. On that subject the entire Olympus camera was completely designed for digital photography as well as there lenses. I am not worried about selection either. While that may have been an issue a while ago it isn't anymore. There may not be as many used options to pick up but I think what I will want is available. Maybe it's the developer in me but a lens that has its own firmware and actually gives the camera a heads up is damn sexy hehe Not to mention Olympus is still the only one who deals with the dust on the CCD issue with the ultrasonic dust cleaner.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by westrock

Thanks for all the replies.

The reason I want a high end computer is because I also use computers as well, so the purchase would serve multiple purposes, not just photography. I also want the computer to last quite some time with how expensive Mac's are. I don't see spending $2000 now to replace it in 3-4 years, when I can spend $3000 and keep it for 5-7 years.

Anyone know if the Quad 2.5 uses the same CPU family as the 2.7Ghz? I'm assuming they do. Think you could swap in 4 2.7's later on?

For starters, the base model is $2,000 and the top of the line is $3,200, but you then must go and get RAM, potentially a new HD, etc. etc. When you are done, you are probably looking at $2500 vs. $3700 (Do you really want to pay nearly 4K for a CPU?).

Before you run out and buy a quad G5, check out the benchmarks. Considering Apple is switching to Intel... in 4 years, how knows how well the PPC systems will be supported. I'm NOT saying that Apple will be abandoning PPCs, but from my experience with Apple, once they make a switch, they don't look back (they can't afford it).

Again, just something to think about.

[foo2]

Originally Posted by westrock

Thanks for all the replies.

The reason I want a high end computer is because I also use computers as well, so the purchase would serve multiple purposes, not just photography. I also want the computer to last quite some time with how expensive Mac's are. I don't see spending $2000 now to replace it in 3-4 years, when I can spend $3000 and keep it for 5-7 years.

Also remember this is just a hobby for me, I don't think I need to buy a camera thats better than what most poeple use as a profession. It may not have any benefit to me if I don't know how to use it. Later on when I'm more knowledgable about what is involved I can buy something nicer, thats also more advanced than whats out now....hell a D50 or Rebel may last me 5 years, when 20MP cameras are down to $1000

Im not sure about Photoshop just yet, like I said I don't want to get over zealous and rely on it to fix my mistakes, or make me do bad things to my photos! Plus I like the way Apple designs programs...I'd probably be more comfortable in Aperture.

Anyone know if the Quad 2.5 uses the same CPU family as the 2.7Ghz? I'm assuming they do. Think you could swap in 4 2.7's later on?

I was just in the same boat as you - I bought a Nikon D50 because it's fairly inexpensive and has gotten rave reviews everywhere I've looked ($700 or so, plus shipping and such, for the body and a basic DX series lens.) The Digital Rebel XT was too small for my hands and was difficult to hold comfortably; it has wonderful features and a reasonably competitive price if you like the size of the camera.

I have a Powerbook 12" 1.33 ghz 1.25GB already, so I'm all set. I don't think one needs the fastest Mac for basic hobbyist level photography, especially when just starting out. If I were doing video computations all day, I could see it, but photography and still pics? Not worth it. I'll attach it to my Dell 20" 1600x1200 LCD screen when I need to see all the picture detail, and perhaps I'll grab a 9-in-1 memory card reader for speedier imports. I see both of those as far more valuable to someone just starting out (good, big monitor for photo review, an easy way to import your pics, and perhaps, too, a really good photo printer).

Aside from another lens for telephoto capabilities, I don't see myself as needing many more lenses, but if I do, I'll have money to buy them because I didn't spend thousands just getting a basic setup that I may not need later. I'm a proponent of starting slow, figuring out what you need first, *then* buying it later.

I really don't think you'll see much value in going to a quad-cpu setup. For the vast majority, the value and speed difference just isn't there.

[westrock]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

When you are done, you are probably looking at $2500 vs. $3700 (Do you really want to pay nearly 4K for a CPU?).

Considering Apple is switching to Intel... in 4 years, who knows how well the PPC systems will be supported. I'm NOT saying that Apple will be abandoning PPCs, but from my experience with Apple, once they make a switch, they don't look back (they can't afford it).

Again, just something to think about.

