the torture of choosing

[christa_moore]

I am a amateur photographer who practice mainly landscapes, street

photography, and some portrait and macro.

I normally shoot with Leica and 6X6. I love film and I will love it

forever, but the labs prices are so high that I think it's time to go

digital, even if I will keep my "normal" cameras, mainly for b&w.

I know a bit about digital, having tried many cams, but no DSlr yet.

<p>

I'm about to go for India for some months, and I want to buy an all

purpose digital camera. I have a strictly limited budget of usd

1200.-.I first thought of d'slr, for expandability reasons.

<p>

Here in europe, we've got some pretty good deals these days :

<p>

eos rebel/300d with 18-55 ef-s USD 610.-<p>

eos rebel xt/350 d / 18-55 ef-s II USD 830.-<p>

Nikon d70 + 18-70 AFS DX USD 920.-<p>

Nikon da50 + 18-55 dx USD 810.-<p>

Olympus e-300 double lens kit USD 970.-<p>

Pentax Ist ds + 18-55 USD 930.-<p>

Pentax Ist ds + sigma 18-50 Dc 3,5-5,6 Dc USD 741.-<p>

(unfortunately, minolta dynax 5d will come out to late for me...)

<p>

I guess you must have app. the same offers in the US.

Anyway.

<p>

I've been reading all over the net and photo mags, but the more I

read, the less I know, it seems...

I am not sure that expandability is the key, finally, as these "cheap"

d'slr seem made to be used now, and will be outdated next year, won't

they ?

<p>

My questions are :

<p>

Which manufaturer is offering the best cheap, common prime lenses ?

what maximum enlargement can I reasonably expect from 6 - 8 megapixels

raw files & what's the real difference in real life between 6 and 8

megapixels ?

What about the "bridge" cameras ? apart from noise at high Iso, are

they really less good in results ?

<p>

What I want is to take pictures NOW. I am sure I will buy another

D'slr in one year or two...

But also, my final aim is always printing, and not computer viewving.

I'd like to print A3. I know, i know in theory at 300 dpi, maximum

enlargement size is..etc, etc, but seriously ? (Don't tell me to stick

on my Leica/roleiflex, please)

[klix]

Nikon d70 + 18-70 AFS DX USD 920.-

 

This would be my choice (definitely biased). If you want inexpensive but superb lenses, you can buy USED manual AIS lenses. They will mount and work perfectly, albeit you'll have to meter manually and/or check the histogram.

 

For a selection of USED manual lenses, go to keh.com. Anything that's rated BGN (Bargain) or better is a shooter. They'll ship overseas.

 

Good luck!

[phule]

One of the advantages to the Pentax DSLR offering is the viewfinder. It's really quite nice and (for some) is a key selling point.

 

Aside from that, I think it would be best to get to a camera store and hold all the options you can from your list.

 

<< and will be outdated next year, won't they >>

 

There will be replacement models yes, but the one you buy now won't stop working a year from now.

[johnb]

christa,<br>

None of the options you list have a prime lens.<br>

I recommend you get the Canon XT 350 or Canon Rebel 300D and a 50mm f/1.4 lens. With this setup you will be able to print at least to 13" x 19" photos, with either model.<br>

I have a 10D and with a 50mm f/1.4 lens can print to 13" x 19" (maybe bigger but its the biggest my printer prints) with a Canon i9900 printer and results are excellent (with no editing needed). Even when looking only a 1/2 inch a way its still an excellent photo [and thats with a 6mg camera]. <br>

<br>

The bottom line is I am very satisfied with the prints (the final result).<br>

PS. If you do get a Canon I recommend you not get an EF-s lens, those lenses only work on three Canon DSLR bodies. Stick with Canon EF lenses they work on all EOS bodies.<br>

<br>

Good Luck and enjoy your trip :+)

[alan_gage]

I really like my Pentax DS. I bought it without ever holding one based on reviews and other peoples opiions. My main reasons for getting it were pretty straight forward design (I like my cameras to stay out of the way), good viewfinder, ability to use the old Pentax lenses I already had, and because it's cheap!. I recently bought the 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens to go with it so I could have autofocus and autoexposure when I wanted. It makes for a VERY small and light package (which is another reason I went with Pentax).

