[ServinginEcuador]

Robert,

The point isn't to buy a prosumer dSLR that will only give you equal output quality when compared to a consumer grade digicam. Quite the opposite, buying a high price dSLR means getting higher quality photos, lowered shutter lags, better flash coverage, and much better lenses.

Here's a quote from Photo Dude's site:
Quote:

Glass is really an issue. It’s the primary reason I wasn’t tempted to go from the Nikon 990, my “training wheels” digital camera, to the Nikon 5000 when it came out. The little tiny excuse for glass on the front of it seemed to limit the output quality from the beginning. Having shot Canon EOS for 16 years, I knew what kind of lens quality to expect, and knew it would be worth waiting until I could afford a DSLR. The article on the 11MP Canon 1Ds concludes “The 1Ds is mercilessly unforgiving of lens quality. It sucks up resolution like a sponge. Give it the highest image quality possible and it will reward you with superlative photographs. Feed it consumer grade zoom lenses and it will be ‘OK’, but you won’t be happy.” “In my almost 35+ years as a photographer I have never seen anything like the ability of this camera to separate the wheat from the chaff in lenses. If you have a 1Ds you will now know why you bothered to buy those expensive Canon ‘L’ series lenses. This camera demands them.” I have no experience with that eight thousand dollar camera, but I can sure tell the difference in lens quality even on my 6MP camera. If you spend a grand on a camera, and then slap a $250 zoom on it, your image quality will be forever limited by that lens. Realistically, you have to plan on spending at least as much on lenses as you do on the body, at least, at current DSLR prices. And that makes it an even tougher nut. It was easier for me having shot Canon all this time ... but I also now see how my 16 year old lenses are far exceeded in quality by the ones currently on the market. Let’s face it. It’s been true for decades. Photography is a damn expensive enterprise, as an amatuer or a pro. It just is, as it has always been. We’ve just now added another level of obsolescence that we didn’t have with film cameras.

Many other sites concure that by throwing on consumer grade lenses onto a 6+MP camera you are making a mistake. It will still take decent pictues, but why spend so much money on a body alone only to cripple it with cheap plastic and glass?

If it came down to a decision between a good consumer digicam like the Nikon 8700 or Sony F828 and a dSLR with cheap lenses, I would go with the consumer stuff. With the dSLRs you have to factor in the rather expensive flash and lenses to go with it. If you can afford it, go with the dSLR. If not, be happy and stick with the consumer camera. My dad owns a D1x from Nikon, and even it's 6MP CCD will show how big the difference is between consumer and pro glass.

Plus, it's a LOT easier to build high quality glass into a small consumer digicam's lens for much cheaper cheap than it is to build a full scale dSLR or standard film camera lens. The size difference, parts quality, moving parts, sheer size of the glass, coatings for the glass, autofocusing mechanisms, much larger aperature blades, and number of glass elements of regular SLR lenses costs more at retail than most consumer digicams around.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally posted by ServinginEcuador but why spend so much money on a body alone only to cripple it with cheap plastic and glass? Plus, it's a LOT easier to build high quality glass into a small consumer digicam's lens for much cheaper cheap than it is to build a full scale dSLR or standard film camera lens.

An SLR, being modular, makes upgrading your image quality possible and gives you more potential.

As for being a high quality lens, those consumer lenses are not that fast in all focal lengths. So it really comes down to how you're going to use it.

 

[Mr.PD]

Well my point was that with a camera like the Sony F828, I would have all I need in neat little package. Okay, it's not that little, but it's not a bag full of lenses and stuff.
The nicer and undoubtedly better shooting DSLR would be okay, but not for my use. I like zoom. Variable zoom lenses cost how much? How many lenses would I need to cover the same scenarios as I can cover with the Sony? Sure I could have more zoom with the Canon, but I wouldn't be able to have the camera with me nearly as much. I only have a small back pack for work, and I already have it full of work junk, and a bad back to carry all this stuff on.

Besides all that, I just ain't that good of a picture taker to warrant a high end camera.

I do like Canon's software though.

 

[Zuerst]

I think anything above 5megapixel is overkill for average user. Unless you plan on doing professional work with the camera I really don't see much reason to go beyond 5MP.

 

[radrd]

Quote:

Many other sites concure that by throwing on consumer grade lenses onto a 6+MP camera you are making a mistake. It will still take decent pictues, but why spend so much money on a body alone only to cripple it with cheap plastic and glass?

I don't think you understand my point. With the "consumer grade lenses" that comes with the D70 and Digital Rebel, you are still going to take pictures that far outclass those digicams. As to whether those lenses are bad or not, that seems to be a little more subjective than you are implying. I've read reviews of the Digital Rebel and the D70 where the reviewer (people who own expensive glass) specifically states that they like the lens that comes with the camera, as it is a good all-purpose lens. Furthermore, I've talked to several camera geeks over at Arstechnica, people who own and buy the expensive glass with the SLRS, as I was looking at getting a digicam in this price range. They all suggested one of two options. Either get a camera significantly cheaper than $1000, like in the $500 range. Or, get the SLR with the standard lens. That's not to say that the expensive glass isn't worth the upgrade, but the lens that comes with it appears to be a great starting point for someone who is either entering the hobby (me) or won't necessarily get their money's worth out of the more expensive glass.

