Need some expert advice!

[richard_clough]

I'm a medium format (Pentax 645), landscape photo hobbist. It's getting harder to find Fujichrome Velvia 50 locally.

And, I'm getting especially tired of wanting to take a photo, but not taking it because it might not turn out well enough

to have wasted film on. Now I'm thinking about getting a good used digital slr, so that I can feel I haven't wasted

anything if the shot doesn't turn out. But, I still want to be able to produce a quality 11x14 or larger print if it does turn

out. The slr's I've been looking at are: Nikon D100, Canon 10D, Fuji S3 Pro and KM Maxxum 7D (I really don't want

to spend over $500 for the camera - cameras don't seem to last, lenses do - so no Nikon D200/D300, etc.) I do not

have any 35 mm lenses anymore, so I'm pretty much open to any system. So...if you digital experts would please

guide an MF guy whose finally getting down off his high horse, what camera would would be best for my uses?

[mike_earussi1]

I'm going to recommend another camera to you. I too was a dedicated slide shooter for 40 years and hesitated to switch to digital because the image quality from the DSLRs could not match the luminesence of a good MF or 4x5 transparency. But I got tired of both the cost and delay of film and so kept looking and after much searching stumbled across an ad for the Sigma SD14 which uses the Foveon chip instead of a Bayer one. The foveon chip is structured just like film with all three color sensing layers stacked on top of one another just like film with the end result looking more like slide film than anything I yet seen from a digital camera. The camera is not too popular not only because it uses a different technology than the norm but because the camera has far more limitations than a regular brand Canon/Nikon body. It is much slower to process an image, around 6 seconds and the foveon chip is not very good in dim light with ISO 800 being about as high as you can go and still get usuable results in color. But if image quality is your primary criteria then the SD14 is the best around especially for the money, as it's $550 new from Cameta with a resolution that equals the D300, as determined by actual tests. Even the earlier models, the SD9, which goes for around $200 on EBay and the SD10 ($300) also have the same 3D look that makes them look real though the don't have as high a resolution as the SD14. I have made test prints up to 16x24 with excellent results and others have gone higher. If you are interested or just curious check out these web sites:

 

This one's mine with the shots taken using Sigma's 70mm macro at ISO 50:

 

http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/sd14_iso_50

 

This one's from Olga Vasikova, who is the best photographer using the Sigma I've seen: http://www.pbase.com/ovasilkova/root

 

Link to Sigma's web site: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/

 

And link to Cameta:

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-SD14-Digital-SLR-Camera-Body-SD-14-SD-14-NEW-USA_W0QQitemZ350072114781QQihZ022QQcategoryZ30020QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

If you have any questions feel free to contact me. Mike

[richard_clough]

Oh great! Now I've got another camera to consider!

 

But really, you're advise seems a way I should maybe go. With MF I'm used to taking a shot, bracketing for aperture/depth of field or speed to blur flowing water, maybe moving slightly to recompose the scene, checking focus again and then taking the next shot. I can't do that in 6 seconds, so thw write speed isn't a consideration. Also, Sigma makes very good lenses, and I suspect every lense they make is made for the Sigma mount. That wasn't the case for my old Pentax 35 mm.

 

I'll check the Sigma out.

[mike_earussi1]

Richard, if you do decide to go with the Sigma then you need to get good glass for it as the Foveon chip is even more sensitive to lens quality than a Bayer chip is. Thankfully Sigma makes some excellent quality lenses in the $275-$450 price range (10-20, 17-70, 18-50 f2.8 and all their macro lenses) with their 50mm macro being the biggest bang for the buck at around $275.

[sarah_fox]

If only Canonikon could manage to incorporate a Foveon sensor! ;-) The problem with the Foveons is that they're relatively complicated, slower to process (as pointed out), and unavailable in any sort of serious pixel density (4.6MP of detail in the SD14). On the other hand, their 4.6MP is certainly better than 4.6MP from a Bayer array.

 

I see the EOS 10D in your list, Richard. As I'm sure you know, it's very cheap on the used market right now -- far less than the SD14. The 10D was my first DSLR, and I still own and use it. It's my camera of choice when I go out on a boat. (My 5D stays on land!) I'll put in a plug for this camera. I find it a very capable and intuitive camera. The image quality is creamy and smooth, often outperforming my 5D (which is superior for other reasons). The only drawback is that it is very slow to write files to the CF card. You might find that the 20D is a better choice. It achieved much higher popularity. On the other hand, the 10D has a very quiet shutter, if you intend to do anything like wildlife, wedding, or street photography. I wouldn't get too wrapped up in the megapixels, even with the SD14, as it takes a quadrupling of megapixels to give you a doubling of resolution.