 

Really though I don't think there's much of a quality difference between most DSLRs. I'm sure you could nit pick and find little things, but for practical purposes the biggest difference will probably be ergonomics and lens availability.

 

As for print size, I'd expect to get just as good or better then my 35mm prints.

 

Just pick one and quit worrying about it. :)

 

Alan

[bytesmiths]

Bias: I've been shooting Olympus OM film gear for decades, and have four OM-4Ti bodies

and 21 prime large aperture OM Zuiko lenses.

 

I think you'd be very happy with the E-300, but if you're interested in the expandability

aspect of DSLR, I'd pass on the "kit lenses" and get the 11-22 zoom and the 50mm macro.

That might push it a bit outside your budget, but they are MUCH finer lenses than the "kit"

lenses, and suit your stated purposes better.

 

The 11-22 (22mm to 44mm angle of view in 35mm terms) would be great for street

photography and landscapes, and the 50 (100mm angle of view in 35mm terms) is a

simply wonderful macro lens, and is a good focal length for portraiture, as well. You'll be

missing the telephoto end, but you can add that later if you miss it. (I don't!)

 

As for "cheap, common prime lenses," you can get the OM adaptor and take advantage of

tons of used OM Zuiko glass, many of which are consistently rated top of their class. This

also allows you to use really cheap "T mount" lenses -- like a 500mm f8 mirror lens, for

about US$150 used.

 

Maximum print size is an empirical issue. If you want to sell these to fine art buyers, you

should stick to 12 pixels per millimeter (300 ppi). Otherwise, the question is going to be,

"Do I like how it looks?" With the help of third-party up-sampling software like Genuine

Fractals or Extensis pxl SmartScale, you can take *some material* to huge proportions.

The key seems to be man-made artifacts: if it has recognizable features, you can't blow it

up as much.

 

I just sold an 90cm x 60cm (36" by 24") print at an art festival. It started out with just 8

megapixels, then upsampled via GenuineFractals to 78 megapixels (300 ppi). It was a

natural scene, and unless one were there, one would be pressed to say it had been up-

sampled, even from 15cm (6") viewing distance.

 

I recently sold another that size that had been shot on film at ASA 800! But it was an

abstract macro of ice crystals, with tons of texture, and the grain was not noticeable

unless you really hunted it out. But you couldn't get away with that if you had a lot of blue

sky showing!

 

Bottom line, the maximum size will be different for each image. Get some third-party up-

sampling software and experiment!

 

As a working pro of many years, I'm quite happy with the E-300, even though I know I'll be

replacing it eventually. Its "fit and finish" seems to be pro-level, and better than other

"consumer grade" DSLRs. Reviewers have called it "ugly", but I sorta like the retro, non-

traditional look.

 

I'm enthusiastic about the future of the 4/3rds system -- lots of new high end lenses have

been announced, and Sigma is making low-end ones. Olympus and Panasonic have

committed to new bodies next year -- rumored to include in-camera image stabilization.

(Suddenly, that US$150 500/8 mirror lens is image stablized!)

 

Olympus will never have the market share of Nikon or Canon. It will be a "boutique"

system for those who like things that are different. No one questions Porsche or Rolex

about "market share"!<div></div>

[athinkle]

You didn't mention if your Leica was a rangefinder or an R series. IF it is in fact a rangefinder, I STRONGLY urge you to take a look at the Epson digital rangefinder (I think it's called the RD-1.) I think that it retails for more than your recommended budget, but you really might want to keep it in mind as it's the only body that takes all those superb MF rangefinder lenses.

[oskar_ojala]

<p><i>Which manufaturer is offering the best cheap, common prime lenses ?</i>

 

<p>IIRC, there was no significant difference on new AF lenses. If you have some specific lens in mind, check it out. Canon and Nikon have the best availability on the used market, but IIRC Pentax could use old MF lenses with full functionality (I've never been a Pentax shooter...)

 

<p>Of the kit lenses, the Nikon 18-70 is good, the Olympus lenses should be good, the Canon 18-55 I don't care for and suspect that the Pentax and Sigma kit lenses (and the new Nikon 18-55 does not seem good either, though haven't seen any solid info) wouldn't be worth wasting my time on either.

