Camera & Lense Recommendation

[i have crabs]

i sold my sony dsc-r1 to stinky and pre ordered my sony alpha with the telephoto lense and caring bag for $1750.00 so i shoud get it between the 6th and the 10th of july

[TheReefGeek]

It will be interesting to see how their first DSLR performs.

Pretty cool specs with 10 megapixel, built-in anti-shake, anti-dust vibration.

Only thing is it was developed so quickly, just one year after acquiring konika minolta.

Comparison review of Sony A100, Nikon D70s, and Canon RebelXT here:

http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/A100vsD70svsXT.shtml

[kwirky]

don't go with the fuji s9000, or the sony. Get a real DSLR. The fuji's "super ccd" is not really that super, and the "SLR" sony has a HORRIBLY small CCD.

And if you want to do macro photography, you can look into getting an extension tube. Much cheaper than a macro lense, and great to start off with. Maybe $100 canadian, compared to a good $1000 macro capable lense. Remember when buying your camera, too. It's only as good as the lense. For every $500 you spend on your camera, spend $250 on your lense. May sound expensive, but remember. That lense will still be worth $500 five years from now, while your camera won't

And yeah, I agree: go solid state rather than a microdrive. Microdrives are slow and have huge fail ratios.

here's a good site. http://www.dpreview.com

[TheReefGeek]

Thanks Kwirky, I have decided to get an actual DSLR, I am now torn between the D70s, and waiting for the Sony Alpha, because the Sony has anti-shake build into the camera body, and although it isn't a huge deal, the bump from 6 to 10 megapixel would be nice. And the anti-dusty technology in it will be cool.

[shadowboy]

After going to the store and testing out the s9000 and the sony, i found them to be uncomfortable to handle and the EVFS a pain to look through. I have decided in the end to gt and SLR probaly going to pick the olympus e-500 tommorow, still torn between it and the nikon d50. SLRs are probaly better in the long run because you can grown into your camera instead of growing out of it (in the case of the s9000) Always more lenses to buy, flashes etc.
Also does anyone have a D50 of E-500? IF you do,give me soem dirt on it. I've read every review to be written on them, and am still undecided, which camera is better?

hope ypu find a camera for yourself
tb

[TheReefGeek]

You really have to choose which lenses you are going to buy along with the camera body in order to compare them.


Some interesting reading here:

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...57&forum_id=36

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...id=00EfX1&tag=

[Old Guy]

I own the Olympus E-300 which is the predecessor of the 500. While it is a great camera and takes super pics with very little if any post stuff, I would recommend you think of lens's first. You will find that fast quality len's are expensive regardless of maker. Camera body's will change but the glass will be transferable. Olympus glass is as good as it gets but the cheaper kit len's is slow and will hunt to focus alot in lower light. Not able to macro either. The 50mm Macro len's is $630+tax.

Nikon has a greater assortment of glass but I suspect you will need to buy additional lens asap with the D50. Kit len's usually won't cut it. Also expensive but you can get other makers such as sigma for cheaper fast lens's.

Figure out your photo needs. Find out what lens works best for you to achieve your needs and go from there.

[shadowboy]

Great thanks for those sites, they have gave me a pretty clear answer, so Im gonna get the olympus and Will get back to you on it.
tb

[TheReefGeek]

My concern for the e-500 is the lack of high-end ISO capability. High iso with low noise is one of the major defining characteristics of digital vs film SLRs.

That and the lack of anti-shake in either the body, or the lenses.

But you do get a better anti-dust seal with the e-500.

Like the reviews said, buy the lenses carefully and you will be happy with any of them.

[kwirky]

yeah, I bought a DSLR before a film SLR, then learned the basics of aperature, shutter speed, iso, etc. Then I moved on to a film SLR. went with canon because I had already bought a couple basic lenses for my digital rebel. Now, the guys at the camera store gave me an AWESOME deal on my film camera. I got the camera below cost, and a kick ass lense at cost. They were clearing out the last of their 35mm's. I slapped that new lense on my DSLR and wow. Big difference

the funny thing is, my film camera, which I only paid $300 for, has features $10,000 DSLR's don't have. It tracks my eyeball to figure out where to focus. I look where I want to focus. Actually, it's more like I just think where I want to focus, it works so well. Canon Elan 7NE. Nice film camera.

yeah, dust inside a DSLR sucks. I've had to clean my rebel's CCD twice now. It's not hard, but it makes me nervous every time I have to do it. And high-iso grain sucks in digital, too. film grain looks good. digital grain looks like crap.

I've used 4x5 view cameras, where grain = non-existant .oO(call me spoiled)

One thing I'm leary about still with sony is lense availability. You can get some VERY good lenses used if you shop around, but only with major brands like Canon, Minolta, or Nikon. I'd choose a brand where the lense market is already flooded so you can reap the pre-owned savings.

Or get a REAL camera http://www.thecamerastore.com/Produc...roductID=25457 lol
this is my next camera I'm buying, along with a whackload of pre-owned darkroom equipment so I can do stuff at home instead of at school.