also, danny, what camera do you use? i'm thinking of getting a digital and am asking around to see what folks are using and if they like it or not.

also, danny, what camera do you use? i'm thinking of getting a digital and am asking around to see what folks are using and if they like it or not.As a former Nikon 35mm film camera user, went with Nikon D70s a couple years ago to preserve lens investment. Solid build. Does almost all I want it to.

That said IMO choice of lenses more important than camera body...
* High-end body + so-so lens = so-so pics
* OK body + very good lens = very good pics

Canon's get rave reviews, too.

It's kind of a "Less Filling" -- "Tastes great!" / Ford vs. Chevy type of debate. Both companies build amazing picture taking machines.

CK: Relocated and retitled this for more visibility. Good topic; don't want it to get buried in an arty thread! :)

=====================

What about the rest of you RP -aholics?

What are you using? How did you decide?

... danny, what camera do you use? i'm thinking of getting a digital and am asking around to see what folks are using and if they like it or not.

What do you think you will use your camera for, Craig? That is the recommended thing to ask before giving any recommendations to someone asking about camera choices, and I know it's good advice, but I think a lot of people don't really know what they're likely to use it for until they get one. So I'll ask some other questions also:

What camera(s) have you used before and what did you use them for?

Pictures of family? -- kids sports, family gatherings, indoor activities or outdoor activities, Family portraits?
and/or

Travel photos -- taking photos of family in front of different locations, photos of buildings (inside/outside), photos of different landscapes in your travels?
and/or

Landscape photography or wildlife photography or competitive sports, etc.?

The main thoughts are figuring out whether you need/want an interchangeable lens DSLR model or a fixed lens model and what focal lengths you would usually shoot at -- wide-angle lens for landscapes, telephoto for wildlife or birds, mid-length for portrait shots. Fast lenses for high-speed competitive sports or serious wildlife/birds, or slower lenses acceptable for landscape scenes that don't move.

Do you own any interchangeable lenses already or would you be starting clean and able to choose whichever system suits you rather than needing to adopt the system which uses your current lenses?

For non-interchangeable lens cameras, Canon, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, Sony and others offer some useful cameras. For interchangeable lens DSLR cameras, Canon and Nikon have been the best sellers for years, with Pentax offering some good choices, and a few others vying for a share.

I used Nikon film cameras, and if I buy a digital SLR, I will probably buy a Nikon although I have sold most of my lenses. The new Nikon D40 is highly rated (if you don't have older Nikon lenses) or a used D50, D80, D70 or a new D200 if you have $1600 for the body alone and more to buy the lenses.

Canon DSLRs are very popular and highly rated also, with the new EOS 40D going for $1300 (body only w/o lenses) or the still available 400D (Rebel XTi) for $720-$800 with a kit lens attached ( EF-S 18-55 mm ).

I used an Olympus C-2100UZ (ultra-zoom) non-interchangeable lens camera for years and still use it for near infra-red photos. I bought a Fuji S5600 a year ago - also non-interchangeable lens ultra zoom that shoots raw format to save me from the over-zealous noise reduction of Fuji. Fuji has a couple of famous small non-interchangeable lens cameras that shoot in low-level light at high ISO with little noise - the F31fd, F30, and older F10. The newer models haven't been reviewed yet and some folks are worried that Fuji has piled on too many pixels on the same small sensor to allow clean photos from the new models, but we'll find out soon enough. These cameras are great for shooting indoors or at night and trying to capture little kids gleefully running around your yard.

Canon's S5-IS and Panasonic's FZ50 are popular cameras with certain weaknesses -- noise at high ISO, slow focusing -- cameras that can take sweet photos within certain limits.

Digital cameras are a lot less expensive now than just a few years ago, and they are all capable of making good photos within certain limits. If you are going to shoot in sunshine outdoors, and take photos of still objects - you can buy an inexpensive camera and be very happy with the image quality and love the ease of shooting digitally. If you are going to shoot fast-moving objects and/or shoot in low-light situations - then you may need to spend more time and money selecting your camera or camera and add-on lenses.

