Camera opinions

I have been looking at digital SLR cameras for the last month or so. Does anyone have an opinion on DSLR's before I make my final decision?

I am waffling between the D40 and A100 or perhaps A700.

I like the stats on the older Minolta macro lenses which work with the Sony cameras, but I know that several of you out there have the D40.

I can't say I have any experience with anything but the Nikon D40 in the DSLR field, but from what I've used it for it's fantastic. I did the whole SLR shopping about 6 months ago and asked around about cameras and the like. I talked to a friend of mine who is an amazing photographer of the Adirondacks and she swears by the Nikon series. She has the Nikon D80, but recommended the D40 for me due to its relative ease, weight, and functions.

So I bought it and I've been loving it ever since. The quality of the pictures are incredible and what's great about Nikon's is that their Lenses are interchangeable. Which means if you decide to upgrade one day you can keep all of your lenses because they'll work on the newest Nikon. I think this is one of the best selling points, just due to the cost of lenses and now their lifetime is extended into the future.

I've been impressed with how quick it can take shots, so you have the ability to take a multitude of pictures before you may miss that one shot. The D40 has a bunch of different settings too, some include Portrait, Landscape, Movement/Action, Macro, and a few others at the turn of a nob. The camera also makes it simple to change the aperture and shutter speed on the fly.

I'm still finding out all its features, bought a book on it.... working on reading it still though. But from my experience so far I greatly recommend this camera!

Personally, I'm goin with the Canon Rebel XTi. I bounced on the Nikon D80 for a while but decided on Canon as it's quite a bit cheaper (~$300 less!), has a built in cleaning system, and I already have Canon lenses so yeah. Not to mention that on a specs scale, the 2 are nearly identical.

I've only heard great things about the D40 as well tho so, pick your poison! Personally I'd stick with a company who has it's backing in optics which is why I'd avoid Sony, not to mention they're an evil empire. Thats just my opinion tho!

cheers.
t.

I was looking at sony because their DSLR cameras use the old Minolta lenses.

I do not know what type of cameras you are talking about. I have 2 digital Nikon cameras which are great! Some of my photos are very good you can see the pores on my cats face. The last one I bought was a COOLPIX S10 it was half the price of my Coolpix 4300. I like the older one better as the new one is hard to handle.

Wonko is a talented photographer hopefully he will see this post. His photos are amazing.

Yvonne

Miss Kitty is exaggerating. (but hey, thanks kitty!)

I own a D80 and my father owns D40. My previous cameras were all film SLRs, here are my suggestions:

1. Go with Nikon or Canon.
Basically, that's it. I know, it sounds stupid, but the advancement in DSLRs was so huge that any new model of the two manufacturers you choose will have great image quality, great service and far more accecories to choose from than Sony, olympus, etc. Will Sony be in DSLR market in 5 years? Who knows. You can bet Nikon and Canon will be. Buying into DSLR is a long term investment IMO.

Here is what I can share considering Nikon :
1) Most important, do you know D40 can focus ONLY with AF-S, AI-S and Sigma's HSM lenses?
2) If you prefer more "hardware" feeling on settings (like film SLRs) you might want to look at D80, if you are OK going thru menus, than D40 will do.
3) If you are into creative flash photography (e.g. off camera flashes fired remotely) then get D80, it will be cheaper in the long run (you need to buy SU-800 for the D40 to achieve the same).
4) Consider D40X too, not only D40.
5) If you are alredy experienced in SLRs (e.g. if you know when to use exposure compensation and in which direction in a heartbeat) then look at D80 or higher.
6) If you like pictures that pop, look very sharp and have vivid colors, D40 is the way to go. You have to do some post processing to achieve the same with D80 and not all people like that. D80 has more realistic colors and does less in-camera sharpening, so less JPEG artifacts.

On choosing between Nikon and Canon (if you can't make up your mind), go in a store and try each one out. See how it FEELS in your hands. Some people prefer the ergonomy of one some the other. This is very important. You don't need to worry about picture quality, it is there whatever you choose.

Consider accecories in your budget too (e.g. camera bag, extra battery, SD cards, remote control, battery grip etc.)

Hope it helps.

Thanks everyone

I am still in the deciding faze. I went back through my pictures to see what I mostly try to take pictures of as well as which digital/film camera I used and which ones of each type seem to came out best.

This is what I discovered:

I take a lot of low light shots with scenery. I take a pretty good number of macro shots, but the majority of what I take pictures of is family, most of these come out just fine.
My next stop is to go to a camera shop and see what they will let me handle (drop) in store and what fits my hands.

After more than a month and handling quite a few cameras, I have ordered the Sony A 100.

I realize that it is not the best camera out there but it was the best for the money that I had to spend.

I ended up paying $450.00 for camera body, a cheap 18-70 lens, tripod, case, neck strap, hand grip, all the normal cables, chargers etc. and a 3 year total protection package that includes "accidental" damage.

Let you all know the end result when I get it.

Griz:

There are lovers of Nikons, and lovers of Canons, particularly when you're talking dSLR. They generally tend to love their preference, and shrug off any criticisms that their opposites bring up about their loved cameras. They also tend to admit that the other line is acceptable as well. However, both groups, in my experience, tend to agree about one thing:

Sony dSLRs are crap.

I don't know exactly why they think this, but it's the opinion I've heard on occasion from either group.

YMMV, so you could find them the next thing since sliced bread.

Sorry for not mentioning this sooner; I haven't been paying attention to the forums as much as I used to, and missed your "Sony" post.