 

<p><i>what maximum enlargement can I reasonably expect from 6 - 8 megapixels raw files </i>

 

<p>Depends on how picky you are...some say 18x24 cm, some 100x60 cm...

 

<p><i>what's the real difference in real life between 6 and 8 megapixels?</i>

 

<p>Well, 30% at the most, but in practice a good lens, no camera shake and correct focus means a lot more. And you have 6x6 if you really need resolution (I'm assuming your 6x6 lens(es) are even halfway decent).

 

<p><i>What about the "bridge" cameras? apart from noise at high Iso, are they really less good in results</i>

 

<p>Bridge cameras? If you mean the "prosumer digicams" which are bigger than pocket digicams but smaller than DSLRs and have a integrated lens, then they're usually less responsive, have powerful but compact zooms, more impervious to dust (an issue in India), a lot more noise and don't work that well for stuff demanding manual focus. I seem them mostly as a compromise in size and total system cost, sacrificing speed, noise and flexibility for a smaller size.

[GerrySiegel]

Right now the smart money is on the E 300 for value. I mean,come on a SLR with two lenses for under USD $1000. Many happy owners reports online,especially on dpreview Oly SLR forum. Lens selection with the slightly more costly lenses is superb. Good grief the Zuiko 14-54 is so cool... As you say, if you are not happy your exposure financial-wise is low. Make a decision,they all sound darn good. I havent been dissapointed with the Olympus E-1 which is now almost as low as your list and is very pleasant too. An embarrasment of riches for you,my photofriend. Good luck and enjoy the subcontinent. But if you want to further muddle your choice read more of these reports, including mine,dear friend. Aloha, Gerry

[sanyi_deme]

Out of left field: Look at the 5Mp Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20.

 

Normally I would ignore the FZ20 but my reasoning is this:

 

5Mp as a full shot is not as good as 8Mp or 16Mp unless.....you want to crop your image or shoot long focal lengths but keep f2.8.

 

The lens: 36 - 432mm (equiv.) constant f2.8 max apperture at all focal lengths, 12x Leica Zoom Lens with one ED lens. + it has internal stabilization + manual shooting options + easy to carry one descrete camera anywhere.

 

Imagine carrying seven f2.8 primes in 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, 135mm, 200mm, 300mm, and 400mm or the equivalent in f2.8 ED zooms. This one camera allows you to shoot tightly cropped images of any item of interest. There are wide and tele adapters also available.

 

This logic might not apply to you. You decide.

 

For me, shooting at 400mm when a 200mm shot might require cropping to half the height/width of the image has these results:

 

A 16Mp camera image cropped to half height & width uses effectively 1/4 of the pixels = 4Mp. If you buy an 8Mp camera, cropping to half height/width uses 2Mp. This makes a full frame 5Mp sound large. The kit lenses on the cameras you mention come nowhere near 432mm f2.8.

 

Last year in Prague and Budapest I shot a lot of my landscapes using a 180mm, with and without the x2 extender. It made impossible landscapes possible when I could get no closer (eg across the Vltava and Danube rivers). I am sure India will present such obstacles as well.

 

Of course I chose to have scans rangeing from thumbnail to 18Mb of my processed prints and slides. If that is not an option for you then digital is the only way to go.

 

For your price range you will not get 36-432 f2.8 lens coverage but you will get better camera bodies with slower zoom lenses requiring higher ISO shots and possibly cropping.

 

Just a left field suggestion for your transition camera while you wait for digital to mature. The fractal software solution applies as well to 5Mp.

 

It IS torture to choose. Nothing perfect available yet but so many choices.

[demetri_p.]

Remember that if you like manual focus primes, the canon bodies can (with cheap mechanical adapters) take all those great leica screwmount and nikon lenses of yesteryear and meter properly. You may like the 350d since you may be shocked by the 3 sec. turn on of the 300d coming from film cameras. It is also smaller so you should see how it handles in a store. Of course, all of the dslrs you mention are capable of producing the results you require it's just a matter of how you like the particular bodies and their systems.

 

All manufacturers offer cheap 50mm f1.8 that are capable of outstanding results. Beyond that, the prices usually start climbing so you have to pick carefully depending on your shooting. I think most people would not disagree that you can print at least 11x14 inches with 6-8mpixels. "Bridge" cameras are a varied lot. There are probably exeptions but these cameras tend to have high noise so that only iso200 is usable, higher jpeg compression artifacts, slower operation than a dslr and often no optical viewfinder just an EVF like a video camera. You can get good results but there are more limitations.