Janet Petty shoots a Canon Digital Rebel, and I know she's happy with its abilities, and I'm sure there are others who will offer their experiences to help give you some useful ideas. One other important suggestion -- handle some of the different cameras available at the stores near you to get an idea of size/weight/handhold etc. -- some will just seem to fit your better than others.

Got addicted to Nikon in the film era. They carried over that good feel and very intuitive interface to digital. Am now on my 4th digital Nikon with the prefered shooting machine being my D200. When you are choosing a lense, if you have the extra money, I would check out the new VR or vibration resistant technology (Canon has an equivalent). I can shoot a full 4 stops slower without a flash than I could with the conventional lenses. If you would like some really comprehensive, unbiased reviews, check out http://www.dpreview.com
Regards, Murray

Janet Petty shoots a Canon Digital Rebel, and I know she's happy with its abilities, and I'm sure there are others who will offer their experiences to help give you some useful ideas. One other important suggestion -- handle some of the different cameras available at the stores near you to get an idea of size/weight/handhold etc. -- some will just seem to fit your better than others.

I've also used Minolta cameras (film and digital), and I've used the Canon 30D a bit. My hands are smaller; and I found the 30D too heavy and bulky for my personal use, especially since I carry around a 100-400 lens a lot of the time. :) From what I hear, the newly announced Canon 40D is one SWEET camera. Reviews can be found at dpreview and lots of buzz at fredmiranda. Amazon leaked the specs, which can be found at Amazon.

Like CJ said, it all depends on what you want to accomplish. My personal theory is go for the gold and expand your horizons. It saves upgrading when you outgrow the smaller stuff.

What Danny said about great glass is very true. A camera is really nothing more than a box that lets a bit of light in for exposure. If the glass isn't good, it is like looking through eye glasses with petroleum jelly smeared on them...sort of defeats the purpose of having the glasses.

Hey, anybody wanna take some pictures?

Janet

Digital UPDATE Sept 26, 2007: I've upgraded to the new Canon 40D because I literally wore out my Rebel. So far, I've had absolutely no regrets. The extra 8 ounces on my old, arthritic wrists is a bit of a stretch. An inexpensive wrist brace is helping that out. The pictures and ease of use are very well worth the change to a "better" camera.

When I made my digital decision, I was going from a very old Minolta S1 (circa 1967), so I didn't have to worry about keeping anything from the old system. I spoke to several pros who do work similar to where my career is heading, and found that they were all passionate about what kind of camera, but few really knew why. It seemed if they started shooting with Nikon, then they loved the brand.

Only one person offered me a real "why" - Mark Beckelman (http://www.beckelman.com/). He prefers Canon. His reasoning was simple - Canon makes Canon cameras, inside and out. Nikon makes Nikon and Fuji bodies, and Sony makes the sensors for almost everyone, except Canon. That made enough sense to me.

He recommended the 5D, but that was waaaay too precious for me at this stage of the game, so I went for the 30D. While I do wish I could have held out for the 40D (for the additional MP), I think in a few years, I'll go the route of whatever replaces the 5D. Of course, then I'll also need new lenses because my 18-85mm is not made for full frame, but that's the price we pay for buying cheaper now.

Whatever you choose, remember that it's (nearly) for life. When you upgrade in the future, you will end up replacing only parts of your system, not the entire thing, so you'll stick with a brand. They are so competitive, it's hardly a worry that one will really surpass another in quality, so look at feel and button and menu placement as a prime objective - how intuitive is the camera for you to use. In 3 months, will you still be fumbling through menus to change your ISO?

Good luck!

CK: Relocated and retitled this for more visibility. Good topic; don't want it to get buried in an arty thread! :)

=====================

What about the rest of you RetouchPRO -aholics?