I was figuring that a computer and camera would run around $5-6K...its alot sure, but I have added it up

If it makes me any worse, I still have not had Windows XP in my house yet. I still use Windows2000 because its does what I need. So I know it won't be up to date for ever, but it would still be usable at that later point. If I can get 5 years out of a computer, I think it did its job

If I didn't spend the money here, I would probably spend it on my car, or the entertainment system or something else. But I would like to try something new, and I really love looking at pictures. Thanks for all the replies everyone. I'll have to go handle these in real life now. The Canon seems like a better suited camera for me, but I have heard alot of poeple talk about its physical size and I'm 6' 2" and as a result have big hands. I don't want to have to put on the Chinese hands everytime I take pictures, because they are dirty from always using them on the car


EDIT: One more thing. I really like taking night shots. My current camera looks terrible at night. I get a ton of noise in the picture. I saw a picture of the moon with a Canon Rebel XT and it was amazing...would the D50 and Rebel XT be similar in this regard? Heres the picture if interested, my camera couldn't even dream of that clarity in the blacks.

[tycheung]

if only the viewfinder of the D70/D50 were better, using the legendary old nikkor prime lenses (which cost like $20 apiece) would be an option... less bulky than the zooms, made of metal rather than plastic, and a hell of a lot more versatile.

This is why the pentax slr's are so nice...pentax "gets" it engineering and design wise a lot more often than nikon does, IMHO (although nikon has it's own share of glory). it's alot more feasible to use the pentax istD with it's viewfinder approaching somewhat normal quality in manual mode with the k mount lenses, especially those who grew up with the K1000....

[tycheung]

if only the viewfinder of the D70/D50 were better, using the legendary old nikkor prime lenses (which cost like $20 apiece) would be an option... less bulky than the zooms, made of metal rather than plastic, and a hell of a lot more versatile. going up to F1.2 or F 1.4, you can pretty much almost see in the dark without flash.

This is why the pentax slr's with their brighter, bigger viewfinders are so nice...pentax "gets" it engineering and design wise a lot more often than nikon does, IMHO (although nikon has it's own share of glory). it's alot more feasible to use the pentax istD in manual mode with the k mount lenses, especially those who grew up with the K1000....

[foo2]

Both the Nikon and Canon would be essentially similar in the night/moon shots. Some reviews I've read say the Nikon can do faster shots at higher ISOs with less noise (www.dpreview.com) but that's just one person's opinion; they use essentially similar technology and they're, for most things, very, very similar - far more similar (particularly when compared against point and shoots) than they are different.

[Dork.]

I just wanted to interject here. My wife is a dedicated digital protography amateur. Having worked at a certain five-letter photography company in Rochester previously, she obtained a fair amount of knowledge of photography and color science and took that with her to the digital realm. Now that she's a full-time mom, she's taking some amazing pictures of our daughter, and we're using them all the time in cards, invitations, notes, gifts, sending them to family, whatever. I shudder to think how much it would have cost if we had to use film for all these pictures!

She had access to Photoshop in her previous job, and gained a small level of proficiency at it, although she didn't need it for her job. But when we got our 1st-gen Digital Rebel SLR, it came with Photoshop Elements, and she can do everything she needs to do with it. Maybe some of the Pros can comment on what things PE won't let you do vs. full-blown Photoshop, but if there's a limitation, my wife hasn't found it yet. (She doesn't shoot in RAW mode, though -- that might be one limitation, I don't know).

[Nai no Kami]

Here you have a review for both the Canon Digital Rebel XT and the Nikon D50. This review goes even to sick levels.

[BCPhoto]

I've read through this whole thread and just wanted to make a few (late) replies...

With all due respect to Olympus... if you are serious about Photography, you either go with Canon or Nikon.

There are a lot of serious pro photographers who don't use Nikon or Canon. For instance, Hasselblad's are very popular in studio photography.

And there are quite a few famous pros that are loyal to Olympus. If they hadn't bravely changed to the 4/3 system, they would be mentioned right next to Nikon and Canon right now.

Mp isn't that big of a deal until you are hitting 20 x 24 or higher in print size, then it's not a huge difference. I print 16 x 20 (sometimes with a lot of cropping) to send to galleries all the time, and they are flawless.

When Pros used to shoot high-res photos for magazines, they'd used high-format film. Nowadays, you'll notice that Pros shoot with those Canon Mark II's (lots of Megapixels). I agree that in this instance, the number of megapixels is of little concern, to say MPs "don't really matter" in general is where I disagree.

