Luke

Going to get one. Will be S/Hand . What to get and pros and cons???

Anyone??

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

The bad news is that, if you want a s/h Canon DSLR, you have only one sensible choice: the EOS D30.

The good news is that the D30 is a fantastic camera. The picture quality is superb, with no excuses needed for its 'mere' 3 megapixel resolution. It makes excellent prints at least up to A4, with loads of detail (provided that your lenses are up to the job) and extremely low noise. I'll send you some example photos, if you like.

There's quite a few on eBay, and they seem to go for just under the £1000 mark, at which point they're terrific value given that they were almost twice that new just a year ago. Look out for cameras that include the battery grip BG-ED3 (it makes the camera much more comfortable to hold, especially with large lenses). Third party batteries generally work well and are much cheaper than the silly-price Canon originals.

Budget for a good lens or two as well - the 28-135IS is an excellent all-rounder and the image stabiliser works very well. Also look at the 50mm f/1.8 lens which is fast, sharp and cheap. If your budget will stretch to it, all three Canon 70-200L lenses are well regarded, and the 100-400L IS is excellent. For the wide end, the Sigma 15-30 is a good value alternative to the Canon 16-35L.

Andy.

Luke

Andy

Cheers

I'm a "EOS:1V" body man...But I use a Non SLR G2. The main reason for going Digi will be not having to worry about only having 2-3 shots left..!!I will keep my EOS 5's for prints. Batteries could be a problem as I tend to be in Funny places with no juice!!

Will get grip..I love them and it helps holding them when doing a runner...........

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Doing a runner? Sheesh, I won't ask...

If you're serious about your photography, you could consider a s/h EOS 1D - Park Cameras should be getting in a few once people have traded them in for the 1DS, they're advertising them for £3000. If you're looking at spending that sort of money then I doubt you need advice from me, though! DPReview is the place to go.

A.

normarker2

Try this one for batteries
http://www.sabahoceanic.com

S55 HOT

I've been looking at a D60 - I currently have an EOS 5 and it seems like the logical thing to do

Can't find one for under £1700 yet though

RussP

Hi Folks

I've just bought a new D60 with 1Gb microdrive for £1900 inc, which i reckon was a rather bl00dy excellent deal!

Mind you, i got a bit carriued away and added a Speedlight and 28-105 f2.8 Tamron, so it cost a small fortune in the end.

IS the Sigma a genuinely decent lens compared to the Canon? It comes in about 1/3 of the price...? The Tamrons pretty good but in hindsight maybe the IS canon would have been the better buy.

Russ

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

S55HOT: Right now the D60 is overpriced, IMHO. I haven't seen any cheaper than that either, at least not in the UK. You might do better importing from the US (try B&H or Delta International), although I believe that supply is short over there so finding stock might be tricky. A used D30 is much better value IMHO.

Russ: It depends on exactly which lens you're thinking of. The Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is a good, sharp lens, the f/4-5.6 version much less so. The Sigma 15-30 I mentioned really is a good lens - maybe not quite as sharp as the Canon 16-35L, although I've heard of both lenses being subject to quality control issues. I don't know anything about the Tamron - my guess is that, like many lenses, it'll be rather soft wide open but much better when stopped down to f/8 or thereabouts.

A.

S55 HOT

Thanks Andy.

I guess like all new technology it will come down in price, but then there will be a D90!

Al

MartinM

Well, I can't really keep out of a discussion on Canon DSLRs can I...

D30 is a fantastic camera (yes, I have one), and I agree with everything AndyC says. It does have 2 drawbacks for me, when trying two types of photography, namely motorsport and football:
- the AF is slow, resulting in lots of less than tack-sharp pictues. Yes you can prefocus, yes it's got an AI servo (continuous focus) mode etc etc, but I curse when I get home and find lots of (and to be honest, too many) slightly out-of-focus images
- I thought 3 frames per second was enough, but for ball-orientated sports it isn't. When I get a good sequence of in focus football shots, very often the ball has come and gone between frames.

Outside of high speed sports action, I can't really fault it at. I'm not wanting a D60 - it has the same AF and fps as the D30, and I don't really need the extra pixels.

I guess I just want a 1D body (which has 8fps, a fantastic AF system similar or identical to the 1V and 1V construction) ... but that's harder to justify with $3995 in the states or £3795 in the UK being the cheapest I've seen recently.

My advice for lenses - use eBay and invest in the best you can afford. Although it ties you into Canon, lenses will outlast digital backs for some time yet. I've bought two L series (70-200 and 17-35, both F2.8), both at around 60% of the new price and am really happy with them. I really like the F2.8 capabilities of the L series.