What are you using? How did you decide?

I use Canon 20D , Canon Macro 100mm lens, Canon 75-300mm lens and Sigma 50-500mm lens. I have SLR Minoltas but did not want to get the Konica-Minolta DSLR, it was heavier than the Canon 20D. Sometimes I do wish I had bought that K-M dslr because I have a lot of lens for Minolta.
If I ever strike it rich (yea right) I don't even play lotteries lol , I would get a Nikon.

My first SLR was a Petri. I used that for quite a few years. Then I graduated to a Canon FT. During that time I bought my film in bulk and loaded my cassettes. I even did my own developing and slide mounting. That was in the days of my misspent youth.

I finally graduated to digital a few years ago. Since my Canon was so old the lenses wouldn't work with the new digital cameras so I bought a Nikon D70. It's a great camera and does everything I want to do. I still use the stock lense that came with it. I am thinking about buying a 18-200mm VR lense for it in the near future. When I get it, I will make it my regular lense for most of my shooting.

Cameras come & go, but the glass in front of it is what counts. Buy into a system. Since you don't have an investment in glass, then your choices are wide open. I'm pretty much stuck on Canon. I had used the Canon A1 film for years and even tho I had to get all new glass when I went digital I stayed with Canon. When the 20D was released I knew I had to make the switch. It had everything I wanted and needed and still does, although the new 40D looks tempting, but will still keep the 20D as a backup. IMO Canon has a little better quality image at higher ISO's. Nikon has some good features and a friend loves his D200 and it is an awesome camera.

Good luck in your search.

danny, thank you and thanks for moving this post to here.

well, i did a little research on dpreview and cnet since posting this. i went back and forth between those two sites, using cnet's review ratings and dpreviews in depth analysis of cameras. what i came up with for a top pick, just based on price and ratings was the nikon D80. solid camera, high rating, decent price.

so, ok, then i went with CJ's question, what do i want it for? and i realized that what i really wanted first was a run-around, utility camera, something i could carry with me at all times and just shoot and edit as necessary.

that changed the entire ballpark. i've also been out of photography for a long while, so investing in a higher end camera seemed a bit of a jump, like trying to fly before learning to crawl. i did buy one of the first digital cameras ever made, but the thing, other than having novelty value, was almost worthless. so, i thought it best to get back into photography the same way i did when i was a kid, start low and work up. this just made much more sense to me for my current needs and abilities.

so, if you look in the hardware forum, you'll see i was in Staples the other day and bought a new harddrive. well, i also bought a new camera. i bought a Kodak Z880 easy share. it's 8 megapixels, 5x optical zoom, very compact (fits on my belt in a pouch) and can go anywhere with me. i also got the 2 gigabyte card for it.

this is a far cry from that first (almost worthless) digital camera i bought! this new one is packed with stuff and i've been pouring over the manual and taking pictures again. cool! and for $200 (less than i paid for that first one), i've got a much higher res, much faster, built in flash, usb2 transfer, decent sized viewfinder, and a ton of modes and settings i'm still trying to figure out.

ok, so i'm not going to rock the photographic world quite yet, but this thing is quite enough for now. i've already been out taking pics (which i havent done in years) and getting some very nice results. it only takes jpegs (no raws) but the resolution is really quite amazing for such a small package and shld suit me fine for a while.

attached is a pic of an old tobacco barn on our property. it's hardly ever used any more but is quite photogenic. and even with my 200k image limit here on RetouchPRO, you can see a pretty good resolution. the sky was overcast today so, no details in the sky to speak of and i'm still learning all the settings and modes, so bear with me :) still, i'm quite pleased with this little gem of a camera.

i really wanted 10 megapixel and 10x optical, but i also wanted compact and the 5x optical was the best i could find in a true shirt pocket compact. all of the 10x opticals were quite a bit larger and not 'shirt pocket'.