However, in the case of the D50 vs XT, one uses a CCD and other other uses a CMOS, so the MP comparison doesn't really work.

Get the best, fastest, robust computer you can afford. I'm sure aperture will be great, but there will be no replacing photoshop. Get it, learn it.

No replacing photoshop?

Professionals have been shooting without it for years. Some pros still shoot without it.

It's called film - it seperates the photographers from graphic designers.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by BCPhoto

There are a lot of serious pro photographers who don't use Nikon or Canon. For instance, Hasselblad's are very popular in studio photography.

And there are quite a few famous pros that are loyal to Olympus. If they hadn't bravely changed to the 4/3 system, they would be mentioned right next to Nikon and Canon right now.

I still would highly recommend Canon or Nikon. Quality of cameras aside, you simply have more "professionals" using Nikon/Canon. It's like trying to be a great designer on a Windows XP. Sure, it can be done, and you could easily get superior designs out of the Windows based PC, but don't be surprised when you find it difficult working with other designers... a majority of which use Macs.

Again, just my 2¢

No replacing photoshop?

Professionals have been shooting without it for years. Some pros still shoot without it.

It's called film - it seperates the photographers from graphic designers.

I don't want to turn this into a film vs. digital conversation, but the number of professional photographers shooting with film is declining... and there is no indication of this trend shifting. At one point in time, I could list hundreds of reasons to shoot film... but as time has gone on... that number has been steadily declining to the point where I request digital unless it's a unique situation (like the photographer isn't comfortable with digital or has an older camera).

Photoshop is the backbone of the industry. Even if it's only to batch process your images so your potential clients can see what you have to offer... it's there.

[pic_osx]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

The Olympus E-500 looks interesting, as well as the Pentax *ist, but neither of them seem to have RAW support in OS X yet.

Both of these systems are supported within OSX just not by apature. One of the systems I own is Pentax and I have no problems with its RAW support in OSX.

[pic_osx]

I have been using OSX for years and used to be an active member of this forum long ago. Since then I have become very involved in photography and actually registered a new account because of some of the comments in this thread.

Nikon and Canon are very good systems, however, so are Olympus, Pentax, and Konica Minolta. It is very common that people will state that professionals only shoot C and N. However this is not true; what equipment you use should be associated with what you shoot and your style.

For example, I shoot with Nikon and Pentax equipment. They both have there strengths I started off with Pentax because of the availability of very good glass for reasonable prices which really helped me start out. I later also purchased a Nikon simply for their "advanced" flash options and very fast/long telephoto lenses but the system to this day has not replaced my Pentax gear (all rather expensive equipment for someone learning).

To this day I use both of the systems and find both of them very capable. My Pentax equipment produces results that I share with others just as easily as my Nikon. To say that using N and C makes working with others easier doesn’t make much sense to me either as others have suggested. Since RAW is RAW once it’s in Photoshop.

I would simply suggest going to a store handling all the DSLRs and picking the one that feels best to you. Take a look at some good quality common length lenses and compare prices as well. In the end for someone starting out all the entry DSLRs all are more than enough for a lot of learning. Don't simply let the name Nikon and Canon make the decision for you since they really are not the only game in town.

Best of Luck…

on a side not dpreview is a good place to do some reading on diff. brands

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by pic_osx

I have been using OSX for years and used to be an active member of this forum long ago. Since then I have become very involved in photography and actually registered a new account because of some of the comments in this thread.

Nikon and Canon are very good systems, however, so are Olympus, Pentax, and Konica Minolta. It is very common that people will state that professionals only shoot C and N. However this is not true; what equipment you use should be associated with what you shoot and your style.

Nobody said "professionals only shoot Canon or Nikon".

What everyone is saying is... it's more common to see a professional photographer using a Canon or Nikon camera. I hire professional photographers on a regular basis. I have never hired anyone that didn't have a Nikon or Canon. I'm NOT saying I wouldn't hire such a person, I've just never come across one. I also go to MANY press releases, photo opps. and I think I've seen one Olympus in all my years.

