Wynter wrote:

I'm already checking them out from the link you posted in your previous page.

Cool

littlemissfab wrote:

Have you purchased one already, Beem?

Not a DSLR... I bought a point-and-shoot Canon way back in 2002.

If I ever get my stupid ass over to Japan, I'll definitely buy a DSLR before I go...

I just got a battery grip for my camera. Now I can take vertical shots without twisting my hands.

dochira wrote:

I just got a battery grip for my camera. Now I can take vertical shots without twisting my hands.

Wow, you must have a DSLR to have that kind of option, ne?

bmwracer wrote:

Wow, you must have a DSLR to have that kind of option, ne?

Yup, Nikon D200

dochira wrote:

Yup, Nikon D200

Nice.

I have a Canon Rebel XT that I use in my work - also for fun of course. I forgot to write it off on my taxes.
_________________

^ When I buy my DSLR, it'll definitely be a Canon...

bmwracer wrote:

^ When I buy my DSLR, it'll definitely be a Canon...

I thought that up until about a year ago. I've been shooting with my roommate's XTi and I don't know how I'll be able to go back to my admittedly prosumer P&S. It's a good camera but the kit lens is garbage. I also was shocked that it doesn't have in-camera IS (Image stabilization). I thought everything had this now (I know, I know, the XTi replacement does have IS).

I'm really hoping that the job situation works out this year. If it does, I hope to buy myself a DSLR in the next 12 months. Sure, the canons and nikons are nice, I think I'd be a fool to ignore the Pentax K200, the Olympus and the Panasonics.

Most interesting to me is probably the Panasonic G1 (and now the recently announced G1H that comes with a really sweet kit lens). If you haven't heard about this guy, check out the review on dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/) - it's an amazing camera with a new technology and design philosophy that really makes the other DSLRs look dated. If only Panasonic could up their lens quotient significantly it'd be the only choice for me. The new announced lenses do look really sweet, however!

ooh... I really want one.
_________________

"Actually, I don't have bones. I'm supported
by a system of fluid-filled bladders"

phlargo wrote:

I thought that up until about a year ago. I've been shooting with my roommate's XTi and I don't know how I'll be able to go back to my admittedly prosumer P&S. It's a good camera but the kit lens is garbage. I also was shocked that it doesn't have in-camera IS (Image stabilization). I thought everything had this now (I know, I know, the XTi replacement does have IS).

More times than not, the included kit lens is mediocre at best, but you can't really blame the camera body for that...

I think I'd prefer lens-based IS over camera-based IS... That way, the IS is tuned/adjusted for that particular lens as opposed to a generic, one-size fits all IS...

bmwracer wrote:

More times than not, the included kit lens is mediocre at best, but you can't really blame the camera body for that... I think I'd prefer lens-based IS over camera-based IS... That way, the IS is tuned/adjusted for that particular lens as opposed to a generic, one-size fits all IS...

I agree on both points, and all in all, I'm really enjoying using her camera. That being said, I've never had such beautiful shots turn out with such lifeless colors. The resolution and sharpness (except in certain lighting conditions which embarrass the lens) are quite good and the control afforded by the more advanced system means it'll be almost impossible to go back

Also, the low light autofocus on that camera is terrible. When I took pictures at her party, I had to dump so many because the focus system just failed. Sure, I'm a manual focus fan as much as the next guy, but when you're running around trying to document, those convenience tools are highly appreciated.
_________________

"Actually, I don't have bones. I'm supported
by a system of fluid-filled bladders"

phlargo wrote:

I agree on both points, and all in all, I'm really enjoying using her camera. That being said, I've never had such beautiful shots turn out with such lifeless colors. The resolution and sharpness (except in certain lighting conditions which embarrass the lens) are quite good and the control afforded by the more advanced system means it'll be almost impossible to go back

Yup... One of DSLRs (or SLRs, for that matter) big selling points is versatility with lenses, remotes, flash, etc.

Quote:

Also, the low light autofocus on that camera is terrible. When I took pictures at her party, I had to dump so many because the focus system just failed. Sure, I'm a manual focus fan as much as the next guy, but when you're running around trying to document, those convenience tools are highly appreciated.

No surprise with the autofocus and low light: without enough light and/or contrast, the autofocus system just won't work... Even in bright light, if you were to point the camera at a plain white wall, the camera won't be able to focus on it...

The pros and semipros usually junk the lens anyway. I am looking for a good macro kit actually.
_________________

I probably consider myself to be a mid-to-upper-am(ateur), so I find the kit lenses to be within my price point. Nikons do not have in-body IS, but rather in the lens. But those lens (marked Vibration Reduction) add a premium over similarly non-VR lenses.

