Yeah, it's very nerdy & geeky.

I've been reading this thread with increased interest. I have a four year old Kodak digital camera that I've used to take, well, snapshots, family photos, and some landscapes, but I've been thinking of getting into photography at a more serious level. Any suggestion at what equipment I should buy. I'm not talking about flat out balls-to-the-wall professional equipment, more at the level of a seriously minded hobbyist. What do I need?

Double H is a Digital SLR something you are thinking of? Have you owned a SLR in the past that you might already have lenses for a particular brand. There is some really great stuff out there that runs the whole gamut. It depends on your needs and price point in what direction would be best for you.

Sure, a Digital SLR is something I'm defiantly thinking about. I'll certainly need one with interchangeable lens. I want to keep the cost in the range of $1,500-$2,000 for both the camera body and the basic lens. I want a set up that is very versatile.

I'm starting from scratch. I have looked at a few models, but this is such a step up for me that I'm a bit overwhelmed. Each model I looked at has much more capability than what I have. They all have so many good features. Having little experience I don't know which ones I need or would use. What would you get if you were starting from scratch and looking to spend $1,500-$2,000? It could even be a bit higher if that would bring a lot more capability and especially versatility.

Double H with the latest crop of gear out what looks to be the best for some one just starting out is the Nikon D90. The body only is $1000 and with a kit lens(18-105) the price point is around $1300. Which would leave you room to get a flash or another lenses. And other stuff like memory cards extra batteries etc. The D90 really packs a punch that you could grow into. It even does full blown video clips. Which is the next thing to be hitting the DSLR market.

The size is probably right for you also. The entry level models are usually much smaller.

This site DPReview is a great resource for all things digital photography.

I was already eyeing up the Nikon D90, but the Canon EOS 5D looks pretty nice also, no?

Full frame is a whole other league. It depends on which Canon 5D. Canon just announced the 5D Mark II. The original 5D is over three years old. It does have great picture quality but the newer APS-C sensors like the one in the D90 also has great picture quality that should be comparable.

The newer 5D Mark II has a whole new sensor that is 21mp. It has alot more features to including full HD(1080p) video. Nikon also has the D700 which is a full frame competitor to the 5D without the video feature. For full frame cameras in this price range I think the 5D Mark II has the edge. These are serious cameras for pro use.

Sony also has a full frame sensor unit. I think it is the A700.

Pentax my brand has yet to announce a full frame DSLR. I have their flagship unit the K20D. It has 14mp CMOS APS-C sensor manufactured by Samsung.

Canon use CMOS sensors they produce themselves. Nikon has also switched to CMOS sensors. They had been using CCD sensors produced by Sony. I am not sure who is manufacturing Nikon's CMOS sensor. Sony of course use their own sensors. Panasonics parent company Matsushita produces sensors as well. I think Olympus uses them in their 4/3rds systems.

A major factor is price point. Those full frame unites will cost you over 3 thousand to get going.

What do you have grand kids on the way?

I want a camera as well, but I want a small one, black, and not ugly. A pocket camera.

The Lumix LX-3 is a good one, isn't it? Or would I be better off trying to get the LX-2 for maybe half the price of the LX-3?

Or should I wait to see for example what that little new Samsung is like, the one that smithz linked to?

The Sigma D-1 is slow, it seems. I like the way it looks but I would put black tape over the white SIGMA text on the front.

Or what about a Ricoh camera? They seem to be smaller and lighter than the others.

quote:

Originally posted by RicoX:
What do you have grand kids on the way?

I'm not spending a few thousand dollars to take snapshots. I have a hankering to make some art. For a while now I've been framing pictures in my mind and playing with light and shadow. What I know for certain is that I need more camera than I now own to make the pictures I see.

Right now it does look like a decision from among the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, the Nikon D90, and maybe the three year old Canon EOS 5D Digital SLR. I think I'm going to say the hell with it and go with the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, but I would think before I do my wife might want to offer an opinion. It is a lot of money and she also wants to buy herself a new car. (Again!)

In any case, I'm going to consider those three models plus two others and make a purchase today or tomorrow in which case I'm going to be busy learning and experimenting with my equipment. It will take a few weeks just to get an idea of what I'm doing. I've have books to read, tests to carry out, and I'm also planning on taking a couple of university photography classes where my wife teaches. It'll take a fair amount of time before I'm anywhere close to where I need to be.

Thanks for the good advice. I'll let you know how I'm making out and maybe in a month or two I may create something that might be suitable for posting, not so much as a finished work, but just to show progress. I'll let you know. Until then, "Th-th-th-that's all, folks!"

