OT -- the DSLR repeat thread revisited

[djg]

The earlier thread seems useful, but it's been a while.

Background -- took a good many photos once upon a time, some time in the dark room, etc., but (a) trimmed the hobby as I got busy with this and that and (b) then put the film camera in the drawer when I started carrying digital point & shoots.

So I love taking snapshots with the point-and-shoots. I have two lumix cameras. I take the kids for a bike ride, or skiing, or what have you, and stick the little camera in a pocket, and here and there I grab some surprisingly good shots without turning the outing into a photo expedition.

On the one hand, I really don't want to turn most outings into photo expeditions, where I'm managing gear and shots instead of fully participating as a coach, or sibling damage control expert, or whatever. OTOH, there are times when I'd really like to take some photographs -- choose the lens and the depth of field and not just the rough composition, whether it's for shots of my kids or nature. And even for snapshots, it would be nice at little kids' hoops (I'm mostly coaching and noisy during soccer) to be able to fire off multiple shots.

So . . . I'm not investing in a pro camera because I don't wanna, and don't know how much of my time and energy I'll invest in this. Between entry level plus and the next step up . . .

With Nikon there's the 3100, which seems fine and the 5000, which seems a little nicer to me, despite the lower pixel count, and the D90, which seems more solid, although it's still plastic, and then the price starts to climb. Packages seem a mixed bag, as far as the lens goes, but the nearby Costco has what seem to be reasonable packages for both the 5000 and the D90, with 18-55mm lenses that seem useful as general lenses, even if not the best versions at those ranges, and then useful telephoto zooms as well (55-200 with one camera and 70-300 with another) -- only 750 bucks for the 5000 package with a bunch of stuff (only 750 he says, with a local camera store offering used F4 bodies for 225 bucks). There's also a package with the D90 and an 18-105 zoom, which seems a decent and fairly versatile lens -- 1050 at a local shop (a hundred bucks less by mail).

Features differences seem to abound, but they're mostly meaningless to me, as I've not been doing digital photography. Cheap to good to great cameras used to be differentiated by construction and mechanical qualities (and, of course, the lenses), but now they all seem to offer in-camera editing, and auto-teeth-brushing features, and what not.

Do I stop worrying about mystery features, just shut up and buy one and get started, or is there some really good reason to start with A rather than B?

[rice rocket]

I have a D90. Haven't really looked at the market since. I'm amateur at best, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. My father has the D300s, and the few things I wish I had on mine are:

- Better AF system (the 51 point or whatever on the D300s makes a difference)
- Separate AF ON button (there is one on the D90 that you can set, but it doesn't work well ergonomically)


The D3000 has pretty garbage output at ISO800 and above, I wouldn't even consider it for that reason alone.


Apparently the D7000 is pretty awesome though.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d7000.htm

Ken Rockwell isn't the most technical of reviewers, but he's speaks in the most practical terms and isn't afraid to rank them because he buys them rather than relying on samples from manufacturers (so he doesn't have to kiss ass).


That said, if this is your first foray into the digital realm, a D40x is $220 refurbished. Buy it, beat on it, and sell it when you decide what you want out of a camera. Hopefully it doesn't leave too bad a taste in your mouth that you'll continue w/ DSLRs. ;) As is always said, it's the lens that really matters.

okay, think I'm finally done editing my post.

[indyrider]

I would look at the Pentax K-7 or the K-x, which have both drastically dropped in price due to being replaced by the K-5 and K-r respectively.

The K-x is tailored more for the beginner and the K-7 for the enthusiast/advanced photographer.

You get in camera image stabilization as well as a high quality body for either and the kit lenses are generally regarded as the best in the DSLR world. I have used other systems and have stayed with Pentax first and foremost due to their bang for the back features but also for their high quality design, numerous lens choices, and the friendly forum community at pentaxforums.....

In your case, I would shoot for the K-x with the 18-55mm kit lens which can be had for around $350 used and go from there...

[AngryScientist]

i was in this boat last year. i chose the D5000 and havent looked back, unless you're going to get heavy into it, i think its all the camera you'll need.

[DogpawSlim]

I used to shoot large and medium format, and I had enough 35mm Nikon and Leica gear to start a used shop. I ended up realizing it was more about the stuff than the photography.

I sold it all and bought a D40, which I still have. The pixel count is low, but you probably already know that pixels don't equate to high image quality.

I'd like to get a D7000, but I know when that happens, I'll be buying lenses like crazy... Especially since it has an AI ring, which means I can mount all the old film primes I used to have :crap:

I recommend the D5000 for the swivel screen, with the kit lens and a 35mm f1.8, which is amazing. You're out the door for fairly cheap, and it's probably more camera than you need (more than I need, for sure).