Originally Posted by pic_osx

For example, I shoot with Nikon and Pentax equipment. They both have there strengths I started off with Pentax because of the availability of very good glass for reasonable prices which really helped me start out. I later also purchased a Nikon simply for their "advanced" flash options and very fast/long telephoto lenses but the system to this day has not replaced my Pentax gear (all rather expensive equipment for someone learning).

To this day I use both of the systems and find both of them very capable. My Pentax equipment produces results that I share with others just as easily as my Nikon. To say that using N and C makes working with others easier doesn’t make much sense to me either as others have suggested. Since RAW is RAW once it’s in Photoshop.

Nobody is saying Pentax is a poor decision. I think what I am saying is that Nikon or Canon may be a better decision... especially if you are starting from scratch. Nikon/Canon offer a wider range of options (more body options, more lens options, etc.).

Originally Posted by pic_osx

I would simply suggest going to a store handling all the DSLRs and picking the one that feels best to you. Take a look at some good quality common length lenses and compare prices as well. In the end for someone starting out all the entry DSLRs all are more than enough for a lot of learning. Don't simply let the name Nikon and Canon make the decision for you since they really are not the only game in town.

Best of Luck…

on a side not dpreview is a good place to do some reading on diff. brands

Also, don't let the name Nikon or Canon detract from your decision. They both have solid reputations for a reason.

[EMD-F40PH]

I too have recently just begun getting into DSLR and have alot to learn yet. I was looking at the Nikon D50, Canon Rebels and Pentax DL as a choice. It was suggested to me to physically inspect the cameras at the store, how do the feel in your hand, menu system, weight, etc..... Basically are you going to be comfortable with the camera. Do you have any plans to change lenses in the field (18-55, 58-100, others). If so look at the mounting system on the lense. Both the Nikon and Canon use plastic mounts and the Pentax uses a metal mount. The last item I was told to look for was the number of (correct me if I'm wrong here) elements and groups of glass within the lenses. The more dense the elements and groupings within the lense the better the optics or something to that effect. Do you plan to do a lot of night shots? From my reading the D50 is better at handling night shots.
Basically in short take a look at what You expect from the camera and will you be happy with it or will you be cursing it down the road. You are the one that has to use it.

For my budget and needs I choose the Pentax and have been Very happy with it. As for the missing RAW support from Apple, I use PS Elements with their latest RAW plugin. No problems.

Cheers and good luck,

Andrew

[macfly]

I have been doing photo for quite some time. for most, i think it comes down to which system they started learning on..canon or nikon for the most part. in the old days nikon might have held a slight edge. that quickly fell away once the EOS1 came out and all of the auto focus lens wars heated up. At this point there is a modest general feeling that while almost equal, canon gets the nod now. take a look at any sports illustrated and photojournalists shown in news photos and you generally see the high end canon dslrs. the nikons tend to be a bit more expensive for the same megapixel and feature set. for what it sounds like you are getting into take a look at the canon 20d. this is an amazing all around camera used by serious amatures and professionals alike and can be had for about 1200. dont bother with the kit lens. with digital you really benefit from canon L lenses. yes they are expensive but truly worth it. go to www.fredmiranda.com and check out the numerous reviews of lenses and bodies. they have for both canon and nikon. in particular, the canono 85 1.2 is one of the fastest lenses made and is to die for.
anyway, most people tend to stick with what they knew or have old lenses for. if you are starting out building a new system you can go either way and not feel like you will be losing out. but do take a look at the 20d. it is a solidly built camera, nothing like the cheap feel of the rebel.

[tooki]

For what it's worth, the kit lens included with the D70/D70s is far better than what comes with the Digital Rebel series. It may not be the best lens in the world, but the Canon kit lens is a toy, the Nikon D70 kit lens is a real lens, with silent ultrasonic motors, metal housing, and internal focusing. The D50 comes with a cheaper lens, IIRC.

The D70/D70s also has the fastest flash sync speed (1/500 sec) of any DSLR at any price (no, "slow sync" doesn't count). In fact, when using non-TTL flashes, it can go all the way to 1/8000. The D70/D70s also know how to do the "creative lighting system" wireless flash system, which is really neat, without extra gear. (The D50 can't do that.)

I also decided to go with the D70 because I frankly can't stand the cheap feel of the Digital Rebel series. I'm sure they're reliable, solid cameras, but they have a cheap feel, while the D70/D70s feels solid, despite being made of plastic as well.

tooki