SLR camera debate

[pegleglooker]

Hey all,
My favorite type of camera's is a SLR and I think it's time to start looking for a new one. I'm looking for one that can have interchangeable lens'. My question to all is what is the best for the least amount. I don't want to spend more that $300 to $400 for the body and no more than $200 to $300 for the lens or lens'.What is everyone's opinion on who makes the best, and what is the best combo...
Thankx in advance
PLL

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[-Jones-]

Hey PLL,

Once upon a time I had a complete darkroom, bought a Nikon FM2 with 4 lenses, a 28mm (wide angle), 50mm, 135mm, and a 75-300mm zoom and developed black & white film. IMO, the FM2 was tops, in that it is a complete manual SRL 35mm camera. You have to set the aperture opening, shutter speed & adjust the focus with each shot.

I sold off my darkroom set-up years ago and currently have my FM2, 4 lenses, & electronic flash listed on ebay under the heading

Nikon FM2 SLR body, 4 lenses, vivitar electronic flash

The high bid is currently about 72 bucks but I expect (it better) the winning bid to be much higher, but who knows

Bidding ends wednesday march 5 around 6p.

 

[pegleglooker]

Sounds great but I'm looking for something a little easier.. I'm just a novice now

But Thankx
PLL

 

[gollum]

Hey Buddy,

Just pick up a digital SLR. You can get a good deal on a Pentax istDS now.

Best-Mike

 

[JOe L]

I use the Canon Digital RebelXT and Love it. Easy to use and the only thing I did was trade out the lens that came with it for one a bit better. Also added a second battery to it. Highly recommended.

 

[Hemisteve]

Hi Pegleg,
You did'nt mention wether you wanted a 35mm film or a digital.
I have alway bought Canons. A digital SLR is pricey although the newer power shots are'nt too bad and can do close to what a SLR can do.
For example, I have a power shot G6 which is full auto, but can go all manual for your own set ups. It does not have changable lenses. I bought this camera for the wifey so she could point and shoot and have been using it instead of my older ones.

If you are looking for a 35mm film camera, I have Two Canon AE-1, 4 Lenses, 2-Flash, 1 Auto winder and Misc. I am looking to sell soon. These older Canons are very easy to use.
Need to help pay for my new MXT.
I will give you first dibs if you are interested.

PM me if you want
Steve

 

[rwsnc]

I have a Nikon D70. The prices have come down on Nikon SLRs and I think you can get a Nikon D40 from for around $400.00. Of course, Canon makes excellent products too.

 

[Capefearsman]

I have had a D70 and currently have a EOS 30D, I love my Canon but had issues with Nikon D70. Although you can't buy the 30D for your budget but can get the Rebel for the amount you want to spend.

 

[rwsnc]

I have had a D70 and currently have a EOS 30D, I love my Canon but had issues with Nikon D70. Although you can't buy the 30D for your budget but can get the Rebel for the amount you want to spend.

Sorry to hear that you had problems with the D70. Overall, I really don't think anyone can go wrong with a Nikon OR a Canon. If it was available today, I wouldn't by a D70, though. The newer models have larger LCDs, just to name one of the improvements.

 

[Staci (Fargo ND)]

I have two SLRs...a Canon 30D and a Sony Alpha A100. The canon was quite a bit more expensive (when new), but I really like the Alpha better. I know both of these are out of the range you wanted to pay, and I'm posting because the Alpha will come out less expensive than other, lower priced cameras with the addition of lenses. Here's why:

The camera (the sony) itself is about 500-600 used now. Normally, you would buy your camera, and then one or two lenses to start. Lenses are usually the more expensive park of the system, especially if they have any sort of anti shake technology built into them. Sony bought out Minolta, and the A100 is based on the Minolta system...and therefore uses any auto focus Minolta lens!

I bought an older Minolta SLR film camera that came with 5 lenses, and they have all fit and worked fine on my new D-SLR Alpha, which has anti shake built right into the body (very handy when your hands are shaking after you pull out something good! ) The older camera and all five lenses cost 80 bucks at a pawn shop, which is pretty normal because it was a film camera.

The Canon is so much more limited for me, because I can only afford a couple lenses for it :P It's not a perfect comparison since you're looking at a less expensive camera, but the lens prices will be in the same range no matter the camera. As far as I know, none of the other D-SLRs will take any of the older lenses without sending the lens in for upgrades etc. and some manufacturers completely change the mount so none but the very newest lenses will even go on.

I'm definitely NOT saying anything against any of the Nikon, Canon etc cameras, I'm just looking at this from my experience. I couldn't afford to spend much on my camera, and am extremely happy I chose my Sony because I can pick up a lens for a fraction of the price, and the camera is very high quality...definitely matches the higher priced ones as far as the images coming out of it go.

PM if you want me to send a couple pics

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

It's also going to depend on what you want your SLR to be able to do.