[kestrel]

The deer shows what he thinks of my D5000 set on Auto (point and click) from 200 feet away. 55-200mm lens

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e19/serotta/DSC_0014.jpg

[thegunner]

mind if i ask why you're going nikon only? (i assume it's because you already have a collection of lenses), but the canon t2i stacks up favorably with any of the ones you listed (plus HD video if you're into that kind of thing)

[djg]

mind if i ask why you're going nikon only? (i assume it's because you already have a collection of lenses), but the canon t2i stacks up favorably with any of the ones you listed (plus HD video if you're into that kind of thing)

I'm not really sure. I'm not accounting for a collection of lenses -- most of what I once had is gone and the couple of manual pieces I have wouldn't settle things one way or the other. I think, in truth, that I gave some sort of initial nod to Nikon based on, whatever, and then kept comparing Nikon models to keep things relatively simple.

The t2i seemed like a cool camera, but I don't value the HD video very highly and I'm not sure I value the 18 mp (vs. 12 or 14) at all. I think it didn't feel as solid to me as a D90 (or in Cannon, as a 60D). FPS is a bit slower than either of the Nikons -- not a ton, but in a way I might notice if I'm grabbing shots of the kids doing their things). And it's a bit more money than the D5000 -- maybe justified by newer features, but it's a couple hundred bucks or so once I've got a package I want. Probably would have been plenty happy if I'd bought a t2i on day one (or most alternatives), but I've been leaning elsewhere.

[thegunner]

The t2i seemed like a cool camera, but I don't value the HD video very highly and I'm not sure I value the 18 mp (vs. 12 or 14) at all. I think it didn't feel as solid to me as a D90 (or in Cannon, as a 60D). FPS is a bit slower than either of the Nikons -- not a ton, but in a way I might notice if I'm grabbing shots of the kids doing their things). And it's a bit more money than the D5000 -- maybe justified by newer features, but it's a couple hundred bucks or so once I've got a package I want. Probably would have been plenty happy if I'd bought a t2i on day one (or most alternatives), but I've been leaning elsewhere.

completely understand on the MP count, the d40 was/is awesome and it's churning on a 6 mp sensor. unless your pics are to be used for print in publications, 8+ is fine. if you're looking for FPS, might i suggest a look at the new sony alphas. autofocus on video was a pretty big selling point, but something it has that the others don't is 10 fps shooting.

the only reason i asked about brand preference is, the body is the cheapest investment you'll be making on a dslr, consider the cost of the aftermarket lenses and canon becomes infinitely more attractive ;)

[TimmyB]

before you completely decide on any body, make sure you pick up one in your hands and play with with the menu's / settings / etc. There are very different ergonomics between the brands.

And to state my comments from the peanut gallery:
Depending on how extensive of a lens collection you plan to accrue, I'd advise against a d40 - no af motor = limited to afs/afi-only lenses. For a very similar body with an af motor, get a d50.

If you're considering buying a used digital camera, understand that the sensors do not last forever. Make sure the actuations (can be seen in exif data) are not too high. An interesting data source (http://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/ ) about when your shutter will die.

And for the blanket statements:
Pentax bodies are great if you don't plan to ever get exotic glass.
Sony is notorious for poor high-iso quality images and limited glass choices.

Realistically if you plan to just keep the stock cheap plastic kits lens on whatever body you decide to buy, it won't really matter what company you go for.

Another thing to consider is that if you have a specific type of photography you plan to do, the "big two" might have a specific lens the other one doesn't. I've always been bitter that Nikon never released an AF slower super-telephoto lens. I used to do freelance photography on the side and used to shoot surfing stuff among other things... Cannon's got that 400mm f5.6 for a little over a grand. That definitely would have been far more in my budget than nikon's 400mm f2.8 $7500 equivalent focal length (causing me to rent every shoot :crap: ). I realize faster glass / etc / etc but more often than not I was shooting at f5.6 / f8 on my fullframe bodies anyways...

EDIT: One last thing, as long as your camera churns out 6+ mp you'll be fine for any print application that is not billboards. Up-resing has come a long way... I blew up a 10mp portrait image (from a d80) to life-size a couple years back for a photo contest.. apparently the quality was good enough to get best in show :rolleyes:

[DogpawSlim]

And for the blanket statements:
Pentax bodies are great if you don't plan to ever get exotic glass.
Sony is notorious for poor high-iso quality images and limited glass choices.


I'd like to take the blanket off here. Pentax has some AMAZING primes. The DA limiteds and the DA* lines are crazy nice. Also, Zeiss makes lenses in K mount.

As for Sony, Zeiss makes Sony Alpha mount lenses, and they have a pretty extensive Sony-brand line.

[thegunner]

I'd like to take the blanket off here. Pentax has some AMAZING primes. The DA limiteds and the DA* lines are crazy nice. Also, Zeiss makes lenses in K mount.