FYI, I'm a Canon fan - spent (so far, considering I do underwater work) over $5000 on my kit (admittedly, over $3500 was just on stuff to take pictures under water - only $2000 or so was the initial 30D camera body, 3 lenses, other standard stuff).

Well, I will let you know.

I purchased this camera for a number of reasons and despite those that love their brands and their opinions, I could not find any reason why they think that they are crap.

I can tell you the deciding factor.

Warranty.

In the case of camera equipment and lenses, Sony blows the others out of the water. No competition, Not even on the same chart.

Cannon has 1 year limited to defects in workmanship in the price range that I have to spend.

Nikon has 1 to 3 year limited on cameras and lenses in the price range that I have to spend. (depending on model and retailer)

Sony has a 3 year base warranty that covers everything including accidents. When I purchased it with my Sony credit card I received an additional 2 years protection and a 1 year return for any reason for a full refund policy (not including shipping ($18.50))

So, i get my feet wet and I have the security of knowing that if I don't like it, I can return it.

Now, in the price range that you have spent, Sony can not compete with Cannon, Nikon or even Pentax as far as I can tell. I just can't spend that much on a camera yet.

Thanks for the advice Bot, I am sure that I will be finding out first hand early next month. surely I will post some pics and let you guys know in quantifiable terms if there is anything crappy about it.

Until then, I will be playing UT 3 on the UM league or Slaughter's invasion or perhaps the Warfare RPG.

BotFodder wrote:

However, both groups, in my experience, tend to agree about one thing:

Sony dSLRs are crap.

It looks like you have experience with some funny people than.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with image quality of Sony DSLRs (Or Olympus, Pentax and Sigma DSLRs for that matter) Make pictures wth each brand, put them in front of the people and noone will be able to tell which picture came from which camera.

But it is a fact that Nikon and Canon have the largest selection of lenses, flashes, grips, TCs, remote, etc to choose from. Widely available too. The way I see it, the main investment in DSLR is accesories, not tha actual camera body.

I do know that some people get along with a body and a lens or two just fine. For people that don't plan to invest big bucks it doesn't really matter much which brand they choose. Getting most for your money is more important in that case.

I think grizzled chose well, that certainly looks like a lot of equipment for $450. I hope you enjoy it and I am really looking forward to your results!

We shall see how much I enjoy it.

One of the things that I looked at with the A100 is that it has legacy support for the older Minolta cameras. Sony did not even make it memory stick only.

The older Minolta lenses fit this camera.

it is not due to arrive till the end of the month so we will see when it arrives.

One of the things I am researching now is a good macro lens that will work. I take a lot of pictures of snowflakes...

Snowflakes... Sounds interesting. How do you shoot that? Catch it on a glas plate?

As for macro lenses, Sony has two, 50mm and 100mm both f2.8 and both go to 1:1. They are a bit expensive.

As for other macro options, I know that the following Sigma lenses fit Sony (all go to 1:1):
-50mm f2.8 EX
-70mm f2.8 EX
-105mm f2.8 EX
-150mm f2.8 EX HSM
-180mm f3.5 EX

You might want to consider Tamron 90mm macro too.

As for the quality, general consensus seems to be that there is no bad macro that goes to 1:1 made today. Sigma 70mm f2.8 EX seems to be optically among the best lenses ever tested. However, since you alredy have sub 70mm focal lengths covered with your zoom, it might be wise to get a longer macro that could double as a telephoto/portrait too. So perhaps you might want to look at focal lengths at or above 100mm. Bare in mind that longer focal length gives you more working distance too (e.g. for shooting bugs which might be scared off if you get too close)

Of all the mentioned lenses I only owned Sigma 105mm f2.8 EX which is a great lens for macro/portrait/nature/pruduct/zoo shots, but not suitable for sports (e.g moto GP) because of somewhat slower AF speed.

The prices increase with focal lens though, Sigma 50mm will set you back for around 250$ (I think this is the cheapest lens that gives you 1:1) and Sigma 105mm for around 400$.

Another option is using macro extensions, inverted lenses (you loose AF this way) or non-true macro lenses (cheaper, less magnification). You can also buy closeup filter that you can attach to the zoom you allredy purchased. It is cheap, increses magnification somewhat but degrades optical quality (resolution and distortion).

Thanks for the info.

Glass does not work very well for snowflakes, they reflect so much light on their own that the auto focus that I have on my current point and shoot models don't want to bring them into focus.

Through quite a bit of trial and error, I have found that catching them on something dark works pretty well for contrast.

So far my best results have come when I catch the flakes on some thing cold and dark, like a piece of cloth and then lay it over something rigid out of where it is snowing but still cold. I turn on a small spot light from above, far enough away that the heat wont melt them, then I pick the ones that I want to shoot. Then I take a couple dozen shots of each.

Most of the problems I have are with the fact that snowflakes tend to deform when they are near any heat at all. if you are not very careful even your breath or the waste heat that comes our of your clothes tends to deform them slightly giving you an out of focus look.

I have not been as successful as I would like but part of that is the cameras. A pretty large part is I am still learning how to take any pictures well.

Well it came in a couple of days ago, I am still playing with/learning how the controls work.

I picked up a couple of lenses at he pawn shop and scored on the total cost. They work and are in pretty good shape, a 55-100mm F3.5 and a 49mm F2.8 with a polarizer, and a remote bounce flash for 129.00 with tax.

Unfortunately it has been foggy here so the only Pics I have are portraits. when I get something more I will post a few links.