I *may* be interested in seling my D30 for around £1K - the advantage of mine is it has a 5 yr parts and labour warranty, that although I don't think is transferable, I would be happy to return the camera under, even if I didn't own it anymore. I'm sure genuine Scooby regulars can sort this out amicably...

Anyway the D30 is going to provide at least one winning image in the Photo Comp (if it's ever awarded...from me or AndyC (well, here's hoping anyway)

Hoppy

I'm not sure the time has come for amateurs to go for a digital SLR yet. We've got Nikons and Canons at work (magazine publishing) but none of them is perfect for every type of work (unlike film SLRs) and our repro people sometimes struggle with the files to get a good result. You need to set the levels in Photoshop carefully before handing them over (which means another £4k in a Mac, fancy screen and sotware). Even then, we try to avoid using digital for anything over 1/4 page size or the art editors get all picky. But professionally, the film cost savings are worth it.

And from an amateur standpoint, I'm concerned that the chip format keeps changing (anything form 1.6x 35mm to 1.0x on the Contax) which makes long-term investment in lenses a bit risky. And They still cost two grand

Richard (sitting on the fence).

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Hoppy,

That's an interesting viewpoint, but I beg to differ. If you've got the money - and that's a big 'if', of course - then there's no better way for an amateur to learn photography than with a DSLR.

I've just come back from a week's holiday and shot over 1200 frames - that's more than thirty 36-exposure films, or about £300 worth. Many are junk, of course, but that doesn't matter with digital, and there are plenty of good shots that I'd never have taken with film.

Throughout the week I also had the option to check exposure instantly and re-shoot where necessary, which is something I'd never have been able to do with film. Other advantages are the ability to change ISO speed on a per-frame basis to suit the conditions, and to shoot more than 36 frames during the course of an event without having to stop to change films. It's also useful having every shot tagged with information on exposure, ISO speed, flash and so on.

For what it's worth, True Grip last month did a pretty good job of reproducing my D30 shots, though - check out the report of the Isle of Man trip...

A.

RussP

I agree. I honestly think my photography has improved hugely since getting the D60, i try things i probably wouldn't have on film, and can see for sure how i shot it when i get home, so i don't make the same mistake twice (yeah, right!).

So i shoot more, have gained confidence and learned loads.

Yes, i spend more time on the PC but i only print up the good ones, Jessops for the "holiday snaps at £1 for a 9x6, 30p for a 6x4 - Loxleys in Glasgow for stuff i'm chucking in comps or selling.

I guess you pays your money and takes your choice, but i reckon i'll have paid for the d60 within a year.

Russ

Toonman1

"set the levels in Photoshop carefully"

Only if the shots were iffy in the first place Hoppy...

Until recently, when I became a full time College lecturer (Head of Photography and Digital Imaging), I'd spent the last 20 years as an advertising photographer. I've been using digi cams alongside Medium and Large Formats for 5 years, and never had a digital shot rejected yet because of quality issues. I've even sneaked a few past that were taken on a £600 (at the time), Nikon 990!

You also don't need to spend £4K on a Mac and bits. You can get a decent PC capable of running Photoshop for under £600, with a decent CRT monitor. Whack on a copy of PS Pro, or Photoshop Elements (£49 at PC World), and you're away. Both will be more than adequate for most users. In fact, the full version of Photoshop is a little too much for some, hence we have over 100 students (and a waiting list for places), for our Photoshop courses.

Andy and Russ are quite right too. Providing people get over the feeling that using a Digi Cam makes them a great photographer "out of the box", Digital Photography is a great way to learn PHOTOGRAPHY. The skills still need to be honed, but it's a tad easier and in my opinion, more fun, with Digital!

Chip size is no reason to hold off buying a Digital SLR either. Nikon use a multiplication factor of 1.5, which's no big deal really, unless you're into extreme wide angle photography. You can get a pretty decent 17-35 Sigma lens for under £350, which becomes a 25mm on a D1X or D100. Full frame chips are available on some cameras, but they cost, and in the case of the Contax, isn't that brilliant either. It's not like we're talking a format war like VHS and Betamax here, or recordable DVD players. The camera will still be useable, will still have lenses to fit it and so on.

I agree with the cost savings too. It's almost 2 years since I last used a conventional film camera for my personal photography, and reckon digi cams save me over £800 a year on film and processing, and that takes into account the cost of paper and inkjet carts, and lab costs for any prints I have commercially printed.

In the end though, it's a personal thing. If a camera and format suits, buy it if you wish. If it doesn't, don't bother.

Cheers

Mike

Hoppy

Good replies

And I'm on the digital side professionally (my company publishes over 100 magazines in the UK alone) but our art editors and repro guys struggle with digital (probaly something to do with the fact that they've had 20 years experience with digital scanning of 35mm trannies).