As for Sony, Zeiss makes Sony Alpha mount lenses, and they have a pretty extensive Sony-brand line.

pentax is pretty well known for their microscopy optics after all. the older sony alphas were definitely plagued with iso issues though. they would use in camera blurring to make their images APPEAR to be lower in noise, but the amount of detail lost was pretty much a joke.

[false_Aest]

I totally disagree with the up-resing response. (Coming from someone who has worked in a digital print house and as a photo tech more megapix is better (Yes, I know that this is simplifying a lot of things but this is a bike forum not a digital forum)).

That said, you don't have to drop a metric eff tonne of cash on a camera with a bajillion megapix to get stunning results.

The 5D Mark II is a superbe camera but @ ~$3k its out of most people's cameras.

I've had the chance to use the 50D and D90. They're great when paired with a good lens----I'd buy body and lens separate.

The biggest thing (this has been said previously) is to get a camera that you're comfortable with. Try them out. If there's a Calumet Photo or a similar store near you rent one for the weekend and then another.

Your other option is to take advantage of a store like B&H's generous return policy. Buy it. Try it. Return it. Pay for shipping. (Yes, I've done this with more than a few large format lenses.)



Hommé, who mentioned the EXIF info is right on. I dunno though, I don't think I'd buy a used digital camera. Too much magic happens inside. To me that's like buying a used David Copperfield saw-a-lady-in-half trick.


werd

[cody.wms]

I've had a D40 and a D90, now both discontinued but available used. The d90 has many advantages over the 40 - internal motor (so you can use the excellent ~$100 50 1.8 prime), and the fact that there is a button or dial for most anything, so you dont have to go through the menu to change things.

If my D90 disappeared today, I'd either buy another D90 (under $700 used on KEH.com) or a D7000, if I could find one. They are rare at the moment, and will be for the near future.

Have you thought about the Canon S90/95, G11/12, or the Panasonic LX5, if you don't want to lug a full size DSLR around?

[TimmyB]

I'd like to take the blanket off here. Pentax has some AMAZING primes. The DA limiteds and the DA* lines are crazy nice. Also, Zeiss makes lenses in K mount.

As for Sony, Zeiss makes Sony Alpha mount lenses, and they have a pretty extensive Sony-brand line.

RE: Zeiss compatability. Not for much longer (http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewTopNewsAllE/8E06D1CFA00E171BC12577A600262035?OpenDocument) ;)

Also, neither pentax nor sony have any house-brand fast supertelephotos....

And you realize you can get zeiss glass for nikon and canon as well, right?

[DogpawSlim]

And you realize you can get zeiss glass for nikon and canon as well, right?

Jesus Christ, is this DPreview?

[TimmyB]

I totally disagree with the up-resing response. (Coming from someone who has worked in a digital print house and as a photo tech more megapix is better (Yes, I know that this is simplifying a lot of things but this is a bike forum not a digital forum)).

well no kidding of course more megapixels are better when considering larger print media, but necessary for the average consumer? Not always so... A good friend of mine never had any trouble getting published / having work with his d1x's (5.3mp). He upgraded to d3's a year or two ago tho :rolleyes:

[thegunner]

well no kidding of course more megapixels are better when considering larger print media, but necessary for the average consumer? Not always so... A good friend of mine never had any trouble getting published / having work with his d1x's (5.3mp). He upgraded to d3's a year or two ago tho :rolleyes:

is that twin d3's or a d3s? the latter is absolutely jaw dropping in low light.

[TimmyB]

is that twin d3's or a d3s? the latter is absolutely jaw dropping in low light.
IIRC he has two d3's now, not d3s's. As a nikon fanboy, I'd have to agree the d3s is amazing. The quality that digital full frame cameras now have is amazing! My MF film cameras have been mostly collecting dust after making the switch to FF when the d700 was introduced a couple years ago.

I apologize for the thread derail, djg. My vote is for you to get a d90, or make the jump to a d700, budget permitting. In simplified terms, FF (fullframe) cameras have a larger sensor size (equivalent to 35mm) and produce higher quality images with less noise than their dx (nikon's crop /smaller digital sensors).

Like anything, you'll get what you pay for, and it all depends on how much you want to invest in things!

[pmac]

Are you certain you want a DSLR? I imagine they'll be around for a good while yet, and I'm not dissing them in any way and I plan to keep using mine. However, there is a new class of cameras that rely on electronic viewfinders (allowing for a significant reduction in size) but still make use of interchangeable lenses and allow every bit as much creativity. A good example is the Lumix G series, with the G2 being the current top general model and the GH2 being the absolute top, specialized for video. The resolution is great (the sensor is much larger than on point and shoots, a bit smaller than the APS DSLRs), low light photography is good (albeit not up to the standards of the high end DSLRs), they're much lighter and cheaper than all but the lowest end DSLRs (the GH2 is getting pricey, but that's because of the very high end lens it's usually sold with). It's really liberating to use one of these after carrying around a DSLR. You can read more about them on Michael Reichman's site (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml).

