Looking For A Digital Slr

[PatsyCline]

I'm considering buying a digital camera, anyone have suggestions on what I should be looking for? I would like a camera that has excellent low light capabilities, interchangeable lenses, rugged, something I can take hiking. I would lean more toward fast frames per second over high mega pixels. I would appreciate any direction you can give me. Eventually I would like a long telephoto lens (500mm) for nature shots, but want fast lenses for action and sports.

[Shafted]

If you have existing 35mm SLR lenses you can go with a digital SLR of the same make or type of lens mount. This would be especially important if you have a lens that you really like to use. I have existing Nikon 35mm SLR equipment and have definitely considered buying a digital body.

[PatsyCline]

I don't have any type of camera with interchangable lenses. I've read some material, but after awhile, I feel like I'm drowning in information. After reading several camera reviews, I'm left with more questions than answers. Nikon & Canon seem to have so many different models, it's hard to determine which one would meet my needs. Is there a huge difference between 16MP & 20MP? The cameras seem to go up in 2-4MP increments. I seem to find a camera that has almost all the features I would like, but never all of them. Nikon's D4 & Canon's EOS 1X seem to have everything I need, but they're $6K, just for the body. Then add a few lenses a person is looking at thousands of dollars more.

[Shafted]

What it boils down to is what do you need. What size photos are you looking to get from the camera.? This will have a lot to do with how many megapixels you need. And no, there is not a big difference between 16 and 20 megapixels. FYI: You need 50 megapixels to match the resolution of 35mm.

[PatsyCline]

I don't think I'd want to enlarge photos much over 20" X 24". Just something to fill a space on a wall, if the photo was good enough.

[Shafted]

The 16 to 20MP sounds like the ticket them. Remember the difference is marginal.

[mlroseplant]

I went through this same process about a year ago. I've owned a regular film 35mm SLR since I was about 12. When I went digital, some years ago, I bought various point-and-shoot cameras. Some of them had a certain amount of manual control, but it was often difficult to use. Long story short, what I wound up with is a Nikon 1. My intention was to buy a DLSR of some sort, but I took one look at the size of a DSLR vs. a "mirrorless" like the Nikon 1, and I thought to myself, "Who are you kidding, you're never going to drag that huge thing around with you--it will never get used." So I bought the Nikon 1. I am very happy with my purchase so far, after a year. I've got 2 zoom lenses. One is a mild wide angle to mild telephoto, and the other is a mild telephoto to long lens range zoom (300mm equivalent). These lenses are not particularly fast, though. That is the one drawback to buying into this system--your lens options are limited. They do make one fixed length lens (50 mm equivalent) that is f1.8, but the ones I have are f3.5 and f3.8 (at the non-zoomed end of the spectrum). I have not found this to be a handicap yet, but then, my photography tends to be more technical in nature (think "how do you disassemble/reassemble this car engine"), rather than sports/action. Sorry if I've muddied the waters, but I'm very happy with my not-quite-an-SLR camera. Good luck to you!

[ilikekicks]

Patsy.. Megapixles are great but it always comes down to the lens. 5gazillion mega pixles with a crap lens wont equal an older 4 megapixle with an excellent lens. I use an older Canon10D ( I believe its all of 6MP? ) with L-series lenses. It works great for night time shooting and pretty good for filming Hockey ( dont know about other sports ). As Shafted mentioned, some SLR lenses if adapted to newer DSLR bodies do work quite well. Its also a cost cutting measure without sacrificing quality.

[PatsyCline]

My problem appears to be that I want too many features on a prospective DSLR. I can find many bodies that will do most of what I want, but only a couple that will do everything I want. To get a camera that works well in low light, it usually doesn't have the frames per second I would like to capture sports. So far the Nikon D3s & D4, the Canon EOS 1D & EOS 1X will do everything that I want, but they're bigger and hugely expensive. I don't mind the size as to get the frames per second you need a larger camera. And then there's the cost of lenses. When I stopped at a local store the other day and the clerk asked me what lenses I would like, so I looked through their catalogue and by the time I finished, I had almost $15K in lenses! My DH supports my interests but going to him and asking to spend $20K on camera equipment seems a bit crazy.