and CJ, to answer your other question about what cameras have i used before, i've used everything for the very low end, viewfinder analogs to polaroid instants to my 35mm, Canon F1, which i bought back in the early 70's or so. the Canon was quite an investment. it was one of Canon's first, truly integrated systems and was a VERY good 35mm. i bought a lot of lenses, filters and other accessories for it and still have most of it today. but, i just dont hardly use it any more. it's a lot of stuff to carry around, film to process, film to buy and so on and so forth and ever since digitals came out, i knew that was the way i was going to go. i've shot all sorts of venues, sports, portrait, scenery both close up and distant and an assortment of others. i had a very nice 400mm lens for longshots and a number of macros and entension tubes for very close up photography and a very nice vivitar zoom for inbetweens.

most of my work was back in the 70's and early 80's and most of it is rotting away waiting for me to scan and clean it up. i've posted a couple on RP which i did scan and clean, though i couldnt tell you where they are now.

and, when i was in vietnam in the early 70's, i carried a miniature camera in the field. that thing was about 2 inches by 3 inches or so and shot on very tiny film. i've got several albums full of those images, also waiting to be scanned and cleaned up. those really need some work having been sitting in albums for years and fading away.

i was never a Pro. i never owned or shot in 4x4 or anything better than the Canon and i never did any formal studio work. but i've always had an interest and delight in taking pictures. thus, this re-entry with this little compact digital has me almost as excited as when i was a kid with dreams of taking 'that great shot' :)

Craig - congratulations on your new digital camera! Isn't it just so much FUN to shove a card in and shoot away -- no keeping film in the refrigerator, worrying about the expiration date, you can change the film speed without changing rolls of film, you can take some shots and learn by looking at them that you didn't get it right and just delete them, change your settings and make the next shots better! I still just get excited thinking about how cool digital is!!! ;)

I like the detail your camera picked up -- in the cabin siding and the greenery; this camera will be a lot of fun!

P.S. -- and NO scanning! It's so easy to use a card reader (or connect to the camera) and get to see the photos right away -- without having to drive down to the store to wait for your prints.

Thing about a camera is it's only any good if it's with you.

Good thing about point and shoot compacts is they don't take up much space and they don't weigh much, so it's more likely you'll carry them with you.

I've got a Canon Ixus, and the determining factor was it had to fit in my ski jacket pocket, be quick to use, and be built like a brick (for the odd occasion when I have a spill).

It's still the only camera I ever seem to carry, I've got others, but they're just too bulky to carry around all the time.

Have fun with yours Craig .............. oh, and get that shed fixed, it's a disgrace leaving it with all those holes in it. :grin: :grin:

I think you cannot go to far wrong with either nikon or canon.I have both nikon for film and canon for digital.The nikon fm2 cant be beat for film its an overall great little camera as far as lenses go nikon has great lenses,for digital when i decided to buy I personally thought after everything I read Canon was the better of the 2 so I bought a REBEL xt

just my opinion zganie

I am not an avid photographer but I do expect a digital camera to have some decent longevity. I bought a Kodak and the sucker lasted 13 months and just died. I contacted Kodak but since it was longer than 1 year I was out of luck. That was my first Kodak and you can rest assured that it will be my last one. Prior to this bomb I had an HP and a Fuji. I went back to the Fuji and am happy that I made the choice. I bought a Fuji S6500 and it does everything that I would expect a moderately priced digital to do.

