DSLR camera
 

As a follow up to my thread on visiting London, I plan on buying a new DSLR camera before taking that trip. I presently have a "point-and-click" Kodak digital camera that works fine but I want to get back into the SLR game. I want to be able to take pictues in poor light, higher speed situations, up close, etc. I have an old Pentax SLR that has long out-lived it's useful days and needs some repairs. and I certainly do not want to use film any more thus the idea of a new DSLR.

With the new DSLR's on the market and prices dropping, I felt it was time to take the plunge. I have been leaning towards the Nikon D3000 for a couple of reasons. Nikon has always been a respected quality brand, the price is in the range I am willing to pay, and this model seems to have enough features to keep me satisfied.

With all of the DSLR's now available, does anyone have any comments about the D3000, good, bad, or in between????? I do not want to spend thousands of dollars, I just want a good reliable DSLR that will allow me to take a variety of pictures under various conditions.

Wayne

Wayne,
My neighbor has a D3000 and I was looking at it on Saturday. She takes some really nice pictures with it. Overall it has the features that would use, and allows you to do some very simple editing right on the camera. We use a D50 at work for legal issues and the macro on it is much much better, but we need to take high res photos of miniature electronic components. That is the only thing that I thought was lacking in it.

Thanks Joe. The D50 is a better camera but it is also much more expensive. You are basically confirming my assumptions.

Wayne

I'm thinking Sony bought up Minolta, Pentax. So some of the lens (?) fit the Sony's. You may want to look into it Wayne if you have some $$$ already invested with your old Pentax.

Sorry Wayne, it's Konica, Minolta.

http://blog.fotolia.com/uk/archive/001503.html

Wayne...a couple of things.

First...make sure you pack that little point and click. You're not going to want to lug the camera bag or even just the SLR with a good mid-range zoom lens all over the place. You'll find yourself in some crowded places, you'll be buying sh!t for yourselves or for folks back home, etc. (oh yes you will). Keep the little guy with you at all times for candid street shots, etc.

I also had a film Pentax, so i went with the early DLSR Pentax when they came out...all of the attributes of Pentax (generally smaller sized) and the ability to use the lenses and flash from the old SLR.

However, now is a great time to buy a new DLSR, and offerings from either Nikon or Canon are impossible to ignore...

Make sure you get good low-light capabilities...flash is not going to be allowed in most of the bestest places (to protect paintings, tapistries, or because stuff is behind glass...da crown jewels, Rosetta Stone, etc.)

Another option would be a non-SLR big eye camera...since I got my Leica V-Lux, I hardly take the DLSR with me anywhere. All the major brands have something like it. I've taken all kinds of cameras with me to England...the Leica had the ease of a point and shoot with 99% of the capabilities of the DLSR, and it compact enough not to be a major PITA.

Of course, I always keep a Minox in da pocket.

I have a high-end Nikon, so perhaps I'm not the best person to give you advice on the lower end DSLRs, but both Canon and Nikon have a large variety of lenses and other accessories. Both of them make good choices as camera systems if you consider moving up to more lenses or different bodies later. And with Nikon and Canon, you certainly have the option of renting special purpose lenses that you would not want to own due to expense (you can rent from places like Calumet).

If you plan on just picking a camera with a packaged lens and don't plan on adding more latter, then other brands might serve your needs just as well.

Joe made the comment that the D50 is better for macro, but that is mostly a function of the lens, not the camera body. Of course, the entry level DSLRs probably often come packaged with a lens anyway, so perhaps the lens packaged with the D3000 is not as good for macro? You can always buy different lenses.

1ntCobra,
I am not that much of a camera expert, so that is good information for me. Ok fine, I don't really know that much at all. I thought that if the lenses had the same zoom, they were the same. I know that both had the same zoom, but when I compared the macro pictures, the ones I could take on the D50 were better. I know we have 2 lenses (one for indoor and one for outdoor that has a larger zoom), and the whole getup cost almost 2k about 4-5 years ago.

If you don't mind educating me, how can I tell the difference between the 2 when they have the same zoom?

I have a Nikon D50 that I bought 3 or 4 years ago. Takes great pictures and I'm very happy with it.

Now with that said, I'm going to throw out another option.

Last Summer I bought a JVC GZ-HM400 HD video camera. It works as both a video and standard camera. The real nice thing is that even if you are in the video mode, you can still take regular pictures while recording a video.

Just another option for you to consider.

Never really understood why they kept the SLR with digital cameras. (unnessasary since there's no film involved)

You just want through the lens viewfinding (no optical viewfinder). What the lens sees, you see.

Jamo makes a very good point, my Nikon 5200 sees a lot more use than my 8700 (as does my cell phone which gets used the most). The 8700 has the best picture quality because of the lens, but it's bulky.

You really don't need all those lenses anymore if the camera has high resolution, photoshop the image down to what you want, still beats film. The current digitals can beat image quality of the old medium format (2 1/4") film cameras and are rivaling the large format ones.