[Shafted]

CCD chips are faster than film, a lot faster. So much faster that many DSLR allow you to set virtually any film speed and still get a reasonably high resolution low noise image. In astrophotography film typically fogs under exposures of two hours or more. CCD's fog in around six minutes and must be actively chilled to prevent overheating from long exposure times. Point is CCD's capture images in minutes what film takes hours. But this partially due to film's reciprocity failure which is the films tendency to ignore low light levels, which results in greater exposure times than calculated.

[Guest]

Some advice often given is go to a good shop and have a feel, how does the body (and std lens) fit in your hand. Canon and Nikon often are larger than the likes of Sony or Pentax. I'm a pentax user, now on my 4th body (no not worn out yet). once bought in to a system it is costly to swop. All have std and high quality lens Canon for example "L" lens, Pentax use " * " as a signfier and obviously the price goes up. Sigma and Tamron manufacture alternatives at more conservative prices I can recomend Sigmas 150 500mm lens very adaptable, their 50-500 "bigma" also has a big following, both are available in all mounts but weigh in at almost 2 Kg thats alot to lug about even on it's own let alone balance but the results are good even hand held. Plan a budget, look at photo magazines, online forums and ebay to get the feel of what is about, prices and capabilities. Pixel count has raised over the years, processing speed and improved low light sensitivity also. Nikon people will say perfect things, Canonians shout they are the best. I'm happy to differ with mine, I rarely see a Pentax in hand. Good hunting. Al

[FreshinHeels]

He Pentax user here also with K5 and I also have the bigma sweeeeet

[PatsyCline]

During my search it appears only Nikon and Canon make a full line of cameras and lenses. Pentax and Sony make cameras for a certain segment of the market, where Nikon & Canon have cameras built for the photographer that demands everything in one body. I've even looked at buying 2 bodies that would cover all the requirements I want, but then I'm taking 2 cameras instead of one, and the weight and price of the two bodies match the price of the high end camera. As one user said, once you start buying lenses from one brand, you're stuck with that brand unless you're willing to sell what you have and start over. Too bad a person couldn't rent each camera for a weekend and see which one they prefer. It's a big decision and I'm trying to make the correct one. Thanks to everyone who have offered their advice.

[Guest]

There are hire outlets within some stores but it maybe difficult (A) where you are ( new user. Also getting to learn the camera isn't a quick hour or two. I've just upgraded from the K10D to the K5II although most options are similar there are things that take more thought as to where I am. When the Nikon D3 came out I was highly impressed with it's low light results in the magazines. jealous? Yes I was. An idea comes to mind, approach a local wedding pro for advice, they also have none wedding interests. If the're looking for an "apprentice" it could be an option to play with?? Al

[PatsyCline]

There are hire outlets within some stores but it maybe difficult (A) where you are ( new user.

Also getting to learn the camera isn't a quick hour or two.

I downloaded the manual for the Nikon D4, and it was over 300 pages. Being that I don't have any previous knowledge of Nikon's system, I did find it a bit overwhelming.

When the Nikon D3 came out I was highly impressed with it's low light results in the magazines. jealous? Yes I was.

The D3 was the first camera that caught my eye with its low light capabilities, and I understand the D3s was a f-stop, better with the D4 another small bump.

An idea comes to mind, approach a local wedding pro for advice, they also have none wedding interests. If the're looking for an "apprentice" it could be an option to play with??

This might be a good idea, if I can fight one that's willing to sit down and talk. I would being willing to pay them for their time.

[PatsyCline]

I have found a lightly used Nikon D3s to purchase. It has 11,000 shutter uses and was used as a back up to another D3s, which was sold for a D4. The camera appears as if new. No marks at all on the body. I'm going to purchase a 28-70mm f2.8 lens to use for a primary lens until I decide to purchase more. Thanks to all who have helped.