[indyrider]

Also, neither pentax nor sony have any house-brand fast supertelephotos....



Pentax DA* 200mm and 300mm count in my book as well as a few of the FA* and A* telephoto's...Also, how 'bout the excellent DA* 60-250 and DA* 50-135mm glass. Doesnt get any better than that and at an affordable price to boot.

As to the statement that Pentax has good bodies but no good glass, the 31mm 1.8 Limited prime is widely regarded as one, if not the finest, piece of photographic glass in the world. The Nikon and Canon fanboys are starting to come out of the woodwork on this one and it truly is beginning to resemble the heated bs at dpreview as one forumite pointed out....

Fact is, unless youre a pro, any current dslr camera from nikon, canon, pentax, or oly will do the trick. Its ultimately up to the eye behind the viewfinder...

[indyrider]

Let me put it this way...

Nikon/Canon = Cannondale/Specialized

Pentax/Olympus = IF/Moots/Serotta/etc

Oh Yeah, Sony = Huffy

[TimmyB]

Fact is, unless youre a pro, any current dslr camera from nikon, canon, pentax, or oly will do the trick. Its ultimately up to the eye behind the viewfinder...
This is most definitely true. Ultimately any camera is just a tool of the photographer. Someone with a good eye and a ????ty camera will most likely produce better results than a ????ty photographer with a h3d.

However, your analogy with bike and camera companies is so far off.

I could go on but have no intention of further derailing this thread. As such, this will be my last post in here. If anyone would like to further this conversation, feel free to PM me. I'd be happy to describe the difference between a 300mm and 600mm lens, why it could affect you if your camera company does not sell any fast supertelephoto lenses (which are ususally considered 400mm and up), and thus why a 50-135 does not constitute a fast supertelephoto lens.

I wish you the best of luck in finding exactly what you're looking for djg. I apologize for causing any sort of ruckus. :beer:

[Ray]

Are you certain you want a DSLR? I imagine they'll be around for a good while yet, and I'm not dissing them in any way and I plan to keep using mine. However, there is a new class of cameras that rely on electronic viewfinders (allowing for a significant reduction in size) but still make use of interchangeable lenses and allow every bit as much creativity. A good example is the Lumix G series, with the G2 being the current top general model and the GH2 being the absolute top, specialized for video. The resolution is great (the sensor is much larger than on point and shoots, a bit smaller than the APS DSLRs), low light photography is good (albeit not up to the standards of the high end DSLRs), they're much lighter and cheaper than all but the lowest end DSLRs (the GH2 is getting pricey, but that's because of the very high end lens it's usually sold with). It's really liberating to use one of these after carrying around a DSLR. You can read more about them on Michael Reichman's site (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml).

I shoot with a micro 4/3 (which is what the GH2 referenced above is). They're getting very very good and they're a LOT smaller than a DSLR, the lenses in particular are even smaller. They're not as good as a full-frame DSLR (like the D3) by a long shot, but they're as good as the entry-level DSLRs and very very close to the mid-level DSLRs. They're weak spots are very very low light (the sensor is half the size of a full frame, or about 2/3 the size of most DSLRs, so it doesn't gather quite as much light) and really fast action (although the GH2 has all but eliminated that drawback with its much faster auto-focus). And the low light is very good compared to the film days, just not as good as a top level DSLR. The lack of an optical viewfinder and mirror-box saves a lot of size and weight and the electronic viewfinders are getting really good. There are several models of these to choose from now (all from Olympus and Panasonic) and a reasonably good selection of glass. I travelled around Europe last summer with an Olympus Pen camera (not as small as a compact but a whole lot smaller than a DSLR) with a total of 3 lenses and the bag I carried was tiny in comparison to a similar DSLR kit.

FWIW, I also have a Panasonic LX5, a high end compact, and except for getting narrow depth of field shots (which is pretty tough with that combination of sensor and lens), its waaaaay more camera in every respect than the last film SLR I shot with 20 years ago or so. Really a pretty remarkable little camera with a very useable zoom range (24-90mm, in 35mm equivalencies), surprisingly good in low light, and its quick on its feet. Great little video cam too. Its all I take a lot of times and I rarely feel its limits.

If you're heart is set on a DSLR and you don't mind the size and weight, I'm not gonna try to talk you out of it - the size and weight are really the only downsides. But unless you're talking high end, you can do just as well with a lot smaller camera today. OK, DPreview mode off.

-Ray

[indyrider]

However, your analogy with bike and camera companies is so far off.