I am a photography nut (have been for years), so I am probably NOT the right person to talk to, since I now own 11 different cameras, and I have my own darkroom.

However, putting that aside, you should decide what you want your SLR to do to begin with. By that, I mean, besides having interchangeable lenses, do you want completely manual, completely auto, a combination of both, a continuous shoot option or would be settle for individual shooting, back light capabilities, timer, etc.

Those are the types of questions you should ask and answer first.

B

 

[kshollywood]

NIKON is the best, why do you think they are more expensive than the Cannons? I shot only Nikons and will ONLY shoot NIKONS because they are the best. I shoot a Nikon d2h and D70 and love both of them. Cannons are OK but the reason more people shoot them is because they are so much less expesive than the NIKONS. Just my opinion!!!

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

I think that it is not all price, frankly. Nikon's are great - and I have one. I've had others.

It all comes down to what that Nikon has. Some are buildable, so to speak, you can add filters, different lenses, etc., some are a combination of manual and automatic, some are just manual, some are just automatic. The Canon tends to the less buildability, but is easily checked to see if your aperture is correct, if your light is correct, if you want back light, you have one setting.

For a person who wants to be able to catch a drop of water that has fallen from a waterfall, they are not going to look for the same item as the person who wants to point and shoot. Canon does have a nice little array of changes you can make on each individual picture.

I think the issue is usability - I don't know anyone who wants to use my Nikon - everything has to be set - you are not going to take an "off the cuff shot", like your grandson falling into the swimming pool.

But, I think that is the very reason that people buy BOTH, a all-around camera, and then a more concentrated to certain types of shots camera.

Like I said, I have 11 cameras. I use them all. Some have an all-around film in them, some have a high speed film in them, some are set up for black and white, (black and white and the variations of that are my favorite) some are set up for "quick, get that picture" (all-auto), some I can take pictures at night without a flash, one goes to my tripod, with a very hefty lens, one is set up to go on my enlarger, in case I want to remake a negative, one is set up for slides.

Its all in what you like, how important your pictures are, how "in" to photography - and cameras are a little like cars - not everyone wants a Chevy (or GMC or whatever).

You have found what you like - enjoy!!

B

 

[kenley]

Since 35mm are going out of vogue, I would make the pawn shops and do some serious dickering.
I, too was worried about the complexness of the manuel 35 compared to the "automatic". I went for the manual with the theroy that you have to learn how something works in order to use it well. I have never regretted the decision.

 

[Frankn]

Well, it's been a long trip through photography from wedding shooting, sport car shooting and now fine art photography. I started out in the 50's with an old Exacta as my first SLR. I moved on to Nikons and am now using Canon. I am not brand loyal. I go for sharpness and reliability. My canon is ten years old. I can get a perfect 16x20 print from 6MP. With the fast evolution of interchangability of lenses. The SLR may be going out of style. I am now looking for a camera that is small, light and has the ability to change lenses. The Sony Alpha NEX-3&5 look good. As soon as all three of their lenses are available I will try them out.

P.S. 10/7/10-I just read the latest on the Sony NEX 3&5. The best deal would probably be to get the NEX5 with the 16 mm F/2.8 lense and wait for the next lense which is supose to be a longer lense [telephoto]. The NEX5 has a magnesium alloy front which will be more durable. The 3 cost $599 with lense, while the 5 cost $699 with lense. They both have the APS-C CMOS chip which is about one down from full 36mm size. They both have built in dianamic range and auto stitching mural settings. You won't out grow this camera.

​

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

My youngest son just got one of those Sony like yours. He loves it - and says the same thing - it does more than what he needs it to do.

I worry about the "going away" of film cameras.

First, there are still many publications that will not take digital photos. (they think they are too manipulatable - compliments of photo editors), but,
what I'm concerned about is the ability to do what you can do in your darkroom with negatives. There are things I can do in a darkroom setting that I can do with a photo editor, including bringing out colors much better, bringing subjects forward and backgrounds further back - etc.).

It's the very reason why I have so many darned cameras. Turning a color photo into a black and white is not the same as taking a picture in black and white. Sepias are different on a photo editor than they are in a darkroom. (assuming you know what you are doing). And, I love the fact that I can control how long I can develop, and can develop one part more or less than another - I love all the stuff you can do with negatives.

I have printed out pictures from a digital, made a negative, and then worked with it - but, it is much more work, without the sharp lines you need to pick out and highlight, if you want to. Of course, this has a lot to do with how many pixels your digital is capable of. And, I have had
folks ask me to make enlargements with negatives from digital photos, and, if you don't have the pixels, you are considerably limited to what
kind of quality you can get. And, just a note for all digital owners - forget how much your camera can enlarge "electronically". Digital zoom is nothing. Look for a camera that has good optical zoom and good pixel count if you think you ever want to enlarge your photos.