 

I'll also put in a plug for Nikon. (I'm a Canon photographer, BTW.) Nikon has really been getting its act together lately, and they're really giving Canon a beating in a couple of areas, not the least of which is the superior light gathering and/or noise suppressing properties of the new D3, but also the extraordinary value of the D40. If you're starting from scratch, you might give them a pretty serious look. Their digital offerings were few to none when I was getting into a DSLR, but they're back, and they mean business! As you do seem to recognize, it's all about the glass and what you end up collecting. So you need to look beyond this camera body purchase and ask yourself whose glass you want to collect. (BTW, Nikon and Canon glass are about the same, despite some claims to the contrary. If anything, Canon glass rates ever so slightly better in independent testing, as revealed by an averaging of Photodo's ratings for the two collections of lenses.)

[richard_clough]

Mike & Sarah. Thank you for you input. You both seem to know much more about this subject than my local pro camera store clerks. They direct me toward whatever they have on hand as being the best, so they change their opinions every time their stock changes.

 

If I were to get the SD14 I would most likely get the Nikon 18-70 F 3.5-4.5 to start with. If I were to get the 10D I would most likely get the Canon 17-40 F4 L. The MF lens I use more than 50% of the time is a P645 SMC 55 mm F2.8 A.

 

In you opinion, should I be looking at any other lenses?

[mike_earussi1]

Well the SD14 won't take Nikon lenses but if you do go in that direction their 18-50 f2.8 or 17-70 are good choices. BTW the Sd14 also has a very quiet shutter, the quietest made now, though don't know how it compares to that of the 10D.

[sarah_fox]

Hi Richard,

 

I really like my 17-40L, so I'd definitely recommend it. It is my second sharpest lens, my sharpest being my 24-105L. Vignetting is practically nil. It's compact, extremely well built, coated better than any other lens I've seen, and very intuitive. It's down-side is that it barrels a bit towards the 17 end. I've never found it to be a huge problem. Correcting it in postprocessing is very easy. It's a well priced lens for what you get. Some consider it a bit slow, but I think the slower lenses are probably better optimized for smaller aperture photography (commonplace in landscape photography). Just remember that it's not all THAT wide on a crop frame camera. For an ultrawide, if that's what you want, you might be interested in looking at the EF-S 10-22, which has achieved a bit of a following. I never intended to be a dedicated crop frame format photographer, so I honestly haven't looked into it and can't attest to its image quality.

 

Mike, Richard, I've never handled a Sigma DSLR and don't really know how their shutter noise compares to that of the 10D. I did play around with a Nikon D40 and was very impressed with its quiet shutter. I'd say it's *slightly* quieter than the 10D. On the other hand, it felt as though the mirror movement was quite slow, as though it were driven by an electric motor. The camera felt a bit sluggish, although not obnoxiously so. I also played around with a Nikon D60 quite a while ago and considered it rather equivalent in feel and noise to the 10D. My 5D is a bit noisier (bigger shutter and mirror), but it also has the 10D's mellow shutter sound ("kschloop"). Here are a few vintage camera comparisons, based roughly on memory (since I don't have all my cameras together where I am now), if they're of any help:

 

Spotmatic F -- noisier than the 10D and more metallic sounding

Honeywell Pentax H1 -- about the same noise level as the 10D, but more metallic

Minolta SRT101 -- slightly noisier than the 10D and more metallic

Praktika LB -- slightly noisier than the 10D and more metallic, with a timing wheel "kashikashikashika" on the end ;-)

 

... and my favorite vintage camera:

 

Leica IIIf -- about the same noise level as the 10D, but more metallic (but a pleasing sort of "kschleep")

 

Personally I think the nonmetallic sound of the 10D (and the D40) is really key to its being inconspicuous. As far as sound levels go, the Leica IIIf was once loved by many a wedding photographer for photographing the ceremonies. I consider the 10D far better for this purpose. Having said that, I once had a church lady insist I couldn't take photos of the bride and groom because of the shutter noise. ;-)

 

For landscape work, I'm sure the noise of any of these fine cameras will dissipate quickly in the great outdoors, and I think you will find almost anything quieter than an MF SLR!

[kickstand]

If you come from a medium format background, I think you will be disappointed by the cameras in the price range you mention. The 10D was a miracle in its day and is fine used choice for many shooters, but it was never MF quality. The foveon chip in the Sigma is great in theory, but Canon and Sony have put more time and money into their sensors, and currently the foveon is behind them both.

 

Cut to the chase: I would suggest you consider the Canon 5D, at $1800 after rebate it is very reasonably priced and much closer to the kind of quality you are used to.

 

I agree with Sarah that the Nikon D3 is a game-changing camera, and as that sensor technology trickles down through the Nikon lineup, you will see Nikon giving Canon a run for their money. However, of the choices available today, the 5D offers superb quality for a good price and will last you a long time. (I disagree with your assertion that DSLR's "don't seem to last".)