I figured someone would call me on it but after spending 5 looooong hrs at my wifes school work party, the mind wouldnt let me process that thought... :bike:

[onekgguy]

FWIW, I also have a Panasonic LX5, a high end compact, and except for getting narrow depth of field shots (which is pretty tough with that combination of sensor and lens), its waaaaay more camera in every respect than the last film SLR I shot with 20 years ago or so. Really a pretty remarkable little camera with a very useable zoom range (24-90mm, in 35mm equivalencies), surprisingly good in low light, and its quick on its feet. Great little video cam too. Its all I take a lot of times and I rarely feel its limits.

-Ray

I just purchased this camera. Nice to hear your comments about it.

Kevin g

[djg]

Are you certain you want a DSLR? I imagine they'll be around for a good while yet, and I'm not dissing them in any way and I plan to keep using mine. However, there is a new class of cameras that rely on electronic viewfinders (allowing for a significant reduction in size) but still make use of interchangeable lenses and allow every bit as much creativity. A good example is the Lumix G series, with the G2 being the current top general model and the GH2 being the absolute top, specialized for video. The resolution is great (the sensor is much larger than on point and shoots, a bit smaller than the APS DSLRs), low light photography is good (albeit not up to the standards of the high end DSLRs), they're much lighter and cheaper than all but the lowest end DSLRs (the GH2 is getting pricey, but that's because of the very high end lens it's usually sold with). It's really liberating to use one of these after carrying around a DSLR. You can read more about them on Michael Reichman's site (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/index.shtml).

"Certain" is probably a strong word. I looked at one of the Lumix micro 4/3 cameras (G2, I think) -- really looks intriguing in some ways. If I look at the next camera mostly as a means to address the limitations of the p&s cameras that bug me most, when they do bug me, while keeping weight & cost down, they'd really fit the bill. I guess I've leaned toward the DSLRs on the theory that they'd offer me a little more versatility up front (and resolution and maybe brighter viewfinder) and lots more lens selection (and I still have the little lumix cameras when I just want to grab something).

[thegunner]

so here's my $.02 (not that it's worth even that). you know you have a budget you'd like to work with, and regardless of brand, most of the midlevel prosumer dslr's are pretty good at this junction in time (the t2i has virtually the same sensor as the 7d go figure). go play with them at a larger shop (b&h and 17th street photo in NYC both let you fiddle around as long as you want, with whichever lenses you want), and see which one feels good to you. if you have a particular feature you want... e.g. continuous autofocus on video, higher FPS, lower noise at high ISO, then you can prioritize with that first, but the d90, the t2i, the k-5, are all pretty much even at the given price.

pair those kits with a fast prime lens (~35 or 50 mm depending on purpose) and i think you'd have more than enough than you were looking for in the beginning.

[djg]

so here's my $.02 (not that it's worth even that). you know you have a budget you'd like to work with, and regardless of brand, most of the midlevel prosumer dslr's are pretty good at this junction in time (the t2i has virtually the same sensor as the 7d go figure). go play with them at a larger shop (b&h and 17th street photo in NYC both let you fiddle around as long as you want, with whichever lenses you want), and see which one feels good to you. if you have a particular feature you want... e.g. continuous autofocus on video, higher FPS, lower noise at high ISO, then you can prioritize with that first, but the d90, the t2i, the k-5, are all pretty much even at the given price.

pair those kits with a fast prime lens (~35 or 50 mm depending on purpose) and i think you'd have more than enough than you were looking for in the beginning.

Thanks for this and all here (or most) for the informative posts. I've been to a couple of local shops -- no real dry run, but at least to have the things in hand, look at the controls, and fire off a few shots. I might do this again this afternoon and make a call.

[Ray]

"Certain" is probably a strong word. I looked at one of the Lumix micro 4/3 cameras (G2, I think) -- really looks intriguing in some ways. If I look at the next camera mostly as a means to address the limitations of the p&s cameras that bug me most, when they do bug me, while keeping weight & cost down, they'd really fit the bill. I guess I've leaned toward the DSLRs on the theory that they'd offer me a little more versatility up front (and resolution and maybe brighter viewfinder) and lots more lens selection (and I still have the little lumix cameras when I just want to grab something).
If you're ok with the size and weight of a DSLR, there's really no downside. To me, THOSE are big downsides, but everyone is different. The m4/3 gets you low-mid DSLR image quality in a much smaller package, but you do pay a small premium for the smaller cameras and arguably a bigger premium for additional lenses. These cameras got me, to my utter surprise, waaaaaaaay back into photography after having been very into it as a kid but doing it only at the family snapshot level for the past 25 years or so. If you used to do any darkroom work, you should get one of the new full-featured software packages like Lightroom or Aperture (Mac only) and your mind will be blown by what you can do at your desk in five minutes that wouldn't have been possible after hours in the darkroom in the film days. Much fun to be had.