[godfrey]

For that trip, starting out fresh, I'd buy the Pentax *ist DS ($595), Pentax FA28-105/3.2-4.5

AL IF ($210), 5x 1G SD memory cards ($350), and 4 sets of Everready Energizer AA Lithium

batteries ($35). That's $1150 or so. You could then find a good used Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7

lens for a nice, fast portrait tele, about $40-50.

 

That's a compact and light weight travel kit, complete and within budget.

 

Godfrey

[tholte]

The D70 with the kit lens is the way to go! The lens is above average and has a nice range for travel shots. The body with lens is comfortable to carry around and you will get anywhere frome 500 to 700 images per battery charge. Check out the work of those giving you advice and make your decision.

[pbizarro]

I would also consider the KM 7D; great lenses and image stabilization in the camera, not the lens.

 

The olympus 4/3 Zuiko lenses are arguably among the best available today, and the cameras have in built senosr cleaning (or rather, sensor dusting off).

 

Canon/Nikon are very similar offers these days, so toss a coin or handle them in a store for ergonomics.

 

Finally, labs may be expensive, but don't think digital is cheap. If you are scanning your film, then perhaps you already have a proper set up for computers and peripherals. Otherwise, consider that investment as well.

 

I shoot 100% slide film these days, scan my film, and print on an Epson up to A4. I can not justify the expense of a DSLR that is equivalent to my 1V, since I don't just push the button continuously and hope for the best. I am very careful and take my time composing my photos of landscapes, my main interest. I also do a lot of travel and street shooting, which is more spontaneous. But even in that case, I prefer to find a good spot, go unnoticed, and be prepared for when something interesting unfolds. I find it difficult to understand those people that shoot "thousands of frames" per day with a DSLR.

 

Can you imagine the amount of time just to filter all that information? Also, sometimes, with a DSLR you are always tempted to check your screen to see whether or not your histogram is ok. This can lead to missing shots, becasue you are not observing what is happening around you.

 

That said, what I would suggest is to take your Leica (rangefinder, I presume), and couple it with a small DSLR, or even a capable compact digicam (there are very nice ones these days).

[david_anderson16]

I would have to say the rebel XT for your purposes. 8Mp still is not that much to work with if

you want to print A3. The lenses are faster autofocus and cheaper than Nikon.With a nice

printer and good paper you can print at 180ppi or a # that is a multiple of the # of print

heads ideally 4-6 dots per pixel. Raw file are going to be tuff because you have to buy a

couple big cards or some way to store that stuff. 6 and 8 MP big time difference!

[christa_moore]

THANKS all for your very good advices ! I am still confused, of course,

but you certainly helped me

<p>

Demetri, have you experimented yourself the use of Leica lenses

on EOS 350d ? I was wondering how my 21 Elmarit would

be as a street shooter...

<p>

[byronlawrence]

I didn't want to read all the previous posts.. (short attention span) but i did want to add my two cents..

 

personally in your shoes, I would go with one of the 8mp options just because it is just a little more info and at A3 even a little more is that much less to make up, real world you will likely only be able to tell the difference barely holding the two up side by side, but I don't know this.

 

anway 8mp leaves the olympus or the canon xt. Personally (again) I would go with the canon just because you have a great future selection of lenses (many are quite affordable too).. plus there are a million and a half adaptors out there for other lenses... I am a canon user right now.

 

all the cameras you mention are good and can hold their own, and if you are going to buy another in a year or so then roll a dice to help decide.

[demetri_p.]

No, but I have used a few manual nikon lenses on a 300D and I really liked the results and the handling of the combination. The only catch is that since the screen is small, focusing is good but not great. I've read tha people have also used leica lenses with success. You can do this with the canon bodies since their physical lens mount dimensions make this possible unlike most other dslr mounts.

[demetri_p.]

Also, I hope you are aware that your 21mm will be about 33mm equivalent on a 35mm camera.

[demetri_p.]

Sorry for yet another followup but after doing some searching it looks like only leica-R mount adapters are commonly available. If that's true, canon may not hold any special place for you and your leica screwmount lenses.