My point is that, as an amateur, prices are tumbling and quality is going up, while CCD formats are still unstable. Why has nobody started to produce digital format lenses - as they did for APS? Could be huge cost and quality advantages.

Digital is great and inevitable, but when and for whom is the debate. As I say, I'm still on the fence but my **** is beginning to get sore

Richard.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Nikon HAVE just produced their first dedicated digital lens - a 12-24mm f/4 zoom - which you can read about here.

Personally I don't see any problem with chip sizes increasing (or even shrinking - something has to make affordable DSLRs possible). Sure, each lens may cover a different range, but so what? You can always sell that ultra-wide lens on eBay if you really don't need it any more. My Sigma 15-30 is very useful on the D30, but very cool on an EOS 33 as well.

I think we'll see chip sizes around 1.5-1.6x smaller than 35mm for a while yet. Nikon obviously think so, and there's no evidence at all that full frame chips are going to be affordable any time soon - which is no surprise at all given the costs of manufacturing silicon wafers.

Take the plunge - it's fun

A.

S55 HOT

One of my main motivators is that I think I will learn more & take more photos.

I have an EOS 5, but last year bought my wife a little snappy Pentax 330 - we've used it loads, but the pictures are pants!

I also tend to wait until I've got a few films & have them processed together, but I really like the ability to see what I've just taken !

I've just got to finish justifying that much cash on a camera.......

taz

Hi guys,

I am an amatuer photographer who enjoys mainly motorsport but can be seen at other events. I am interested in the size of the frame you are debating about. I currently have an EOS1V with a 70-200L lense(the grey one). I would like to obtain a D30 to compliment the 1V but would I be able to use the 70-200 and also 35-80 lense without any problems.

Martin,

If you were selling your D30 how much would you sell it for as I may be interested. I have some money from Xmas and other things.

Regards

Graham

taz

Thanks Luke.

I do not want to buy one and then it is worth a lot less. This happened with my 1V as the digital ones came out just after I got mine. Anyone know of anywhere to get a cheap new one then?

Again I appreciate your help Luke.

Graham
still with cash in hand(burning a hole in my pocket)

EvilBevel

Interesting thread.

I've looked into the D100 etc, but as a pure amateur I reckoned it went a bit far. OTOH, my Olympus Camedia wasn't giving me the options I liked, even though I only shoot cats, fish, and cars

So I went for the middle of the road, more specifically a Minolta DImage 7i. "Prosumer" if you like (what a word)

It's a step up (and a serious learning curve) but it does allow me to take better pictures (when they are right ) than I did with the Olympus. I also take more bad pics (out of focus etc)

I now use manual focus/ISO etc a lot more than with the Camedia as it's easier to operate (no 17 layers of menus but hardware buttons).

Of course, you are stuck with the one lense, but it seems good enough for my purposes and not totally silly money.

I reckon DSLR's will be "affordable" for the consumer or hobbyist in 2 years time. The lenses however still won't be ?

MartinM

Taz

I have the 70-200L (the grey one!) as well.

The effect of the D30 CMOS sensor not being the same size as a 35mm film frame is to increase the focal length of any lens by a factor of 1.6. So the 70-200 on your 1V becomes the equivalent of a 112-320 on the D30. So, if you like, you get the same image by setting the lens at 112mm on your 1V or at 70mm on a D30. The 1.6x factor actually reduces the Field of View (FOV) by a factor of 1.6, rather than changing the focal length, but the effect is *essentially* the same)

So there's a 'free' extra zoom capability of any lens you put on a D30. Put the 1.4x convertor on a 70-200 on a D30 and you've got an effective max focal length of 448mm. Cool

...but that also messes up short focal lengths (wide FOV), cos your 28mm prime is more like a conventional 50mm (well 44.8mm) lens on a film SLR. So my 17-35 lens is VERY wide at 17mm on a film SLR, but on the D30 it's like a conventional 28mm lens...and you pay £££s for a zoom that goes down to 17mm

D30 and D60 have FOV multipliers of 1.6x, the 1D has 1.3x and the 1Ds (ony £7K to you sir!) is 1x i.e. the sensor is the same size as 35mm film.

Hope that makes sense from the academic view

From the practical view, the 70-200 F2.8L (and the F4L version, if that's the one you have) is fantastic on the D30...and so's the 17-35 F2.8L too! Bragging about my lens collection now, so I'll stop

I see you have a 1V - I'm currently considering bidding for the one on (UK) eBay at the mo...but probably won't!

You have mail about the possible sale of mine...

Martin

Hoppy

Andy, I didn't know about that new digital-dedicated Nikkor When Nikon play a card like that, I think the format game is over.