Whatever you get, enjoy!

-Ray

[SEABREEZE]

I just purchased this camera. Nice to hear your comments about it.

Kevin g


Just recently purchased the LX5 as well for my sons Birthday, Graduation and Christmas present all rolled up into one , from the recommmendations of Ray. He loves his. Here's a picture he sent me from it.

Should add he as not even read instructions on how to use as of yet, right out of the box and shot


http://lh6.ggpht.com/_BsxClt3TmzM/TQThpGTJapI/AAAAAAAAAqo/m6r_CQ4io1I/s720/P1000003.JPG

[thegunner]

you should get one of the new full-featured software packages like Lightroom or Aperture (Mac only) and your mind will be blown by what you can do at your desk in five minutes that wouldn't have been possible after hours in the darkroom in the film days. Much fun to be had.

Whatever you get, enjoy!

-Ray

djg, i might have an extra LR3 license kicking around from a student package (if you have no qualms about using an educational license outside of it's intended purpose :p)... pm me if you want it and it's yours.

[veloduffer]

Delete

[veloduffer]

I would recommend choosing a mid-level Canon or Nikon. Sony, Panasonic, Pentax, etc. work just as well. The clear advantage of Nikon and Canon are the number of lenses that they offer, as well as 3rd party (Tokina, Tamron, Sigma). And you can save mucho $$ buying used - a great source is your local camera shop or KEH.com. Pros and enthusiasts have used KEH for years and even their "Bargain" grade (cosmetic) looks almost new. Plus they have a great return policy, which offsets the slightly higher cost than eBay.

Don't get caught up in megapixels - it means nothing these days as all cameras have relatively high resolution. Unless you're printing something 3 ft x 4 ft or working for a magazine, 6mp is fine. The big difference in cameras these days is the size of the sensor - DX (digital) vs. FX (full frame like 35mm). But that isn't a concern to you either, since you will be looking at DX.

I'm a Nikon user (D3,D300s and D40x) and use pro and consumer lenses; I've been shooting since I was 12 yrs old. I've used my D40x for vacations with the 18-200 VR and 70-300 VR Nikon consumer lenses. The limitation with consumer lenses is that they can't shoot very well in low light. But they are lightweight and will perform 95% of what you want. Look at Ken Rockwell's site for camera and lense recommendations - very practical. Also bythom.com, who uses Nikons and is a travel photographer that has some common sense advice. As you probably know, you need to shoot often to get good at photography - a $500 carbon fiber hammer won't make you a carpenter and a $5000 camera won't make you Richard Avedon (http://www.richardavedon.com/#mi=1&pt=0&pi=3&p=-1&a=-1&at=-1)!

My strong recommendation is to buy an external flash unit (Nikon SB-600) and a diffuser like the Demb Flip-It (http://www.dembflashproducts.com/flipit/models/). It will make a world of difference on your indoor shots, and eliminate the dreaded "deer in the headlight" look from point & shoot and on-camera flash units.

Also, you might want to buy Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperature to edit your photos.

[palincss]

FWIW, I also have a Panasonic LX5, a high end compact, and except for getting narrow depth of field shots (which is pretty tough with that combination of sensor and lens), its waaaaay more camera in every respect than the last film SLR I shot with 20 years ago or so. Really a pretty remarkable little camera with a very useable zoom range (24-90mm, in 35mm equivalencies), surprisingly good in low light, and its quick on its feet. Great little video cam too. Its all I take a lot of times and I rarely feel its limits.

If you're heart is set on a DSLR and you don't mind the size and weight, I'm not gonna try to talk you out of it - the size and weight are really the only downsides. But unless you're talking high end, you can do just as well with a lot smaller camera today. OK, DPreview mode off.



I'm with you, Ray. Before going digital I spent (wasted) a couple of years looking for a DSLR that felt and handled like the Pentax Spotmatic I've owned since 1967. Then I got a new Velo Orange Randonneur, and wanted to take some pictures of it against a white picket fence.

There happens to be a nice one 2 blocks away, so I loaded up the Pentax with my 55mm macro lens and rode over there. By the time I got back home I realized I didn't want to ride a bike with even as much camera as that little Pentax with just the 55mm macro mounted. And so ended the search for a DSLR that had a feel and controls that I would like.

I got a Panasonic DMC-LX3 instead. Much better choice for carrying on a bicycle, and terrific image quality. The only downsides were nothing longer than 60mm and the view screen washed out in bright sunlight, especially wearing sun glasses. There is the issue of depth of field, but with what's basically a wide-angle camera like the LX3, pretty much large depth of field is what you want anyway.

