dSLR owners here?

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

I've been a photography enthusiast for over 20 years (off and on) and relied on my trusty Olympus OM2s SLR with Zuiko lenses and Kodachrome 64 or 200 for most of that time. In Feb. of this year I bought an Olympus SP-500 digicam just to get my feet wet into digital. I also felt that the time was not right to sink money into a dSLR, as the technology was progressing so rapidly. I think I made the right decision. Had I sprung for something at that point, I may well have ended up with a Nikon D-70 or something along those lines--a very good camera, but, at 6MP, not really competitive with the latest offerings, and not sufficient for making large prints.

After a few thousand shots with the SP-500, I'm still happy with it for general use and will retain it as a backup, but it certainly has its limitations; It is sloooooooow as all hell at times; has a small sensor which is prone to noise; the longer focal lengths incur focusing problems; and, as 6 MP, is not suitable for very large prints.

I really like the rugged, waterproof body of the Nikon D-200 / 300, but it is a bit expensive at this point. The D-80, Oly E-510, and Canon 40D are also on my list at this point, although I have my reservations about the Olympus 4/3 system. I photograph mostly landscape, nature, macro, architecture, aviation, and the like. I have zero interest in studio or people photography.

What do you own, and more importantly, how satisfied are you with the system (e.g., Nikon, Canon, Olympus) you bought into? I've read a lot of reviews, discussions online, but I am curious to know what you guys here are using and what your thought are.

[Dungeon Master]

I have had my Nikon D70 for two years now, and am absolutely crazy about it. It is rugged and very versatile/customisable.

With the D70, although at the lower end of the market for dSLRs, the limiting factor in my photographs is clearly me, not the camera itself.

Of course, you must remember that a camera body is simply a light-tight box, with a few settings and controls. The quality of the image you capture depends much more on on composition and your choice of lens. While the D70 kit lens is OK for snapshots, very early on I invested in a few (select) lenses - my favourite being the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 - an absolute cracker of a portrait lens. My point being that if you intend to get into dSLR photography, you should budget on may more times the camera body cost in lenses. If you don't, there is very little point in getting into dSLR photography. In many respects, the choice of camera body is the least important decision. Once you have bought a few lenses, (usually either Nikon or Canon) you are then fairly committed to that brand of camera body, as replacing all the lenses will be a very expensive exercise.

Of course, there are some other advantages of dSLRs - instant on, virtually no shutter lag, and a large sensor giving less noisy images.

My advice is to buy a relatively cheap dSLR body (Canon or Nikon - both are OK) and then use the money you save in not buying a more expensive body to buy some quality lenses.

I've never found the 6 mega pixels limiting - it easily blows up to A4 size, and I never print photos any bigger.

[Sergeant Rock]

What do you own, and more importantly, how satisfied are you with the system (e.g., Nikon, Canon, Olympus) you bought into? I've read a lot of reviews, discussions online, but I am curious to know what you guys here are using and what your thought are.

My first SLR was a Canon FTb. A few years later I bought a Canon F-1 and I still own that indestructable panzer of a camera. But I wanted something lightweight to carry around (I love street photography) so bought into the OM system in the early 80s. Still have my OM-2n and OM-4...and now an Oly E-300 dSLR:





The reasons I bought the Oly E-300:

1) The E-300 came with two kit lenses, covering the 35mm range of 28 to 300, and both superior to the single kit lenses Canon and Nikon offered on their entry level dSLRs.

2) I spent three years in photo forums before I bought my first dSLR. I preferred the results I saw from the Oly cameras: more pleasing color, more film like images. I was especially impressed by the people shots. The Oly seemed to have less problems than Canon and Nikon (no focus issues, no quality control issues, etc). The cameras seemed to be more rugged. There was far less "bitching" about the Oly than complaints I read in the Nikon, Canon and Fuji forums from their owners.

3) The dustbuster. I've never had to clean my sensor.

4) Everyone agreed that the jpegs straight out of the Oly cameras were superior to Canon and Nikon. In other words, far less post-processing required to get a pleasing image. I have to do very little digital darkroom work with my E-300.

5) I'm a lover of the telephoto lens and the 4/3rds sensor gives me 50 to 100 percent more reach than with a comparable lens on an apc-s or full frame sensor from other manufacturers. But the wide end isn't overlooked. Oly has a 7-14mm, 11-22 plus a fisheye.

6) Digital Zuikos are made specifically for the sensor and give outstanding corner to corner sharpness. The legacy glass of other manufactures, made for 35mm film, don't perform as well.