Beth

 

[Frankn]

Beth: My house burned down 11 years ago and I almost cried. I lost all of my negatives and prints from all the way back to the 50's, Not to mention all my Nikon bodies and lenses. Now I look at it as a blessing in descise. I was forced into the digital age. I use an old Canon 10D which is only 6MP, but I produce perfect 16X20 fine art prints. I use Elements 6 at present and Painter 9.5. I have a HP 130 design jet 24" printer. My usual paper is Arches or other fine art watercolor 140# paper. I can do so much more in digital than I could have done in chemical and I did just about everything there was to do in chemical. I can separate items in an image and work on them separately in different layers which makes it so much easier and versatile.
I am now blending photography with pyrography and painting with some fantastic results. My subjects range from Civil War to old Paris street seams from the 1890's and everything in between and after. I will probably get the NEX5 after the longer lens is introduced. Looks like I ran on a little to much again! Frank

​

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Frankn,

I empathize - ours burned down on May 23, 1989. (but who can remember?).

I lost it all too. And I did cry.

And I could not, would not ever consider it a good thing for my camera/photography "enterprise". I have digital cameras. I have more than one, I have 4. I also have 11 slr cameras, and old Brownie (Roy's, actually-that survived because it was in an outbuilding), and I have re-done my entire dark room equipment.

The things you can do with a digital on a good editor is the very reason why some companies will not buy digital photographs. Because I can be Mr. Spock in Star Trek with my digital and a photo editor, is the very reason why I will continue to use film cameras as long as my buyers want them. (I sell photographs).

It all depends on - like I said before - what you want to do with your equipment. If you want to sell to people who have to prove that a photo has not been retouched - you will not get that without a negative. Period. Now, eventually, they will probably figure out a way to guarantee an original, un-retouched photo, but, until they do, I will take my digital camera where ever I go, and will continue to keep all my other cameras,
all loaded with different types of film, from color and black and white, to several different speeds of both.

Regardless, there are things that you cannot do with a digital. Proving an original is one of them.

Just recently, I heard a neighbor fire her wedding photographer - do you know what her words were? She said: If I wanted digital photos, I would let my friend take pictures. That's why I wanted a professional.

Beth

 

[Frankn]

Beth: I have never looked back since going to digital, but then again I am in fine art photography. I could not stand wedding photography any longer so I bailed out of that even though it is a real money maker. I use to sell to TV stations, but everyone is giving it to them for free. There are machines that will convert digital to photo, and there is a device that Nikon makes that can tell if the digital image has been altered. As far as what you can do, digital far out stripes chemical. I have compaired sepia images with an old friend who loved chemical. He is now converting to digital. I am helping him learn Elements. My latest images mix sepia and and the old blue dye process using digital. I will try to present an image, but I will have to lower the pictal count to show it here.
They were orignally B/W photos. They look a heck of a lot better at 11"x17" at 700pictals, but it gives you an idea of the blend. I will add one of my favorites which is a glass cube, actually a laser beam spliter.

​

 

[mrs.oroblanco]

Frankn,

NICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not my kind of photos - but, heck, there is a place for all of us. I'm not crazy about wedding photog, either. If you've done it, no need to explain why.

I really like the horses - I like what you've done with it. Frankly, some of my favorite photos of my own are not of the type I have sold. (that would figure, huh?) Actually, my very favorite photo I sold, but my next two favorites I have never tried to sell - just because I wasn't taking them for sale. If I can dig through the photos I will post them down the road in a few months. It was of water - one was a medium sized falls, in Ontario, with fast film and a little playing around, which came out with 6 or 7 different grades - from rushing water on the bottom part, to single
droplets as it went to the top of the photo. I blew that one up. The other one was when we were building our house after our fire. My son bought me a camera, and so did the other two kids, and so did Roy, to replace some of the ones I had. (I think they know me very well). We had gone to work, and since the furnace wasn't finished in the house, when we got home (we had left the water dripping), it had made a stalagmite in the sink, frozen in different hardneses up to the faucet, which was still dripping and liquid. It made a really interesting picture, and became one of my favorites.

I think that's why I like yours - they have several different aspects to them, and that is something you just cannot do when someone needs evidentiary photos. (and is certainly limited during weddings, etc). I've been lucky enough to also be able to sell some to quite a few treasure magazines, because I take a lot of photos of old mining towns, etc, and, quite often, people will write an article, but not have pictures to go with them, so most of the treasure mags will ask, so they have photos to include. (they don't pay a whole lot for them, depends, of course, on size, how many, etc., but its money). I had a 2 page spread of a lake in Canada (Francis Lake) in the Yukon (it was one of Roy's stories),
and, I almost fell over when they made it a centerfold - the check was a whole lot better!

I appreciate you posting yours - I do love interesting photography.

Beth