A couple of weeks ago I gave my daughter the LX3 for Christmas, and replaced it with an LX5 with accessory LVF. This gives me a 90mm telephoto, and that was the tele focal length I was happiest with for the Pentax. Between improvements in the view screen between the LX3 and the LX5 and the LVF, I am hopeful the bright sunlight issue has been resolved. Like the LX3, the size is ideal for carrying on a bicycle, and the controls are perfectly adequate for a high level of creative control. You can save in RAW format and have full creative control over the post-processing as well, should you want it; however I haven't done that, being quite happy with the JPG output.

It's true, it won't give me the image quality of an 8x10 view camera or a 6x6 with digital back; I take many panoramas, and it won't give me anything like the quality of a Seitz 6x17. However, it fits right there in the corner of my Berthoud handlebar bag, taking up no more space and adding no more weight than my wallet and two peanut butter sandwiches. It doesn't cost the earth, it's as much camera as I'm willing to bring on a photo ride, it's almost incalculably better than the Argus C3 I learned on, and it's flexible enough to be good at anything from totally automated point-and-shoot all the way to complete manual control.

I'm not sure going to Micro Four Thirds would help much for a cyclist. The bodies aren't all that much larger than the LX5, it's true, but once you add in the lens (or maybe a few lenses) the size and weight of the load increase tremendously, well beyond my tolerance -- and I'll bet my bikes (low trail, designed to be used with a loaded handlebar bag) are happier with that much load than 90% of the bikes out there.

A full size DSLR with three or four lenses will be even worse, and by the time you get to something serious like a digital 6x6 you're going to need a trailer to carry the load -- which would, of course, give you a place to carry the tripod.

[Ray]

I'm not sure going to Micro Four Thirds would help much for a cyclist. The bodies aren't all that much larger than the LX5, it's true, but once you add in the lens (or maybe a few lenses) the size and weight of the load increase tremendously, well beyond my tolerance -- and I'll bet my bikes (low trail, designed to be used with a loaded handlebar bag) are happier with that much load than 90% of the bikes out there.

I didn't see anything in the initial post about looking for a camera for taking on the bike, but more of a general purpose camera for someone who was once serious about photography and wanted to get back to some place closer to that again. For on the bike, I'd say the Canon S95 or the Panasonic LX5 are the clear choice. They're incredibly good in the kinds of light you're going to encounter on a bike ride, they have all the focal lengths you'd want (my preference is for the wider LX5 here), and they're quite small. The S95 is a bit smaller and is actually comfortable in a jersey pocket. I rigged a tiny little handlebar bag out of an Optech camera pouch for the LX-5. I've taken my m43 on bike rides with an ultra wide angle zoom and its not a problem - you just need a bit larger handlebar bag. But its a limited focal range and its not a camera I'd want to take a hit if I had a mishap on the bike.

But for general purpose shooting off the bike, the LX5 is just one decent choice. There are lots of others, depending on priorities.

-Ray

[pmac]

"Certain" is probably a strong word. I looked at one of the Lumix micro 4/3 cameras (G2, I think) -- really looks intriguing in some ways. If I look at the next camera mostly as a means to address the limitations of the p&s cameras that bug me most, when they do bug me, while keeping weight & cost down, they'd really fit the bill. I guess I've leaned toward the DSLRs on the theory that they'd offer me a little more versatility up front (and resolution and maybe brighter viewfinder) and lots more lens selection (and I still have the little lumix cameras when I just want to grab something).

Either DSLR or micro 4/3 would be great, and as others have said the main thing is to try both and find a camera you're comfortable with. I do have to say though that it just seems more fun to use the G2 than the DSLR: with the latter I feel like I'm doing 'serious' photography, but with the G2 it's just fun photography, and the image quality is pretty much the same unless I want to make a large print (something I haven't done in years).

The electronic viewfinder is actually better in low light, and I think the micro 4/3 is so close to a DSLR in versatility that it makes little difference.

Lens choices are getting better (and right now the choices are already quite good - no tilt/shift is the main thing missing, and you can even do this with a lensbaby set up). One big advantage, which probably won't be obvious until you really start using the camera, is that most people (subjects) are very much aware when you bring out the DSLR, especially if it's got a big (or big and white) lens, but the micro 4/3 camera they almost ignore. Also, for extreme telephoto you can now get a fairly fast 100-300mm zoom (200-600 equivalent for a full frame DSLR) for a small fraction of what a similar lens would cost for the DSLR.

I'd suggest bringing a memory card to the camera store and taking pictures with the different cameras to see just how big a difference in image quality there is. This is a pretty limited test, but could still be useful.

[Ray]

Eit..... image quality is pretty much the same unless I want to make a large print (something I haven't done in years).