Finally, that article you quoted isn't particularly relevant. We are talking about $1000 and $1299 cameras including the lens. The 1D is A LOT more expensive. And furthermore, I don't think the cameras he is talking about even come in kit form, so the reviewer might have a completely different opinion about the Digital Rebel or the D70...

 

[Nightfall]

Quote:

Originally posted by radrd I don't think you understand my point. With the "consumer grade lenses" that comes with the D70 and Digital Rebel, you are still going to take pictures that far outclass those digicams. Furthermore, I've talked to several camera geeks over at Arstechnica, people who own and buy the expensive glass with the SLRS, as I was looking at getting a digicam in this price range. They all suggested one of two options. Either get a camera significantly cheaper than $1000, like in the $500 range. Or, get the SLR with the standard lens. That's not to say that the expensive glass isn't worth the upgrade, but the lens that comes with it appears to be a great starting point for someone who is either entering the hobby (me) or won't necessarily get their money's worth out of the more expensive glass.

While I somewhat agree with the wisdom in the above, other parts of it are simply misleading. The Rebel with a good lens will outperform any single unit prosumer camera, but not by a large margin, as it will be used by the average person. Also, your comment regarding "get the SLR with the standard lens. That's not to say that the expensive glass isn't worth the upgrade, but the lens that comes with it appears to be a great starting point for someone" is extremely problematic. First of all, the digital Rebel comes without ANY lens! When discussing SLR's, a "standard" lens is universally recognized as the 50mm included with the purchase of most film based slr's. Its also nearly completely worthless. It cannot take any wide angle shots, which are the staple of just about any vacation portfol, cant take any worthwhile portrait photos, cant provide any useful distance shots, and has an extremely limited perspective overall. Most photographers either throw theirs into a closet upon purchasing an SLR camera, or, preferably, purchase the body only, since the lens is essentially useless. A decent zoom lens that covers a usable spectrum would add another $400.00 or more tot he body's price, taking this camera into a whole other realm of expense.
The Sony mentioned isnt a particularily good camera, and has some noticeable problems. It should be better, given its specs, and some Sony's before it have been good camera's, but this one simply isnt worth the money.
My recommendation would be to go with the Monolta A1, widwly available at $799.00 or less, great quality zoom lens which covers all of the critical 28-200 range. It also meets your needs as a one unit camera that should be able to do almost anything, and do it well. Yes, digital SLR's are superior, but the cost skyrockets in that area, and most people simply dont need the extra features and quality.


JC

 

[radrd]

Quote:

First of all, the digital Rebel comes without ANY lens! When discussing SLR's, a "standard" lens is universally recognized as the 50mm included with the purchase of most film based slr's. Its also nearly completely worthless.

The Digital Rebel comes in two forms. One with no lens, at $899. One with an 18-55mm lens at $999. The D70 comes without a lens at $999 and with an 18-70mm lens at $1299. According to the reviews I have read, neither lens is a poor choice at all, but maybe to you they are.

Quote:

The Rebel with a good lens will outperform any single unit prosumer camera, but not by a large margin, as it will be used by the average person.

You could be right there. I honstly don't know how the average person uses a camera. If I buy one, I'm going to work to become above average because it would be a waste of money spending $~1000+ on any camera to do otherwise IMO.

Quote:

My recommendation would be to go with the Monolta A1, widwly available at $799.00 or less, great quality zoom lens which covers all of the critical 28-200 range.

If you can deal with the drawbacks of a digicam, this is probably great advice. The Panasonic FZ10 is another camera that looks pretty good for digicams. If you don't want to spend $1000, then I completely agree with this advice. It's when someone is already going to spend $1000 that buying a dSLR makes more sense IMO.

 

[Tuberoller]

Hey guys,I would never in a million years pretend to know much about digital cameras but I was an early user of digital cameras and I'm on my third camera in six years. I love digital photography but my wife is just coming around and she's a serious amatuer photographer. I was at my brother's house today(alos a very serious photo buff) who lives very close to a pro-photo shop and he suggested we take a walk and check out some toys for my new video camera(mics,lights). While there the store owner(try that at Best Buy) allowed me to play with some of the digital cameras. I got a chance to handle the Sony f828,Nikon D100,D70,Coolpix 8700,Canon Rebel,EOS 10D and Powershot Pro1. The quality of all these cameras is amazing and I'm impressed as hell at how much you can buy for your money now. I remember paying $899 for my Sony DCS-85 three years ago, that buys a hell of a camera today.

I like the SLRs a lot but found all but the D70 and Rebel difficult to use. The Rebel and D70 had good feel and seemed easy to use for someone like me. The lenses on both these cameras were much slower focusing than those on the other SLRs and especially the Sony F828. the Sony focused super fast and the shots remained clear while the zoom moved in and out. The Sony was bigger than I thought it would be but was built better than the Coolpix 8700,which I also like a lot. I think I might purchase either the F828 or the Coolpix. I think they would work very well for my uses and I don't see me ever needing the SLRs and the lenses they require. the store owner explained to me the lenses I would have to purchase to replicate the lens functions of the Sony and Coolpix. He went on to explain that even then those lenses might not focus as quickly as the Coolpox and F828. It is amazing what you can buy for the money today and I'll probably pull the trigger on the Sony when the price drops a little. I'm cool for now.