Double H maybe you can tell your wife you are getting her the new Mark II. She might think you are getting her a Lincoln.

Even more important than the camera body are the lenses. It will depend on what type of photography you are most keen on shooting. Landscape. Portraits. Macro. This should guide you to which lenses will suit what you are after.

Modern zoom lenses are very good today. I might suggest staying away from the super zooms. Ones with focal lengths like 18-250. It is best to have a wide angle zoom and a telephoto zoom. Still better are prime lenses. These will give the best overall quality.

Canon and Nikon make some fine lenses. You will pay through the noise for their very best lenses. The fast fifties are usually good the f1.4 variety. Canon and Nikon both make nice 85mm f1.8 primes. They are reasonably priced with excellent IQ.

The site PhotoZone has extensive reviews of many lenses.

I would say don't skimp on the lens.

Also remember that APS-C sensors or smaller than the 35mm form factor. They have a crop factor of 1.5 to 1.7 depending on which chip maker the sensor is from. I think Canon's is usually 1.6. This will make a 50mm lens have a field of view equivalent to 80mm in terms of 35mm film.

Some newer lenses have been designed exclusively for APS-C sized sensor cameras. They will vignette on a full frame sensor. Though Nikon on the D3 and D700 have DX lenses support built in by cropping the sensor when such modern APS-C designed lens is attached to the body. I am not sure if the Canon Mark II has this feature.

For what it is worth Canon mount is best for adapting other brand lenses to their bodies. In particular old screw mount lenses. I don't think the camera will meter though. Canon did not maintain any compatibility with their older manual lenses after they went auto focus. They developed a whole new mount. Nikon can accept some of there older lenses including manual lenses. I am not sure if the bodies meter with these older lenses attached. Nikons flange to sensor plan distance is such that trying to adapt other brand lenses to their bodies you loose infinity focus including screw mount lenses.

I chose Pentax because I enjoy manual focus lenses. Pentax has maintained compatibility with all their lenses stretching back 50 years including their old screw mount lenses. The bodies will meter with any of these lenses with some limitations.

Yabor that is a hard sell. If you like the Panasonic I would say pay the extra and get the LX3. I think it is best to get the latest camera. The sensors usually perform better than the predecessor.

The Samsung and Ricohs have really great creative features beyond just still images.

The Sigma DP1/2 will give you the best IQ. When shooting RAW files all the Point & Shoots have the same lag time between shoots. The LX3 will have around a 3 second delay before you can take another image when shooting in RAW. Since Zuster Petra has her point & shoot already you guys might want to get a camera that shoots with a RAW file.

Now Sigma has the DP1 and DP2 out. The DP1 has a 28mm f4 lens. The DP2 has a 40mm f2.8 lens. Personally I would probably go for the DP2. I like the 40mm focal length. But the DP1 would be better for landscape. You can also digitally zoom which does crop the sensor though.

HH, I'm looking forward to seeing your work. Good luck with it and lots of pleasure.

Rico, thanks. I don't know what the deal is with RAW files, but I'll do some research.

I'm definitely leaning toward the LX3 (though the LX2 is prettier, as thalo said) but haven't decided yet. I'm going to read up on the Sigmas and Ricohs, smithz's brand. I think I'll buy on monday.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: yabor,

I found out that the Ricohs don't do RAW files, so it seems wise not to buy one (though brother smithz isn't convinced about the importance of RAW, as I recall he said a while back). Though I do like its compactness. --Have you any advice or opinion to give me here, smithz?

The Sigmas are expensive, much more expensive than the other compacts.

I intensely dislike the protruding part on the right side of the LX3. I understand its usefulness for better grip.

Broeder Yabor, as Rico wrote it's difficult the choose the right camera.
I don't know what you need this camera for or what photographic needs are most important to you.

Let me tell you that i mainly choose the Ricoh because of the flexible time-lapse feature, which is unique in compacts. (Ricoh shoots single JPGs in a selectable resolution using a definable delay. Other compacts mostly create small in-camera-generated (mostly crappy) Mjpeg Movies in 640x480. Using a Ricoh you have to create the movies of any quality afterwards using your Computer which needs some knowledge - fine for me) ... Other than that the Ricoh offers a great zoom-range (wideangle 28mm to 200mm tele). Plus it has this intense macro-feature.
BUT: It's not so great as a point&shoot camera. Simply not, partly because of the weak flash and the long zoom which needs lots of light. And sadly it's moviemode is mediocre, the picture is OK but the Audio is very crappy, although it's better on the R8 or R10. I just read your post again: The R8 is black!

I wouldn't recommend the Sigma to you, i think it won't suit your needs and it is pretty pricey. I think you would want at least a little zoom-lens.

The Panasonics are good, use a good lens and offer really effective anti-shake (BN may disagree after his experience?). They also offer a good movie-mode i think. Did you check out the TZ-Series? They also offer great 10x zoom, starting at wide-angle. They're a bit more clunky though. Review here. And there is no black one.
Here Linky is an all-black Pana.

Regarding RAW, i still think it's maybe nice to have but you won't want to fiddle every shot with Adobe Darkroom or Aperture. I don't know your photographic post-production skills, but i guess you want to do less? Also i don't know an ultracompact (that's the size you're looking for) that offers RAW.

A friend has a Canon Ixus 860 Linky , which is great and very compact. The 3,8x zoom is from wide-angle to mild-tele. It's movie-mode is really good quality. It's nothing for me because no decent time-lapse, but it's a great point'n'shoot. There are too many different Ixus Models :-) I'm confused. I just can comment on the 860 because i've seen the shots and the quality. Hm, it's not black, but very compact.

Btw, which camera did you use for your vacation-shots?

ps. I just bought a R7.

pps. Do you have a local dealer for Cameras? I recommend go there and try out some models. But don't let them talk you into anything.

quote:

ps. I just bought a R7.

Very cool, smithz. Looking forward to the specs and some shots. As for anti-shake, it seems to work quite well on my Canon 570 IS. I wouldn't buy a camera without it. It's not a gimmick feature like "face detection." It really works. And there are no apparent trade-offs (although there can be a very small hit on battery life). The feature, as you know, doesn't freeze motion, but it does allow you to hand-hold shots at 1/30 of a second shutter speeds and have them come out very crisp. This makes a huge difference being able to take natural indoor shots without the glaring hard-edges of using a flash. Not in all cases, but in many.

Hmm, i'm very unsure about the R7. It brings nothing new, but make some things worse. Audio in Movies is not only very low volume (as the R6) but also "offers" a constant noise in the background. I read about it and couldn't believe. But it seems to be true.

Some resolutions i used for time-lapse (1280 Fine=less Jpg compression) is missing, there are no fine modes anymore for lower resolutions. Hmm, shooting 8mpix stills in time-lapse mode is not useful for me.

Image quality is not better, it has 8mpix, the R6 had 7mpix. Right now i would say the IQ is even a little worse than R6. More sharping artefacts and more processing.

I'm really considering to drop the R7 and get an old (but new) R6 via amazon.

BN, i mentioned you because i remember your Panasonic experience and you weren't very satisfied with the IQ, at least for the price-tag. I wasn't focused on Anti-Shake there, i just wrote in a little confusing structure.

Smithz, sounds like you'd be better off with that R6. I trust your judgment about these features that certainly sound like down-grades. Who wants that in a new camera? As for the Panasonic LX2 I briefly had, I thought it was over-priced for the features it had, the interface was kludgy, its macro abilities were average, and the shots were too noisy, but I don't remember having any problem with the IS. I don't even remember if it had IS.

Most Panasonics have the "Mega O.I.S." (What a Name) which is regarded as one of the best working Image Stabilizers in the Industry. Works on Stills and Movies, too.

Works on movies. That's not something I've usually seen as a spec. I don't know why. It could be that moving that little internal lens or CCD around to compensate for movement is just too much for movies. Maybe the better cameras come with a heavier-duty system. That's just a guess. Or maybe it's also a function of battery life.

Rico, thanks. I don't know what the deal is with RAW files, but I'll do some research.

Yabor, with all due respect to brother Rico (lol...yeah, right...da bum), I think the RAW feature is only useful if you plan on being Ansel Adams. I played with it for a while and was unimpressed. The non-RAW jpg or tiff conversions that the camera software automatically does with the picture data is often pretty damn good. You're much better off, in my opinion, looking for a camera that takes very good shots right out of the box. If you want to, you can pretty them up in Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Graphic Convertor (a really good, although slightly geeky, program) or a number of other programs. But I found working with RAW files to be onerous. But truly rot-gut, hardcore, serious photographers who might be making and selling large framed prints of their work for a living would probably be stupid not to have that function. But for you and me, it's just a feature you'll likely never use, or need to use. Now, I expect to be slapped around a bit by brother Rico, but I can take it.