|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Making the Digital Trasition
Ok, yeah so Im a film photographer who is making the transition over to digital. Im in a similar boat as this person https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=20052 One diffrents. Im a bit more picky. Im fairly young, but ive been shooting for a while and I like the Nikons and the Minoltas alot. I really dont like Canon a whole lot. My Minolta shot just as good as my mothers Canon and my Minolta was $400 cheaper at the time of purchase so yeah. I wanna find a Digital SLR with AT LEAST 7 MegaPixels. For some reason i think that less then 7 degrades from film quality. I dont know, call me crazy. I dont want a hand me down pos Digi from Ebay either. Im looking at spending no more then $1300 (YAY FOR AMERICAN EXPRESS CARDS, lol). Perfurably a pacage. Nikon and Minolta have been my fave so far as far as cameras go, and i dont know alot about some of the other brands out there like Olympus and Pentax so yeah. Thanks, oh and one last thing, this is going to only be used for color photog (cant seem to bring myself from leaving Ilford, know what i mean) so something with a very vibrent color spectrum. For color film i use Fuji and was very very very pleased with there blues so something like that, yeah. Dec 10 05 07:03 pm Link If you're really picky I recommend renting a setup from each manufacturer you're considering. i.e. If you're considering a Nikon setup, rent a nikon setup from Calumet or someone else, or find photographers who will let you take a couple of test shots with their rig (very hard to do). I don't know why you have the anti- Canon sentiment, but I'd recommend giving one of their digital rigs a try as well...you won't know whether you like them or not if you don't try, and digital is a whole different ball game from film for the one reason you mentioned...Color. Each manufacturer's chip captures color a little bit differently, and though you may not like Canon in the film world, there's a reason it's much more popular in digital...full frame sensors that are the tops in capturing color gamut and capture method. The other thing you have to consider is ergonomics with digitals, so give them each a try before you buy. Dec 10 05 07:26 pm Link BTW: Where did you come up with the 7MP figure? Are there 7 megaPixel bodies?  John Dec 10 05 09:23 pm Link Go here: www.dpreview.com Truly the best camera-review site on the Net. Don't read their forums. The forums are a waste of time. The photographers in there just bicker about politics and technical specifications and take photos of ducks. But for camera info, there is nothing like www.dpreview.com I know you don't want a Canon. But that's just silly. You want the best gear for the money. Brand-names are not relevant. Based on the specs you are searching for, I would suggest you look at: Canon Rebel XT Canon 20D Canon EOS 5D (about double what you want to spend) Nikon D200 Nikon D70 (slightly less resolution than you want) Note that there is no SLR Minolta that fits your specs. The closest is the Minolta Maxxum 5D. Dec 10 05 09:30 pm Link DAF Productions wrote: I firmly believe that you should narrow down your choices based on price range and any reports you can find then RENT your final choices and put them all through the same tests. Mount the cameras on a tripod and if you are considering a zoom lens shoot images at both ends and in the middle of the zoom. Examine all the pictures in PS at 200 to 800% to see how sharp the images really are. You also get a good look at the color for normal settings. If you really want to examine the color range it will take a lot more time to correctly set the white balance for each test. If that is as it appears to be one of your major criteria then the time is well spent. Having said that I think that you will find very little difference in the color ranges when the white balance is correctly set. The quality of the image is going to rest mostly on the glass and with Nikon as one of your choices I think you will find what you are looking for. If you are not familiar with the site a good place to help is http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com Dec 10 05 09:52 pm Link John Allan wrote: I have seen cameras go as high as 22 mega pixels. Wanna talk about out of my range, lol Dec 10 05 09:59 pm Link ive been eye balling the Nikon D200. Id love the D2x, but that is way out of my price range. 