[Shafted]

Ordinarily I would recommend using fixed focal length lenses, but I don't think it will matter much with digital. They have a slight image sharpness edge.

[PatsyCline]

I'm going to buy fixed lenses in the future. I want a 300mm & 500mm telephotos with a 50mm f1.4 & maybe a 85mm f1.4 for low light. And probably a 70-200mm zoom.

[Guest]

Should be a good start point and with a quick lens to go with it you should do well. Certainly when the D3 came out I almost jumped brands. Enjoy Al

[shrimper]

My first slr was a Minolta SRT100 and I've pretty much stuck with that family since the look and feel is pretty consistent throughout the line(s). What with mergers and all, Konica/Minolta is now Sony and the Alpha series has the same handling qualities as my SRT100. Lenses are compatible throughout and whether 4, 10, or 16MP, the picture quality is excellent.

[PatsyCline]

With all that's been going on, I've barely had enough time to take the camera out of the box and attach the new lens. I need to read the manual to figure out all the different buttons etc.

[PatsyCline]

OK this has me scratching my head. I want to buy a long telephoto eventually for my DSLR, and a 600mm f4 from Nikon is $9K. I received an email that announced Nikon is releasing an 800mm F5.6 for $18K! I could get the 600mm + 1.4 converter which would bring me almost exactly what the 800mm offers for $8K difference. I'll admit I'm not as knowledgeable as maybe I need to be, but $9K to go up 200mm seems way too much.

[Shafted]

You might want to look at Sigma lenses.

[PatsyCline]

Are the Sigma lenses the same quality as the Nikon lenses?

[Shafted]

No, but with digital you are not going to see the difference. Sigma lenses have typically been the best value out there for aftermarket lenses. I currently use a 400mm f5.6 Sigma, and while not fast the image quality is exceptional even on 35mm. I would love to have the same lens in an AF Nikkor but my wallet won't permit it. I also shoot medium format with a Mamiya C330 Professional. I know what image quality is.

[PatsyCline]

Which Nikon body(s) do you have? Lenses?

[Shafted]

Which Nikon body(s) do you have? Lenses?

Well my Nikon 35mm equipment is fairly humble, when I need image quality even 35mm is not my first choice. This is where the Mamiya shines. Digital has to get a bit better to match 35mm and at this point in time digital is completely lame if compared to medium format like the Mamiya.

But here is my (small format) 35mm equipment:

Nikon N6000 body (auto everything except focus, I don't like auto focus and never will)

Nikon FM2 body (fully manual and can achieve a staggering 1/4000 sec shutter speed. Batteries are only required for the exposure meter)

35-70mm AF Nikkor f3.3-f4.5

70-210mm AF Nikkor f4-5.6

I also use a 500mm fixed f8 compound lens by Kalimar which allows me to handhold the camera as the lens is only about 5-6 inches long, without shaking. I also have a 500mm f8 conventional lens by Kalimar but I need to use a gun stock mount to hand hold it (its physically a long lens at a foot long approximately).

And the Sigma 400 of course

Be warned that fast long telephoto's tend to get very heavy and need at least a monopod to use.

[PatsyCline]

Is your Mamiya a 6X7? Enlargements from that must be so crisp. I've had a bit of time to sit down and get used to the Nikon. I think I spent the first hour just finding out which button did what. It has a sturdy feel, the camera feels solid.

[Shafted]

6 by 6 square format, love it! You have many more options in that format for composing the image in the darkroom whether a horizontal or vertical. It's a much more creative format in the dark room. I did some award winning work with that body and even modest enlargements blow away 35mm. FYI: The newspaper photographer who took pictures of me for the local paper used a Nikon D700

[PatsyCline]

I read that the D700 has the same sensor as the D3s. Unfortunately with the additional batteries, needed to increase the fps the camera is actually bigger and heavier than the D3s. I've only had a chance to shoot a few photos around the house, but am pleased that once the white balance is correct the low light capabilities almost make flash unnecessary.