It's a big step in the right direction and takes digital SLRs three steps foward: a) format worries over (okay, maybe it was only me ); b) real wide-angle lenses; c) better, smaller lenses.

I'm beginning to slip off that fence... c'mon Canon!

Richard.

MartinM

Hoppy - not convinced mate

- so why did Nikkor put 35mm markings (ie 12-24) on the barrel and not their DSLR equivalents (18-35)??
- and if you put that lens on a Nikon 35mm body, what will it be like at 12mm in terms of barrel distortion, rectilinear'ness, chromatic aberration etc etc? Less than ideal I guess (admittedly, a 12 mm lens is a hell of a challenge)
- are Nikon really saying that their digital sensor size will always be 23.7 x 15.6??
- IIRC, there's no price announced yet

OK, so I've swallowed the Canon story (hook, line and sinker!) - but my strategy is to invest in lenses that are fantastic on 35mm sensors and will wait until that size digital sensor is at a reasonable price, changing the backs, as and when I think necessary/can afford.

Sensor technology is very rapid (1mp to 11mp in 4 years or so), but the lens technology is reasonably static, having started over 100 years ago

All IMHO of course...

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

I think putting the real focal length on the lens is a good move, rather than a 35mm equivalent. It makes it much more obvious how the lens fits into the range. A 12-24mm lens obviously fits nicely below, say, a 24-70 zoom. Marking it an '18-35' is more confusing, and obviously depends on the sensor size of the camera to which it's attached.

If you put the lens on a 35mm body, the vignetting will make it useless. That's the point of the new lenses - the image circle is smaller than a 35mm frame, so the lens can be smaller, lighter and better quality than it would have to be if full coverage would be required.

I think Nikon ARE saying that sensor sizes will remain around the same (or even smaller) for a while yet. The costs of producing a full-frame sensor are astronomical, and will remain so for the forseeable future, while the quality available from the D100 (or Canon D60 for that matter) is perfectly adequate for most people.

Canon seem to be keener on larger sensors though (the 1D is 1.3x, and the 1DS is full frame), so I doubt we'll be seeing any small-format EOS lenses. I suspect that this may have something to do with the fact that Canon designs and makes its own sensors; maybe their technology roadmap does include bigger sensors after all?

A.

frisby

Although this topic is mainly Canon based, has anyone got any views on the Nikon D100 in comparison??

Should be able to get one on the cheap but was wondering how cheap it wold need to be for it to be a better buy than the D30/D60 models.

I've seen quite a lot of Andys work but does anyone have any images to show, giving us lesser mortals something to aspire to??


Toonman - I'm in Newcastle, and would be interested in the courses you mentioned for digital imagery at you college/uni - which one is it???

regards

Stuart

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Stuart: I'm flattered, but you should know that I'd never even picked up an SLR until I bought my D30 a year ago; I had to ask the muppet in Jessops why the image in the viewfinder was all fuzzy...

Toonman1

"I'm in Newcastle"

I'm afraid I'm not anymore Stuart. :-( Just head there for shopping and Home games. I teach further south in North Yorks. Try the College of Art and Technology in Newcastle and see what they offer though - excellent College!

I've got a D100 and preferred it to the D60 (poor autofocus and handling), the Fuji S2 Pro (colour too vivid, reliability issues and short battery life). Each to his or her own though. Try them for yourself. Photography's a very tactile and personal thing. If the camera doesn't feel right within a short time of picking it up, it probably never will.

Cheers

Mike

MartinM

Stuart

No direct experience, but http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/ gives it a 'highly recommended'.

Of course the actual camera itself is only the tip of the iceberg - you've got to talk lenses and flash guns for hardware and then software (Paint Shop, PhotoShop etc etc and RAW conversion algorithms etc if you get really nerdy).

Most people select either Nikon or Canon and then invest in the lenses and accessories, changing the backs (simple SLR, complex SLR and then D-SLR) as required.

Spend some time browsing and make your mind up!
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1021
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1019

frisby

Cheers folks, I've got all the PC equipment/software etc just need the camera and lenses. I think I can get the D100 for £700.00 so what lenses would people recommend - maybe 2 to start with and what sort of costs??


Thanks

Stuart

Luke

Ok
Have just spent 4 hours with all the latest kit.. The new Sigma...Very nice ergonomics etc But would need new lenses. D30 and D60 and the Nikon 100.

My guy tells me to forget the D30......... only buy a D60 for a grand S/H and to realy think about it...........All the manufactures have cocked up big time and the shops/buyers have little faith in them. To many product recals and no communication!!!Also horror stories of micro drives loosing info.due to been fragile.As for the Contax try getting one!!

What a mess....LONG LIVE THE V1 !!!! At least they got that right.