12.4 megapixels....drooooooolllll, any who. I suppose that playing with the white scale will make it harder to tell a diffrence, but I am also one of those guys who spent too much time in the dark room developing b&w film, i live to play "guess what color that was when i took it." So i can pick up on color varients rather well. I suppose when it comes down to it, the color is the most important thing for me. The glass comes in at a close 2nd which is why i am looking at the nikons. Dec 10 05 10:05 pm Link If you're truly concerned about color accuracy, you might want to consider a body that'll let you dial in temperature (like the 20D and D200). Might be out of your budget though, plus pretty much all the entry DSLRs let you set custom WB via grey card. Then again if you shoot RAW you can always WB correct via post processing. Invest in optics over the body. In the longterm it's wiser. Besides 6MP is more than enough to go up to 16x24. Dec 10 05 10:20 pm Link Hi DAF, I took a quick peek at your portfolio, and I have a recommendation for you. This goes back to the 7 megapixels. My initial digital was a Canon D30, a buddy had a Nikon D1. (3.3 and 2.7 mp respectively). For what you're shooting, those bodies will capture what you want up to at least 11x14 prints, and certainly web. My old body is a Canon 1D (not the Mark II) at 4 megapixels. I've made 30x60 posters from it that barely show noise. I admit that my Mark II does a better job at posters, with that same 30x60 being noise free when shot at low ISO's. 12 megapixels, for what you're shooting, is overkill. You're going to be tossing pixels either print or web. The big exception is if you're shooting landscapes, where you can't have enough detail if you want a large print. I agree with others that you also should open your mind about Canon, as they have a lot to offer. Not that you should necessarily go with Canon, but you need to free your mind. A LOT has changed in cameras since you last evaluated the market. Just my 2 cents worth Andy Dec 10 05 10:29 pm Link DAF Productions wrote: Oh yea, I almost forgot. You're crazy! Dec 10 05 10:32 pm Link The ONLY glass that beats Nikon is Leica period. Dec 10 05 10:37 pm Link joe duerr wrote: Ok...this is just the most ridiculous statement ever. What is it with the glamour guys and Nikon? Do they induct you guys in to some sort of Nikon cult at glamour shoot photo school? Dec 10 05 10:41 pm Link Just as an idea, I purchased Digital photographer's issue on DSLR's this year and it explains the neccessity of different megapixel counts and I don't know many people who use over 8 and get great prints. I myself being a canon fan don't understand why you don't care for them but think you should give them a try! I think for the most part a 10d or regular rebel will work for most of the shots I take even thought I'm upgrading due to a desire for shooting landscapes which as previously mentioned will be needed for large prints with greater detail. but back to my point, if you would like PM me and I will gladly type out more info from the article with a camera comparison if you aren't satisfied with the reviews previously posted! Good Luck! Dec 10 05 10:42 pm Link joe duerr wrote: What Raven said. Dec 10 05 10:45 pm Link Boy, the Canonphiles are coming out of the woodwork. I'll match Nikon glass against Canon any day at noon on Main Street at 20 paces. Just leave Leica at home. Dec 10 05 10:48 pm Link How many pro photographers shoot with Leica's? Not many when compared Nikon or Canon. How many Canon bodies do you see at your average sporting event when compared to Nikons? Watch a pro football game tomorrow or any other event and look at the sidelines. There will be way more Canons out there then Nikons. Same thing goes for the Washington DC press core. You can hardly spot a Nikon in that crowd anymore. And where are all those super duper Leicas? Dec 10 05 10:57 pm Link As a camera Leica can not hold a candle to Canon or Nikon. That said Canon or Nikon can not hold a candle to Leica glass. Dec 10 05 11:02 pm Link joe duerr wrote: Why? Dec 10 05 11:05 pm Link joe duerr wrote: lol, go for it Joe. But there's other glass than Leica that blows away Nikon and Canon. Dec 10 05 11:15 pm Link DAF Productions wrote: You have already bought into the digital buzz word "Megapixels". What good will more megapixels do you if the rest of the processing inside the camera sucks? You