When I shoot in low light, I usually have to crank up the ISO level, and I try to use a prime lens (mine is a 50mm) with the aperture open wide. But the downside is that the DOF is really shallow, so it may be focusing on the wrong spot leading to sharp shoulders but blurry faces.

Oh, and the smaller sensor on my Nikon means the 50mm is more like 75mm. I'm looking at getting a 35mm (~52mm) lens.

dochira wrote:

I probably consider myself to be a mid-to-upper-am(ateur), so I find the kit lenses to be within my price point. Nikons do not have in-body IS, but rather in the lens. But those lens (marked Vibration Reduction) add a premium over similarly non-VR lenses.

I think Canon and Nikon are packing kits with better lenses now, since many (including reviewers) have griped about it in the past...

Quote:

When I shoot in low light, I usually have to crank up the ISO level, and I try to use a prime lens (mine is a 50mm) with the aperture open wide. But the downside is that the DOF is really shallow, so it may be focusing on the wrong spot leading to sharp shoulders but blurry faces.

Yeah, but cranking up the ISO increases the noise in the image significantly... And I don't think that helps the autofocus one bit--you'll most likely have to switch to manual focus.

Quote:

Oh, and the smaller sensor on my Nikon means the 50mm is more like 75mm. I'm looking at getting a 35mm (~52mm) lens.

Yeah, the APS sensors yield about a 1.5x focal length multiplication factor...

A coworker has the Canon 5D with the full-size sensor which has no multiplier, but he need to buy the top of the line L-series lenses ($$$) to get the maximum benefit.

bmwracer wrote:

Yeah, the APS sensors yield about a 1.5x focal length multiplication factor... A coworker has the Canon 5D with the full-size sensor which has no multiplier, but he need to buy the top of the line L-series lenses ($$$) to get the maximum benefit.

Actually (this goes back to the point that didn't quote for some reason), Dochira is right on - prime lenses are usually quite fast f/1-1.8 so they're nice and fast for low light but the big opening creates a much shallower depth of field making it harder to focus, even on manual - you gotta get in that narrow range.

But you're right, Beem, ISO ain't going to do nothing for helping autofocus. However, a live preview can 'gain-up' an image to help in manual focus, so you can preview a shot at ISO1600 or something and then actually take the shot at ISO200 or something. I've also found that on the new bigger DSLR sensors, you can often shoot at 400 or even 800 and get a pretty low-noise/minimally sharpened product - they've gotten so much better, it's really amazing. My camera from 4 years ago starts getting really noisy at ISO200, so I take almost all my shots at ISO64 or 100 when I can.

The problem I was describing with the Xti seems to be something that should have been fixed in a firmware patch - it's like it grabs weird background elements instead of faces. I had to do way more sharpening on all of my shots than I ever like to use and probably 30% were completely out of focus - I was just surprised because the autofocus assist lamp on my small FZ-15 handles everything but really tricky lighting conditions or really low light.

I also agree with your assertion about the increase of quality in the kit lenses - they've gotten so much better in the last year or two (they probably had found that everyone was just buying the body-only kit)
_________________

"Actually, I don't have bones. I'm supported
by a system of fluid-filled bladders"

I bought the Olympus e520 a couple of months ago with the kit lenses.

I opted for this make and model since my primary interests are land/sea scapes. After researching, this model came up as best for that purpose withing the parameters of my budget. Yikes, I'm still learning how to use it. Never having had an SLR before this is a brave new world for me.

I downloaded the books DSLR for Dummys and Quick Snap Guide to DSLR photos from BT. Wow so many options.

Here's a sample of a candid shot of my granddaughter. I think I was experimenting with aperture mode when I took this or it may have been in P mode.
http://ralphmoratz.com/misc/Angie1.jpg

phlargo wrote:

I also agree with your assertion about the increase of quality in the kit lenses - they've gotten so much better in the last year or two (they probably had found that everyone was just buying the body-only kit)

If I recall correctly, DPR reviewed the Canon new XSi with a IS kit lens and found it much improved and complemented the camera well...

The sensors in the newer cameras have much lower noise at higher ISO levels. It's amazing. In lower light I have try to crank up the ISO high enough to have reasonable shutter speeds when hand holding (no tripod). Unless I pony up the cash for the lens with large apertures. I only have one wide lens (the 50mm f/1.8). I'm looking to add a 24mm f/2.8 or 35mm f/1.8 to my collection. The other lenses I have are "kit" lenses that have smaller apertures.

dochira wrote:

I only have one wide lens (the 50mm f/1.8).

Which is really a 75mm f/1.8 when you factor in the 1.5 multiplier.