CJ, yup, no hassles. got the thing on my belt and it's just part of me now. the first digital i had was back in the days of usb 1.1 and it didnt use usb. i think it plugged into the serial or parallel port on the back of the computer. this is easy, plug in the usb cord, plug it into the computer, wait for the computer to see it, call up the software, transfer, done. :)

and dont even get me started on film and the hassles with that. almost invariably when walking around with that, i'd have color film in the camera and see something i wanted to shoot in B&W. or, i'd have high speed film in and see something where i wanted a lower ASA (yeah, it was still ASA back then, not ISO). so, there was always a question of, do i load it with a 24 print roll or 36, cause i was always wanting to change it. do i use up the roll just so i can put the other film in and waste the roll or lose the shot.

digital rocks :)

and gary, that's not 'disgrace'; that's 'character' :)

and dont even get me started on film and the hassles with that. almost invariably when walking around with that, i'd have color film in the camera and see something i wanted to shoot in B&W. or, i'd have high speed film in and see something where i wanted a lower ASA (yeah, it was still ASA back then, not ISO). so, there was always a question of, do i load it with a 24 print roll or 36, cause i was always wanting to change it. do i use up the roll just so i can put the other film in and waste the roll or lose the shot.

digital rocks :)



Amen to that. And...did I say AMEN to that?

Janet

and gary, that's not 'disgrace'; that's 'character' :)

That just sounds like an excuse not to get the tool belt out to me. :grin:

gary,

absolutely!

gary,

absolutely!

In that case welcome to the club. Sit back have a beer and watch the world go by.

Life's too short for work, even if the wife is bending your ear about all the things you said you'd do later and haven't (she still falls for that one after all these years, doesn't she realise yet that later means muuuuuuuch later). :grin:

gary,

thankfully, at least from that aspect, i'm not married. no honeydo lists :)

gary,

thankfully, at least from that aspect, i'm not married. no honeydo lists :)

We call it the "Never Ending" list over here. :)

I'm shooting either my d70s or d80 with varying success.

I use a Canon 1Ds mark II and have a 400D as a spare camera.

As for lenses i have these:

Canon 17-40mm 4.0L
Canon 24-70mm 2.8L
Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon 70-200mm 2.8L
Canon 400mm 5.6L

I am currently thinking of switching the 400D wirh a 1D mark III because of the speed and ISO specs on the 1D vs. the 400D...

As for Canon or Nikon, try them, feel them and choose after that - i have always had Canon, but as far as i can see Nikon are now getting up to speed with their new models (they didn´t have a Full Frame until now)

Jasz

Have a Nikon D-80, a Nikon Coolpix 7600, an older Olympus E-10 and a C-4040. Saving my money for the new Nikon D-300 coming out in Nov. Sounds wonderful from everything I've read. A lot of hype on the features.

... Saving my money for the new Nikon D-300 coming out in Nov. Sounds wonderful from everything I've read. ...

That sounds like something great to look forward to -- hope the savings pile up quickly!

Canon 350d and 50mm 1.8 in most cases. Also use Peleng 8mm Fisheye, Sigma 10-20, Sigma 70-200.

I shoot with a pair of Nikons: D200 and D50. My most used lenses are 50mm 1.8 and 28-70mm 2.8.

S5600 for now, and an S9600 very soon:wink:
Very impressed with fuji cameras, so sticking with them. If I can print a crystal clear picrure at 30"x20" with an S5600, how big can I go with the S9600?
But then again, if I win one of the fuji contests, I'll be getting an S3 or S5 Pro:knockedou
PS: Has anybody seen any flying pigs:tongue:

I use 2 Nikon D50s with assorted lenses and am very happy with them.

Maureen

The D50 is a great camera. I could not bring myself to part with mine after I got my D200.

I went from a D50 last year, on to a D200 with about 7 lenses total, nothing slower than f2.8 either. Then i sold it all this year for a 5D and 3 lenses. No regrets either, I'm much happier with this camera now :)

I have been using digital cameras since 2001, when I started using the Nikon 990, a 3.3 MP digi cam, which was state of the art at the time and we were using it for product photography and it worked out fine to produce $20,000 pre-press ads that went to high end jewelry mags. Then I got the 6 MP Canon 10D and now the 8MP Canon 30D. Now the 10+MP Canon 40 D is out.