Even for large prints, I'd define the terms. I've done lots of A3 prints from both the m43 and even LX5 that look great. At 16x20, the LX-5 still looks very good and its not until 20x30 (which I've just done a few of for experimentation) that the LX-5 starts to lose some quality, but the m43 prints still look great. So unless you're talking about really big gallery sized prints, I don't think you're gonna have a problem with any of the cams under discussion.

-Ray

[pmac]

I'm not sure going to Micro Four Thirds would help much for a cyclist. The bodies aren't all that much larger than the LX5, it's true, but once you add in the lens (or maybe a few lenses) the size and weight of the load increase tremendously, well beyond my tolerance -- and I'll bet my bikes (low trail, designed to be used with a loaded handlebar bag) are happier with that much load than 90% of the bikes out there.


I agree. I took a Panasonic GF1, basically the smallest micro 4/3, on the Bicycle Tour of Colorado last summer. I had the camera in a saddle bag and found that it was just too much trouble getting it out to use it much while on the road. A smaller camera in my jersey pocket would have been much better.

[palincss]

Lens choices are getting better (and right now the choices are already quite good - no tilt/shift is the main thing missing, and you can even do this with a lensbaby set up). One big advantage, which probably won't be obvious until you really start using the camera, is that most people (subjects) are very much aware when you bring out the DSLR, especially if it's got a big (or big and white) lens, but the micro 4/3 camera they almost ignore.

Or, as an alternative to the tilt/shift lens, there's the Perspective tool in PS & GIMP. Along the lines of ignoring the camera, something like the LX5 even more so than the m4/3, especially if the latter has a large lens. It's one reason the LX3 developed such a reputation for Street Photography.

[djg]

I didn't see anything in the initial post about looking for a camera for taking on the bike, but more of a general purpose camera for someone who was once serious about photography and wanted to get back to some place closer to that again.

-Ray

Yep, right on the money. In fact, mostly I don't want to take a camera on the bike at all, and when I go out riding with the kids and want to grab something, I'm happy enough with the Lumix cameras I have already. The LX5 looks cool, and I have no objections to thread drift, but for me this is not about upgrading my pocket camera options.

[rnhood]

If you have the money, the Nikon D7000 is the camera to have. Relatively small for a DSLR, lightweight, outstanding user interface, superb pictures, flash, and virtually limitless options. A first rate camera in every respect. If you don't have the money, and the 7000 is a bit expensive, then the 3100 does really fine too. These cameras are leaders of the pack (or peleton).

[cody.wms]

I see you are in Arlington. Have you thought about renting anything from the Penn Camera downtown on E-St.? It's a good way to figure out if you really like something. You can keep it from 2p Friday until 10a on Monday for the single day rate. Part of the rental fee can be applied to a new camera, if you decide to buy.

[JMerring]

i've had a d90 for a year and love it. just got a 50mm 1.4 prime to go with it and am really enjoying low light flashless photography and a fixed focal length. with the recent intro of the d7000, i'd bet you'll get a really good deal on a d90 after christmas. would free up some cash for a nice lens vs. getting the d7000. d90 is more than enough camera for me but the d7000 looks real nice, too, and ymmv.

[djg]

Thanks again folks. Thinking I might pull the trigger on the D90, maybe today. There's a local shop that's roughly competitive with the better e-mail prices, whether I get the standard kit (18-105 lens) or just the body. I'd like to keep costs down, not because more isn't worth it, but because I'd like to get to know the camera and my habits with it before making greater investments. I'm thinking, however, of spending a little more to get the body plus two lenses. There's an inexpensive (cheap) 55-200 mm VR zoom that's probably not great, but probably handy, relative to the 18-105, for taking pictures of my kids playing hoops or soccer. I could add a 35 mm 1.8 prime without spending much, and those two lenses might give me really good coverage, even if they don't provide a wide-angle option. Any thoughts on the 2 lens combo?

BTW, if any DC-area folks have any thoughts about dealing with Penn Camera, good or otherwise, feel free to post or PM.

[rice rocket]

I have the 35mm f/1.8, it's very good. Sometimes I wish it were a teenie bit wider for indoor stuff, but for $200, I learn to deal. It's the lens that's on my body the most.

I also have the 18-200mm VR f/3.5-5.6 cheater lens, it's super versatile, and it would be my number one choice for a travel lens. It doesn't do anything particularly well, but it's light and will do mostly anything.

That said, Nikon also recently released a 28-300mm as well, which my father has. Haven't gotten a chance to use it, but the extra 100mm up top is a good tradeoff if you don't shoot super wide very often.

[trophyoftexas]

Let me put it this way...

Nikon/Canon = Cannondale/Specialized

Pentax/Olympus = IF/Moots/Serotta/etc

Oh Yeah, Sony = Huffy

Cute but not too sure that it is accurate....except on the "Huffy" part.... :beer: