Finally making the move to digital: SLR

30kmph

Hi folks,
I'm looking to buy a digital SLR and wondering if anyone can recommend something half-decent.
I've been using a 1970s SLR up to now and a 120mm medium format bronica, so I'm looking for something good but not necessarily with all the bells and whistles.

It's essential that it can instantly capture an image, unlike those pocket digitals where there is a second or 2 delay.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

Arciphel

Outside of the usual Canons or Nikons, if you are starting from scratch you might be interested in Sony, purely from the point of view of getting maximum bang for your buck? But you want to move from medium format to digital, I think you are going to be disappointed

30kmph

I can't afford a digital medium format unfortunately. I'm quite happy with my 70's Oympus and 50mm lens, so was looking for an equivalent, but not sure which Canon model or Nikon model to go for. People say EOS - but which one?

I've never seen a photographer use a Sony, not sure I'd be prepared to buy a Sony SLR.

patmac

30kmph wrote: »

I can't afford a digital medium format unfortunately. I'm quite happy with my 70's Oympus and 50mm lens, so was looking for an equivalent, but not sure which Canon model or Nikon model to go for. People say EOS - but which one?

I've never seen a photographer use a Sony, not sure I'd be prepared to buy a Sony SLR.

I was in the same position as you recently and after reading several reviews and getting advice here and going round in circles I eventually ended up getting the Canon 550D, and I am very happy with it. It cost me €840 in Argos.

30kmph

patmac wrote: »

I eventually ended up getting the Canon 550D, and I am very happy with it. It cost me €840 in Argos.

Thanks alot Pat. Any chance you could shave off about €300? I didn't want to spend much more than €500. I'm not a bells & whistles man so perhaps there is a cheaper equivalent?

magicbastarder

go secondhand. secondhand D80 or canon equivalent would probably be close to that budget.

charybdis

Pretty much any DSLR will have negligible shutter lag.

What SLR were you using before and what lenses do you have for it? It's possible the lenses could be used on a DSLR with a similar mount or registration distance.

If you're really wedded to the 35mm frame, you might want to look at buying a second-hand Canon 5D (cost: around 900 Euro), otherwise pretty much any DSLR will do (cost: 250 Euro and up). If you want to re-use your old lenses but there isn't a compatible mount available you may want to look at getting a Canon DSLR as the EF mount has a relatively small registration distance and can be used with many older lenses through an adapter.

What are your motivations for switching to digital?

patmac

If you know of anyone going to Dublin Airport, this seems like a good deal
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056011388&page=3

Thecageyone

For €500 you might find a used D5000, or wait until the new D3100 arrives, that looks a lot of bang for buck and easy to get to grips with too.

bullpost

This Olympus package is great value and in your price range. You can also use your existing lens by buying an adapter which you can get cheaply on ebay (though be warned it will be the equivalent of a 100mm lens as the crop factor is x2):
http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/5309795/art/olympus/e-600-zuiko-digital-14-42.html

30kmph wrote: »

Hi folks,
I'm looking to buy a digital SLR and wondering if anyone can recommend something half-decent.
I've been using a 1970s SLR up to now and a 120mm medium format bronica, so I'm looking for something good but not necessarily with all the bells and whistles.

It's essential that it can instantly capture an image, unlike those pocket digitals where there is a second or 2 delay.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

30kmph

Looks like duty free could be a good idea. My brother flys out of the EU every few weeks. I was looking at old Canon EOS's - the 450D, they can still be bought new and I saw an add for under 400 euro. How does that sound?

When I say a delay in image to capture, I was looking for a digital with practically instant capture...not talking about the speed of light...just not like those horrid pockets digital cameras.

Moving to digital just to save on printing costs and to store my images digitally.

Kintarō Hattori

As mentioned earlier, what had you been using?

Thecageyone

Most dslrs are ready to fire as soon as they're switched on. You don't get lag like you do on compact or bridge cameras. All of them have a burst mode of some kind, anwhere between 3 - 5 fps, and you can usually fire off about 20 shots using it before the cam needs to buffer to the card. But just single shot shooting, all of them can pretty much fire shot after shot without lag. It was one of the things I loved when I made the move up from a bridge cam. My old Fuji could take an age to reload, missed so many good shots because of it.

Canon EOS 1000D with kit lens can be got in Argos for €420 -

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/5592829/Trail/searchtext%3EGREAT+DEALS+ON+CAMERAS.htm

The Sony A290, also in Argos, for €443.99 with 18-55mm kit lens -

http://www.argos.ie/static/Product/partNumber/5594353/c_1/1%7Ccategory_root%7CPhotography%7C14419436/c_2/2%7Ccat_14419436%7CDigital+SLR+cameras+and+lenses%7C14419497.htm


Neither have Live view, but coming from film you'll be well used to not relying on that feature.

Nforce

Do you require video too? You'd probably get a used Nikon D90 within your €500 budget. Another option would be an older,but still an excellent camera, Nikon D200 (should be able to pick one of these up anywhere from €300-400 used).

charybdis

30kmph wrote: »

Looks like duty free could be a good idea. My brother flys out of the EU every few weeks. I was looking at old Canon EOS's - the 450D, they can still be bought new and I saw an add for under 400 euro. How does that sound?

When I say a delay in image to capture, I was looking for a digital with practically instant capture...not talking about the speed of light...just not like those horrid pockets digital cameras.

Moving to digital just to save on printing costs and to store my images digitally.

Luckily for us, the speed of light is a constant so all cameras will be the same in that regard. Thanks, Einstein. Theinstein.

Again, all DSLR's shutter lag will be negligible; i.e.: when you press the shutter release the camera takes the photo (unless you have it in a mode than requires the camera to think it must consider the image focused first).

The 450D is a fine camera, although I think Nikon is the best system for photographers to buy into at the moment, purely because they have a cheap, fast, designed for digital, normal prime - the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S. If cost is an issue, I'd say buy any Nikon DSLR and one of those and you're good.

You do realise that you don't have to print every frame of film you shoot and that for the price of a low-end DSLR you can get a fairly nice film scanner that'll handle both the 35mm and 120 film? There's a lot to be said for shooting film and then storing and processing the images digitally, particularly when you have a lot of film gear.

Thecageyone

Nforce wrote: »

Do you require video too? You'd probably get a used Nikon D90 within your €500 budget. Another option would be an older,but still an excellent camera, Nikon D200 (should be able to pick one of these up anywhere from €300-400 used).

I didn't want to say D200 ... I think people imagine I'm some kind of marketer for older models But it is a bloody great camera. fast, robust and Packed with all the manual controls you could want. Might bot suit a total digi-beginner though.

magicbastarder

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

As mentioned earlier, what had you been using?

an olympus.

Kintarō Hattori

magicbastarder wrote: »

an olympus.

Silly me, thanks magic.

Nforce

Thecageyone wrote: »

I didn't want to say D200 ... I think people imagine I'm some kind of marketer for older models But it is a bloody great camera. fast, robust and Packed with all the manual controls you could want. Might bot suit a total digi-beginner though.

The possibility of using older,cheaper & optically excellent lenses with the D200 would be a huge benefit.

Thecageyone

True that. I'm using a lens from the 70's on mine, besides the fully auto-focusing 50mm f/1.8 [pretty sure that's MF only on lesser models like the D60/3000/70/50 etc ..]

30kmph

charybdis wrote: »

You do realise that you don't have to print every frame of film you shoot and that for the price of a low-end DSLR you can get a fairly nice film scanner that'll handle both the 35mm and 120 film? There's a lot to be said for shooting film and then storing and processing the images digitally, particularly when you have a lot of film gear.

Can you provide a example of a good neg scanner? If I get a digital SLR I would still have a requirement for a decent neg scanner given that I have a bronica and an old twin-lens medium format box.

30kmph

Nforce wrote: »

The possibility of using older,cheaper & optically excellent lenses with the D200 would be a huge benefit.

The consensus seems to be for this Nikon D200? Could this be got for around the 400 mark?

My old Olypmus has an excellent 50mm lens but wouldn't be interchangeable with a non-Olympus camera presumably.

charybdis

30kmph wrote: »

Can you provide a example of a good neg scanner? If I get a digital SLR I would still have a requirement for a decent neg scanner given that I have a bronica and an old twin-lens medium format box.

If you want to spend as little as possible but still get something decent, the Epson V500 has carriers for both 35mm and 120 film and can be bought new for around 200 Euro. You can get better scanners, but it'd be a good idea to learn about cameras and scanners before you buy and decide on how much money you're going to spend so you can actually buy something that's appropriate to your needs as opposed to something someone you don't know on the internet tells you to get.

30kmph wrote: »

The consensus seems to be for this Nikon D200? Could this be got for around the 400 mark?

My old Olypmus has an excellent 50mm lens but wouldn't be interchangeable with a non-Olympus camera presumably.

The Nikon D200 is a fine camera, but it's not particularly good; it won't necessarily be any better than a lot of cameras in a similar price bracket.

Which Olympus 50mm do you have (I'm assuming it's OM mount)? It's possible to use OM lenses on EF mount cameras with an adapter, although it mightn't be worthwhile if it's just one non-stellar lens.

Thecageyone

The D200 is a very good camera, it just doesn't have all the jazz newer models have. It's a semi-pro model, and was highly acclaimed when it came out, albeit, 5 years ago. It was directly pitted and compared to canon's 5D, which many would consider a lot better than what you'd get for €400 or thereabouts, new.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-/Spec-Comparison.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200-vs-canon.htm

The d200 is a far better camera than the lower end Nikons, below the D90. Don't let MP count or half-assed HD video fool you

It's been replaced not by the D90, but by the D300 - which is a very good camera - It's a D200 revised basically. Same body, just better noise handling and a few other improvements.

Still I wouldn't recommend it for anyone new to Dslr, I started with a much more basic Sony. You don't want controls overwhelming you from the off.

Kintarō Hattori

charybdis wrote: »

The Nikon D200 is a fine camera, but it's not particularly good; it won't necessarily be any better than a lot of cameras in a similar price bracket.

Thecageyone wrote: »

The D200 is a very good camera, it just doesn't have all the jazz newer models have.

The poor OP. :eek:

Thecageyone

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

The poor OP. :eek:

Why? he may as well know what it's actually like. How can a camera be both 'fine' and 'not very good' all at once? Links above are better to go by than some randomer on here though.

Kintarō Hattori

Thecageyone wrote: »

Why? he may as well know what it's actually like. How can a camera be both 'fine' and 'not very good' all at once? Links above are better to go by than some randomer on here though.

I'd rather go with the 'randomer' than Ken Rockwell myself.

Thecageyone

So you agree with me then? Nice one. I was one of the randomers I was referring to

But since you're not the OP, really doesn't matter what you'd go with, does it?

There's 2 links btw, the other one is not KR. You could look up a dozen more with the same conclusions.

Kintarō Hattori

Thecageyone wrote: »

So you agree with me then? Nice one. I was one of the randomers I was referring to

Good for you then. I'd respect charybdis advice anyday in comparison to Ken Rockwells.

Thecageyone

Think you'll find it was Nforce recommended the D200,

Nforce wrote: »

Do you require video too? You'd probably get a used Nikon D90 within your €500 budget. Another option would be an older,but still an excellent camera, Nikon D200 (should be able to pick one of these up anywhere from €300-400 used).

and not I ... Do you respect charbydis' opinion over his? Do you have favourites? really? Would you take it out on a camera model becaue I use it?

To me KR's opinion is as valid as anyone on here. You get the film users bigging what they use up, the Canon-heads bigging those up etc ... end of the day, good gear is just that. And the D200 is great for many reasons. 2 say it's great, one says it's fine .. but not great. What matter? It's within OP's budget, that's what the thread is about.

Though, again, i wouldn't recommend it to a first time digi-user [for the third time]

Kintarō Hattori

Thecageyone wrote: »

Think you'll find it was Nforce recommended the D200, and not I ... Do you respect charbydis' opinion over his? Do you have favourites? really? Would you take it out on a camera model becaue I use it?

Oh stop being silly now- I quoted your post and charybdis. That's it and that's what I was referring to.

Thecageyone

Hey, i'm the one staying on topic here, you just quoted us saying "poor OP" without a suggestion. I picked up on what NForce suggested and gave thoughts on it, as I actually use one. Helpful, I think.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

The D200 is a very good camera, it just doesn't have all the jazz newer models have. It's a semi-pro model, and was highly acclaimed when it came out, albeit, 5 years ago. It was directly pitted and compared to canon's 5D, which many would consider a lot better than what you'd get for €400 or thereabouts, new.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D200-vs-Canon-EOS-5D-Head-to-Head-Review-/Spec-Comparison.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200-vs-canon.htm

The d200 is a far better camera than the lower end Nikons, below the D90. Don't let MP count or half-assed HD video fool you

It's been replaced not by the D90, but by the D300 - which is a very good camera - It's a D200 revised basically. Same body, just better noise handling and a few other improvements.

Still I wouldn't recommend it for anyone new to Dslr, I started with a much more basic Sony. You don't want controls overwhelming you from the off.

Calm down. The D200 is a fine camera, I already said so. Look:

charybdis wrote: »

The Nikon D200 is a fine camera

That said, I think the 5D is a far superior camera.

As I said earlier:

charybdis wrote: »

The 450D is a fine camera, although I think Nikon is the best system for photographers to buy into at the moment, purely because they have a cheap, fast, designed for digital, normal prime - the 35mm f/1.8 AF-S. If cost is an issue, I'd say buy any Nikon DSLR and one of those and you're good.

It doesn't have to be a D200.

InTheTrees

Arciphel wrote: »

Outside of the usual Canons or Nikons, if you are starting from scratch you might be interested in Sony, purely from the point of view of getting maximum bang for your buck?

I have a sony Alpha and love it. They used to be Minoltas.

Canons and nikons are cheap and plasticky compared.

ACtually a major selling point on the SOny is the fact that the image stabilization is in the camera body rather than the lens which means lenses are considerably cheaper and there's a much wider variety available.

Kintarō Hattori

Pentax user myself OP. You'll find that they are generally excellent value for money, lenses from 30-40 years ago can be used alongside newer models but parts can be tricky to source in shops. That said were I to start all over again I'd still go with them as opposed to anyone else.

Thecageyone

charybdis wrote: »

Calm down. The D200 is a fine camera, I already said so. Look:



That said, I think the 5D is a far superior camera.

As I said earlier:



It doesn't have to be a D200.

Calm down? I was at least providing more than an off the cuff opinion on a camera OP asked about - My post was for him, not you ... But, what you think is merely another random opinion too. As I showed, with links, articles written by people who actually know what they're on about [could link dozens] - That it's on a par with the 5D - I could have bought either sure. I made a thread asking for advice right here before I bought anything. I was offered many recomendations on here for the D200, want me to dig that old thread up? :rolleyes: you were probably one of them :P

And who said it had to be? for the 4th time - I'd not recommend it to someone starting with a Dslr ... pity some of you selective read so often.

Re Sony models, I had an A200 - one of the better built models. Much nicer to hold than most of their newer range. But ... I'd never recommend one over a Canon or nikon, not their mid-higher level models at least - because the Nikons and Canons feel so much nicer and sturdier.

Saying that, the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is a fantastic lens. That is better build by far than the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8. It's like a tiny tank Whereas the Nikon feels like it'd break if you twisted it onto the cam too hard.

magicbastarder

charybdis wrote: »

Which Olympus 50mm do you have (I'm assuming it's OM mount)? It's possible to use OM lenses on EF mount cameras with an adapter, although it mightn't be worthwhile if it's just one non-stellar lens.

are there adapters which will provide aperture coupling? i had the official olympus OM adapter for my E500 and you had to focus wide open and then stop down for the shot.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

But, what you think doesn't matter, as I showed, with links, articles written by people who know a lot more than you do, or if not why don't you review cameras? That it's on a par with the 5D - I could have bought either. I was offered many recomendations on here for the D200, want me to dig that old thread up? :rolleyes: you were probably one of them

And who said it had to be? for the 4th time - I'd not recommend it to someone starting with a Dslr ... pity some of you selective read so often.

Yes, Ken Rockwell (whose name is a punchline in discussion of matters photographic) and "Digital Camera Info" (of whom I've never heard, until now) are a great source of reliable and objective advice.

Ken Rockwell lauds the D200's built-in flash as an advantage over the 5D and the major factor influencing his decision to publicly deem the D200 as marginally better in some circumstance is that it's cheaper. I think if you asked him which was the better camera today, he'd have a slightly more decisive opinion.

magicbastarder wrote: »

are there adapters which will provide aperture coupling? i had the official olympus OM adapter for my E500 and you had to focus wide open and then stop down for the shot.

I don't think so. The EF mount electronically controls aperture whereas I'm fairly sure the OM mount mechanically stops the lens down. I don't think there'd be enough room between the rear of the lens and the camera mount to put in a mechanism to physically stop the lens down.

Thecageyone

the Nikon D200 has many details better than the Canon 5D:

Weather sealing
ISO visible all the time in viewfinder
Wireless control of external flashes
Grid lines in display
Built-in timer shooting
Larger top display
Faster, more flexible white balance settings
User file names possible
Built-in flash

From another site.

But in the end, if you were choosing between them, it'd be down to higher MP count and the fact one's a canon huh?

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

the Nikon D200 has many details better than the Canon 5D:

Weather sealing
ISO visible all the time in viewfinder
Wireless control of external flashes
Grid lines in display
Built-in timer shooting
Larger top display
Faster, more flexible white balance settings
User file names possible
Built-in flash

From another site.