need to look at several technical aspects to how the camera records light and converts it to digial before you decide which camera. You might find a 4 Megapixel camera can produce better images than a 8 Megapixel (not judging size). Dec 11 05 12:50 am Link joe duerr wrote: How about I go out and shoot some images with all of these lenses and if you can guess which one is which I'll give you a prize? However, if you are wrong....hmm what shall we bet? Dec 11 05 12:59 am Link Kurt Fehlhauer wrote: Easy do a lenst to lense comparison and the Leica will have better sharpness, more contrast and be better in every way. I did that test and traded in all my nikon stuff for Leica and never regretted it. Now when I went digital I went with Nikon but still have Leica's for film. I did sell my M6 to get my D70 and sold it for what I paid for it in 1985! Dec 11 05 01:01 am Link Does Nikon make better lenses than Canon? Sure...for some lenses. Does Canon make better lenses than Nikon? Sure...for some lenses. Does Leica make better lenses than Nikon or Canon? Sure...for some lenses. Are you comparing primes to zooms? Which primes and which zooms? Canon's 50mm f/1.8 at f/4.0 is sharper than almost all Nikon zoom lenses at f/4.0...but Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 at f/4.0 is sharper than almost all Canon zoom lenses at f/4.0. (That's comparing a $90 lens--not even a 'pro-grade' lens--to zooms costing $1000 or more.) Are you shooting on a tripod? If not, and you're not using 1/1000th or faster, motion blur will reduce sharpness more than one brand's good lens vs another brand's good lens. Are you using a proper sized lens hood? (Including crop factor/multiplication factor if using a sub-frame sensor, and proper zoom coverage if using a zoom?) If not, and there's any stray light hitting the front element, flare will reduce contrast more than one brand's good lens vs another brand's good lens. Do you "need" a 300mm f/2.8? If so, Leica doesn't make a sharp lens...they don't have that particular combination at all. (Their 100-300mm f/3.5 is close, but it's not as sharp as either Nikon's or Canon's 300mm f/2.8.) Are you comparing 'kit' lenses costing dozens of dollars against pro-level lenses costing, um, somewhat more? Or consumer-grade lenses vs pro-grade? While the image IS created by the lens, it's no longer the only critical part in the camera/lens pair for digital. But that's a separate issue. As for the original poster's question: what will you be shooting; how large do you expect to print; what contrast range will you be operating in; how many shots do you take in a burst--and how quickly must that burst be? Those are key elements to determine before you spend any money. I know that 40x60 prints of single individuals are perfectly reasonable from a 6 megapixel camera if they're sharp and well-exposed--I've sold prints that size from a (relatively antique) Canon D60, and I've edited numerous architectural images that were printed that size from Fuji's S2 and sold to the property owner. More pixels would be needed for large prints of groups of 30 or more, obviously, but that goes back to what you'll be photographing and how large will you print? The narrow-down-then-rent approach makes sense to me, especially if your local pro house lets you apply the rental price to purchase, as many do. That'll give you a chance to try the specific camera for your particular purposes. Dec 11 05 01:44 am Link See? This happens a lot. Photographers start to argue about technical specifications of equipment. That is so freakin' odd to me. Lecia? Nikon? Canon? It's all completely irrelevant. Put any quality camera in the hands of a great photographer and they will produce spectacular images. Period. It's like that old joke ... A photograher is having lunch in a restraunt and the chef sees his portfolio on the table. "Wow," says the chef, "These are great photos. You must have an awesome camera." "Wow," replies the photographer, "This is great food. You must have an awesome stove." Dec 11 05 05:20 am Link DAF Productions wrote: You're close to the Nikon D200 range of price (it's about $1600). But remember you can usually buy these cameras on time, thus your monthly payment is managable. My advice: either the Nikon D70 or D200. I do recommend that if you're serious about either, rent (as someone else mentioned). Also remember that the 'glass' is the key to great shots; Nikon lenses