7) You can buy an adapter that will let you use your old Zuikos (manual focus only) plus adapters for just about any other manufactures lenses. Oly users are shooting with Nikon glass, Minolta, etc.

There's something mystical about Olys 

Downsides:

1) Noise at 800iso and above is more noticable than with the ultra smooth Canons (but the 510 has largely corrected that problem).

2: Autofocus is slower than the competition and in dim light can be a real problem (the upcoming E-3 promises to correct that, claiming to be the fastest autofocus in the business)

3) Very few affordable primes....I really miss having a fast, dedicated portrait lens. The 50mm F2 Macro will do (100mm equivalent) but has a tendency to slip into the macro mode if one isn't careful...which slows down focusing because the elements have to travel so far.

4) It's damned ugly 

But really, any modern dSLR will give you great pictures. You can't go wrong with Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Fuji or Oly. I'll probably buy the Oly E-3 next year (the in-camera-body stabilization feature is one I really want)...but that Nikon D300 looks mighty fine too.

Sarge

[MishaK]

I literally just went digital two weeks ago. My main reason actually was environmental. Digital photography has a considerably lower environmental impact as you do away with all the chemical runoff from the film development process. Also, the more I upload to my blog, the more I dread tediously scanning slides and negatives.

I bought a Canon 40D and upgraded from my previous EF 75-300mm USM lens to the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM. I mostly shoot birds, landscapes and occasionally aircraft. This lens was recommended to me by many avid birders as the best for bird photography. So far I have been ecstatic about my new purchase. The added focal length is amazing and the image stabilizer is a godsend when operating in the field without tripod. It doesn't make up for bad technique, but it gives you another f-stop or two. The 40D is an amazing piece of machinery. I haven't yet drawn on its full potential, but the AF is super fast, will hold on to a moving subject without problems even against a busy background and the new 10.1 megapixel self-cleaning sensor is brilliant. I can blow up and crop pictures that on my old EOS 300 would have been useless. The 6.5fps burst capability is also great for moving subjects.

I can't say that I have compared manufacturers and models, and I will admit a certain bias in favor of Canon, but I reckon that the 40D is now the best available in the mid-range dSLR market in terms of its features and image quality. For some examples of my recent photography, see my last two posts of bird photos on my blog:

http://tonicblotter.blogspot.com/2007/10/grus-canadensis.html

http://tonicblotter.blogspot.com/2007/10/amazing-red-tails.html

No post-processing in any of these beside slight cropping and resizing for posting. I still have a ways to go to get my technique up to speed. Some of those Hawk photos are way too soft, as I was shooting vertically overhead and wasn't very steady. The photos of the Merlin and the Sharpie are photographically crap, but that's my fault. They were very highly cropped and probably shouldn't have been posted, except that I wanted a record of the sighting.

Then again, one can take quite decent pictures with far less expensive equipent as well. The following were taken with my old analog EOS 300 and the cheap IF 75-300mm USM lens on Fuji Sensia 100 slide film, scanned with a Nikon film scanner, but with considerable post processing to adjust colors, brightness and contrast:

http://tonicblotter.blogspot.com/2007/10/birds-of-southern-california.html

This guy also uses the 40D 100-400mm IS lens combo that I now have (and he has far superior technique to my amateurish self - really shows the potential of this lens-camera combo):

http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/

Ultimately, what you should get will depend on what you want to do with the equipment, how you work and what your subject is. It may make sense to browse forums dedicated to the sort of photography you do (e.g. airliners.net for aviation photography is probably second to none - I found advice for the stuff I wanted to do on birdforum.net).

[Catison]

For last Christmas, I got a Digital Rebel XTi (Canon 400D), and I absolutely love it.  I don't take very good pictures yet, as I am still feeling out the camera and trying to get some technique.  I should probably take a class.

I just got a new lens, which will be arriving tomorrow.  It is the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.  I needed a better zoom lens than the kit lens.  I also have a prime lens for portraits.

How did you guys learn about photography?  Did you take classes?

[MishaK]

I just got a new lens, which will be arriving tomorrow.  It is the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.  I needed a better zoom lens than the kit lens. 

Excellent multi-purpose lens. That one came with my 40D kit.

How did you guys learn about photography?  Did you take classes?

No. Just learning by doing. I am reading two good books on wildlife/bird photography at the moment, though.

[Sergeant Rock]

How did you guys learn about photography?  Did you take classes?

My main interest is shooting people. I learned through a combination of 1) trial and error...which in the film days meant a lot of wasted money, much frustration and unhappy models  2) reading books about portrait, street, and glamour photography  3) taking classes in developing and darkroom techniques (I had my own darkroom for about ten years).