But in the end, if you were choosing between them, it'd be down to higher MP count and the fact one's a canon huh?

The features you've mentioned are largely spurious or of questionable relevance to most photographers and you've ignored some of the glaring advantages of the 5D. That said, I own neither camera but I think I would prefer a 5D if I was asked to choose between the two.

I think you'll find that comparing cameras on the basis of the number of bullet points on a spec. sheet is a bad way to go about evaluating a photographic instrument and is the cause of much of camera manufacturer's attention being diverted into incrementing meaningless figures of supposed merit like sensor resolution and adding petty features that are largely unhelpful in the process of picture-taking.

Thecageyone

charybdis wrote: »

The features you've mentioned are largely spurious or of questionable relevance to most photographers and you've ignored some of the glaring advantages of the 5D. That said, I own neither camera but I think I would prefer a 5D if I was asked to choose between the two.

I think you'll find that comparing cameras on the basis of the number of bullet points on a spec. sheet is a bad way to go about evaluating a photographic instrument and is the cause of much of camera manufacturer's attention being diverted into incrementing meaningless figures of supposed merit like sensor resolution and adding petty features that are largely unhelpful in the process of picture-taking.

The only advantages I see with a 5D are better noise handling and higher MP count. That's from comparing them over many sites. Before I bought the Nikon I read countless reviews on many makes and models. I had no preference at the time.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

The only advantages I see with a 5D are better noise handling and higher MP count. That's from comparing them over many sites. Before I bought the Nikon I read countless reviews on many makes and models. I had no preference at the time.

Its sensor is over twice as large and of significantly lower pixel density. Those alone are pretty huge differences. Comparing them on the basis of a slight difference in size of top LCD seems a little silly when you consider this.

It also costs twice as much as the D200, even used.

Thecageyone

charybdis wrote: »

It also costs twice as much as the D200, even used.

Yet they're still often directly compared, says a lot about the humble D200 does it not?

Best reason not to buy a 5D over it would be the price.

magicbastarder

the D200 is a fine camera. the 5D is a fine camera. end of.

Thecageyone

And after all that I still suggest the 2 reasonably priced brand new dslrs I linked earlier. As i don't think OP will buy either 5D or D200

magicbastarder

Thecageyone wrote: »

[pretty sure that's MF only on lesser models like the D60/3000/70/50 etc ..]

just to correct this - the D50 and D70 have built in focus motors.

Thecageyone

magicbastarder wrote: »

just to correct this - the D50 and D70 have built in focus motors.

I'd have a D70 over a d3000 in that case.

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

Yet they're still often directly compared, says a lot about the humble D200 does it not?

Best reason not to buy a 5D over it would be the price.

I had never seen them compared or considered as being in the same class until this thread. I would've thought the D200 was more analogous to Canon's 30D or similar and that Nikon didn't have a camera comparable to the 5D until they released the D700.

Five years after they were released, the D200 is a decent enough, if unspectacular, APS-C camera that has been superseded several times by its manufacturer, you can buy a new camera for a similar amount of money as a used D200 with similar features; the 5D is a full-frame camera that is only one revision behind its manufacturer's equivalent model, there is no new (or even used) camera you can buy that has the advantages of the 5D for anywhere near its used price.

I don't consider them comparable.

magicbastarder wrote: »

the D200 is a fine camera. the 5D is a fine camera. end of.

As I said earlier, the D200 is a fine camera:

charybdis wrote: »

The D200 is a fine camera, I already said so. Look:

charybdis wrote: »

The Nikon D200 is a fine camera

Thecageyone

You do drag on a bit ... we get it, the 5D is a good camera also. Hardly one worth going on about in this thread is it? The D200 is at least within the OP's budget. I never would have know to compare the 2 only I kept coming across comparisons when i was researching the D200. That's all.

Nforce

Jeez...went for a walk with the dog and came back to find all hell breaking loose in here!:p:eek:
Main reason I suggested the D200 to the OP was the fact that it's a very good camera and well within his budget. The fact that he has prior experience in operating a SLR camera might suggest that he could get his head around a D200. I'm not a Nikon fanboy but it was one of the first camera bodies that came to mind given the OP's budget.

Thecageyone

You call that hell breaking loose?

Good point, the controls might suit him very well.

I don't see any current €400 camera being as good all round as it tbh, or I'd have bought one, as that's what I paid for mine, body only.