are some of the best. Buy the lens you want and then the body to match the lens. Dec 11 05 05:38 am Link I think it's lame when photographers let the brand name define the level of their photographic worksmanship. Dec 11 05 06:14 am Link Joe K. Perez wrote: I agree. However, I invested a large amount of money on Nikon lenses which are incredible ... and I will use the bodies that support those lenses. I have spent must more on glass than I have on bodies. /t Dec 11 05 06:37 am Link Tim Baker wrote: I'm with you on that. Just an important reminder for photographers to not lose sight of the important fact that it's their personal imagination, creativity and technical skill and experience that's transferrable from camera to camera, brand to brand. I love all brands! Especially, if it's discounted! haha. Dec 11 05 06:49 am Link joe duerr wrote: Carl Zeiss? Schneider-Kreuznach? Not only totally pointless but totally wrong. Rolling eyes... Dec 11 05 07:18 am Link I'm deffently ganna rent some out and try them. As far as the whole letting equipment defining the photographer, I think its crap too. I'm currently using a minolta htsi. And w/ lighting I'm either using natural lighting or a natural light light bulb and a shot lamp. I like minolta cause from my expirence, its a canon with out the price tag. Ill probly catch crap for it. I want a nikon cause of the lense mainly. I'm ganna give the cannons a shot though in the rent process. And I want a larger pixel rate b/c I am really hard core in fixing my pictures in adobe. I try to have blemishes, scares, frizzy hair, and stuff like that. Some times I have to edit pixel by pixel. I don't mind. A larger pixel count will allow me more control. I also want to maintain as close to film quality as possible. Dec 11 05 11:31 am Link DAF Productions wrote: It used to be that way, not so much in the digital realm Dec 11 05 11:33 am Link I bet the Nikon D200 is going to be a killer body if it is any better than the D70. I am shooting with the Canon5D ( very happy with it ) but am amazed at the image quality of the D70 that a co-worker uses. If you didn't need the higher resolution I would recommend the D70. The kit lens that she has, 18-70 I think, is also a really strong performer as well. Dec 11 05 11:47 am Link DAF Productions wrote: Again, when you think film quality remember what target print size you will want to see. There is no point in huge megapixels for 4x5. prints. Dec 11 05 11:55 am Link About Nikon, Canon or Leitz glass: Modern lens are made by computers and they are not that much different now. Once I was using Leica M2's M4's and M6's and Nikon AF SLR bodies. I had a German Leitz 28 f2.8 (cost me $1,200 without the viewfinder) on my M6 that was loaded with Kodachrome 64 and a Nikon F4s with a 28 f2.8 AF (cost me $190.00 from B&H), again the camera was loaded with the same Em.# Kodachrome 64. Shot both the Leica and the Nikon at the same time at f5.6 and a shutter of speed of 250. This was done in late afternoon light on a clear California day. Which 35mm Kodachrome slide do you think was a better image? The image from the Nikon is still used by magazines worldwide (the $190.00 Nikkor 28 produced a better slide) the next week I found a sucker that I sold my German 28mm f2.8 to for $1,000.00, I did have to throw in the $250 28mm viewfinder to get that price. As to Canon vs. Nikon: I can take my 25 year old 300mm Nikkor and use it on my 1967 F and use it on my 2004 D 100 can you do the same with a Canon? I had Four Canon F1 bodies and FD lens from 18 to 400mm when Canon switched their lens mount. I switched to Nikon and never looked back. I also don't really understand why people have become obsessed with the MP, I have shot with 2.1MP digital bodies, 4MP (double page in a TIME / LIFE book) camera and now 6MP and 12MP digital bodies. Keep in mind that I crop in the camera and not in the computer. My Kodak / Nikon DCS 460 (6.1MP) beats everything I have tried. The Fuji S2 does just an OK job and I am interested in the D 200, but I am not sure that it has much to offer me. FYI for sharpness and color my D 100 has been at the top. I also do not like Canon's processing softwhere, but the Fuji softwhere is worse... The real bottom line is that the camera companies and eBay are getting rich by selling people new Higher MP bodies. Nikon has lost money on my 1967 black F body and on my 20 year old 600MM f4 Dec 11 05 12:08 pm Link |