I do feel I was born thirty years too early. Looking back at the opportunities I had--and missed because of a lack of money--makes me weep. With digital you can shoot all day and it doesn't cost you a cent beyond the intial cost of the equipment and a good graphics program.

Sarge

[MishaK]

(I had my own darkroom for about ten years).

Let me guess... then it was removed to make room for the CD/LP collection?

[XB-70 Valkyrie]

Wow, some very interesting and knowledgeable photographers here. It's really a tough call for a first-time dSLR buyer, as all the major systems have a lot to offer. I think that above and beyond the camera itself, the system one buys into is the most important decision. As was mentioned, after you own a couple lenses and accessories, it is difficult and costly to buy into another system.

I like what I've been reading about the Olympus SLRs (e.g., the E-510) a great deal, and the camera is quite affordable. However opinion seems evenly split as to whether the smaller sensor size is much of a disadvantage. Some argue that larger sensor = less noise, period, while others seem to think the situation a bit more complex.

[MishaK]

Wow, some very interesting and knowledgeable photographers here. It's really a tough call for a first-time dSLR buyer, as all the major systems have a lot to offer. I think that above and beyond the camera itself, the system one buys into is the most important decision. As was mentioned, after you own a couple lenses and accessories, it is difficult and costly to buy into another system.

I like what I've been reading about the Olympus SLRs (e.g., the E-510) a great deal, and the camera is quite affordable. However opinion seems evenly split as to whether the smaller sensor size is much of a disadvantage. Some argue that larger sensor = less noise, period, while others seem to think the situation a bit more complex.

From what I understand, in the mid-pricerange at the moment the EOS 40D's sensor is the best, being brand new and all. Also keep in mind that while the general quality of different systems may be comparable, not all offer the same amount of compatible accessories. There is just vastly more stuff out there for the Canons and Nikons than for the others. Again, I would try to get input from people who produce the sort of photographs you'd like to be making, rather than a random disparate assortment like us here.

[Sergeant Rock]

Let me guess... then it was removed to make room for the CD/LP collection?

Not exactly. What happened was: In the late 80s I was transferred from Germany to Fort Hood Texas. Mrs. Rock had much time invested in a career in Germany so she stayed. I had a studio apartment in Texas; she lived with her parents. There was no room for the equipment so I sold it with the intention of buying new and better after I retired. But we were paying off two cars and a house by then; buying new photo equipment had to wait. By the time we were mortage free, digital photography had arrived, making a physical darkroom obsolete. I don't miss the chemicals...or the expense.

Sarge 

[Sergeant Rock]

Wow, some very interesting and knowledgeable photographers here. It's really a tough call for a first-time dSLR buyer, as all the major systems have a lot to offer. I think that above and beyond the camera itself, the system one buys into is the most important decision. As was mentioned, after you own a couple lenses and accessories, it is difficult and costly to buy into another system.

I like what I've been reading about the Olympus SLRs (e.g., the E-510) a great deal, and the camera is quite affordable. However opinion seems evenly split as to whether the smaller sensor size is much of a disadvantage. Some argue that larger sensor = less noise, period, while others seem to think the situation a bit more complex.

I've no time to go into it deeply now (we're on our way to a birthday party....Mrs. Rocks') but I'll get back to you. Bottomline: noise is only a problem (but a rather minor one with the new generation Olys) above ISO 800. But if you shoot often in low light and want the best image quality, buying a Canon would make more sense. But it really isn't that simple. More later.

Sarge

[Harry]

I bought a very small Leica digital camera, which is working fine, but soon I will need a bigger one with some good lenses on it, especially wide angle lenses, which are very expensive indeed. And more to the point, I don't see the through the bush anymore, to many trees....
Would not know where to start, what camera, which lenses. fully automatic apart from the focus, would be nice. don't like experimenting.
Take a lot of pictures of buildings, castles and interior shoots. A telelens is of no much use to me, so I have to invest in wide angle....

[Harry]

But it really isn't that simple. More later.

Sarge

Yes, see, I thought so, woe be me.......

[Montpellier]

I'm about to get a D70 as I have a few Nikon AF lenses.  I understand the electronics are basically the same as in the D50 with a few blocked out in the latter so you know you're getting less. 

The delay has been my preference for against-the-sun shots (contre-jour) that, it's been said, can damage the CCD - something I have to check up.  It'll be difficult moving away from Kodachrome but that looks like its on the way out anyway.  I still have a couple of 25ASA in the fridge and never found another film that produced quite the delicacy of result.  Still, one must move on.....

[Catison]

Now I've got Paul Simon in my head again.