I'm a little confused by your terminology. You say that you have 2 different lenses, but have the same zoom. Are you saying that the lenses have an over lap in focal lengths and you are using a common focal length for your comparisons. For example, lets take all of these zooms into consideration:

AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED
AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II
AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED
AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II
AF-S DX VR Zoom-NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED
AF Zoom-NIKKOR 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF
AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED

All of the above lenses have a common zoom range of 24-55mm. Lets pick a focal length in that range, 40mm. Do you think that all of the above lenses at that focal length have the same minimum focal distance? I suspect that the minimum focal distance at that focal length (40mm) will determine the maximum magnification (for macro purposes) you will be able to achieve. Do you think they will all be equally sharp at a given magnification and focal length? Do you think the distortion will be equally corrected in all of them in that condition? I suspect that there might be more design trade-offs in say the 18-200mm lens which has a very large zoom range versus say some thing with a more limited zoom range like the 24-70mm (which is more than double the cost of the first zoom).

I never understood why they keep using those big block v8s in Cobra replicas when a Toyota Prius motor will get the job done with better gas mileage. :JEKYLHYDE

Well, I have a 9MP FUJI point and shoot. It works out nice for snapshots, but the small sensor in no way comes close to the 12.1MP full frame sensor on my DSLR. On the point and shoot, if you turn the ISO up to 1000 the noise is awful. On the DSLR, you turn the ISO up to 6400 and you can still make poster size enlargements. I doubt the 9MP point and shoot can make a decent poster sized print at it's lowest ISO setting.

Oh, I see what you mean. You think viewing the picture on the LCD is just as good as an optical viewfinder. That works out OK if you don't mind the sun glare on the monitor and that the monitor on the back of the camera is in no way equal to the resolution you can see thru an optical finder...

I have had two Nikon DSLRs. My first was the first serious one they had - the D100. It got demoted to standby body when I got my D700. The D700 is sold in the Nikon "pro" line and costs about $2500-$3000 for the body (prices are down, I paid $3K) two years ago.

When looking at DSLRs consider the frame size. The D700 has a full frame (24x36mm - same as a 35mm negative) sensor. The D100 has a 1/2 sized sensor. Why does it matter? If you are using a standard lens, let's say a 50mm (which used to be the standard lens for 35mm). On the D700 (and my F2) it's 50mm. With the 1/2 sized sensor the focal length gets multipled by 1.5 so the focal length is 75mm. Nikon has a line of lenses that are "tuned" for the 1/2 frame cameras.

Canon does have more cameras with full framed sensors Nikon.

If you do not have an investment in 35mm camera lenses then you should seriously examine both Nikon and Canon. But remember from that point on your future camera choices will be highly influenced by the lenses you have in your camera bag.

Low light is important and the D700 still is the best in the industry - I do not use flash in most of my pictures. I used to shoot a fair amount of bands (before I stopped going to the local place) and never used flash. ISO 200 - 6400 is all the same. No digital noise.

One of the very nice things about DSLRs over regular Point and Shoot digital cameras is the latency. With a DSLR taking a picture is just like with a 35mm camera - press the shutter and you have a picture. If you had a motor drive on a real 35mm you could go through a full roll of film at 3-4 fps. With a DSLR you will have a buffer memory to flash card latency that will limit you to a smaller burst - typically 8 frames.

P&S cameras have a long latency - I miss more shots with them than you can speak of. Good for static scenes and posed stuff but not very good for fast action.

Sony bought Minolta.All of Minolta's auto focus lenses will fit the Sony bodies.Carl Zeiss is making the lenses for Sony now.Doesn't get better than that.

No, with an SLR there was a mirror that flipped up to expose the film. (which is why your viewfinder went blank. (it was optical - through the lens).

Why not just display the image the CCD or CMOS sensor sees in the viewfinder?

My 8700 does exactly this and looks just as good as the optical viewfinder.

This link has been mentioned in the past before, and it is one of the best sources for information: http://www.dpreview.com/

You can pick several models and compare features side by side.

Mike

Absolutely correct. I visit it at least every couple of days and their forums are more helpful than any anywhere (no off topic stuff at all!)

Instead of dslr, look at the new breed of digitals like the Four Thirds or the NX-10. All the advantges of the digital, and use all of your DS:R lenses.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1001/10010402samsungnx.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0911/09...olympusep2.asp

I bought the 4/3 with an adapter to use all of my K mount lenses, and it is wonderful, and easy to use. Great clarity, light weight, and intuitive controls.

Sorry for the delay, been a busy couple of days for me. I was meaning that the D50 at work and the D3000 my neighbor have both had lenses that are 18-55mm. Like I said, I really don't know much about cameras. I know how to use the one at work to get really high res pictures of small electronic components, but beyond That I am lost. When I tried to do the same with her D3000, the picture was not quite as good. I assumed it was the same lens since it was 18-55 just like at work. I see you listed 2 different ones so I am assuming that is the difference from what you posted previously.