Don't be concerned about newer DSLR cameras so much at this point. Anything 6MP and up capture enough info in RAW mode for web and pre-press. Everytime a new, larger MP digi cam comes out, everyone goes out and buys it, thinking that more MP means more quality. The new high end Canon is I think 22 MP, which is getting up there with the $20-30,000 med format digital backs. See, more MP is relative. Digi cams will keep increasing MP as a selling point, but as someone stated, the camera is only a recorder, it's the lenses that you should focus on, high quality glass, especially f 1.2-2.8 that are fast, great in low light, crisp, crystal clear images with accurate color. but they are also costly, but worth the investment

I would stick to the 2 top name brands, Canon and Nikon, mainly because there are many 3rd party products available for these brands and they stand up to pro usage. Nikons and Canon shooters win awards every year with these new DSLR cams.

But one thing very important to remember is, the camera is half the game, post work and processing in Photoshop CS2-3 is imperative and you have to study your digital darkroom techniques to deliver optimal imagery really good

BTW, I have fine old Canon slides from 1978-1993 I have had professionally scanned on CD, hi-rez, but the really good RAW images that I have captured from my Canon 10D-30D are way beyond the quality of the films and slides I have scanned in the past. I have retouched many, many hi-rez drum scanned images from Nikon and Canon 35mm film for a pre-press house in the late 90's, but when DSLR's got to the 6MP and up, and you have the right lighting, right exposure and metering, you can get a great image, that is web and press quality

I cannot face film cameras anymore and besides, once a film/slide image is scanned into the computer, it is still digital anyway, right?



Steve

Currently am using a Canon 5D as my main and a 20D as my backup. Hopefully can venture into Medium Format camera with Digital Back in future.

i am loyal to nikon.

even though they've screwed up a little and didnt understand their own users. nikon is finally starting to catching up with canon.

i just upgraded to a Nikon D80 (used to have a D70).

im not sure about it to be honest with you. the metering is not very good and i expected a faster buffrer. i also dont understand why they changed memory cards from compact flash to Secure Digital. but one thing is very good, and its the colors. it produces fantastic colors. its is also a nice and light camera. big lcd as well. so some good stuff of course... but the thing is:

i've used a nikon d200 quite a lot and its miles better, depsite the same amount of megapixels and all that... it just feeeels so good in your hand you know. its just right.

if i can afford to i'd might go for the new D300, but people are actually saying that its not that much diffrence from the D200... we'll see

got quite a few lenses as well

nikkor 28-80 mm
nikkor 18-70 mm
sigma 105 mm macro
sigma 70-300 mm
tamron 11-18 mm

hope to afford some VR lenses at some point.

beeing into photography is so expensive..... bleh!

if you wanna check out some pictures:
http://flickr.com/photos/camilla-karlsen/

Been using Phase one for years now.

Jeff

DSLR

Nikon D200
Nikon D50 (Black)
AF-S Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED DX
Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX IF HSM Macro
AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
Nikkor 35mm F/2 AF

UV filters, ND filters, CP filters, closeup +4, Hoya R72
Kenko Extension Tubes
Calumet pro strap
SB-600 flash
Flash x-tender
Zigview R Digital view finder

Camera Bag

Lowepro Mini Trekker AW
Lowepro Slingshot 100 AW

Tripod

Manfrotto 190BPRO tripod
Manfrotto 460MG MAGNESIUM 3-WAY HEAD
Manfrotto 488RC2 ball head

Monopod - Manfrotto 681B + 234RC head

Calumet 6000 series
Std calumet ball head
Quickgrip action head

Compact

Canon S2 iS
lensmate 52 and 58mm adaptor & UV filters

Olympus 3020z

Flash

Vivitar DF200 slave

Other

lightbox/tent

Software Used (primarily)

Nikon Capture 4.4/NX
Photoshop CS3
IrfanView 3.99

Storage
The VP2160 X'S-Drive II Plus 120gig