Help choosing a Digital SLR

[Kies99]

Hi,

New here and heading down for our first family trip at the end of April (ages 35, 34, 5.5 and 3.5).

Anyway, the wife and I have decided we need to upgrade to a good Digi-SLR as our Christmas gift and need help choosing one.

Keep in mind that my wife is an avid scrapbooker and I sell on Ebay. I've got some experience on regular digital cameras. The major concern for us is pictures in low(er) light.

We are looking in the 6-8MP range (as that's our price range). We are considering the following (standard kits that include either 1 or 2 lenses, not just the body):

Canon EOS Rebel XT 8.0MP (Maybe Xti if there's a good sale - 10MP)
Pentax K110D 6.1MP
Nikon D50 6.1MP
Olympus Evolt E-500 8MP

I've read a lot of reviews (B&H Photo, Circuit City, Epinions, etc...) and these for the most part have similar ratings.

Can anyone give us any suggestions???

[jann1033]

go someplace and hold them and play around with them...get what fits your hands best and you like the feel of best, especially since you both will be using it.
that at least is how i weeded down my list to the rebel xt, the others I was considering just didn't feel good to me or I didn't like something about the set up of them.( plus i had canon eos lenses but that wouldn't have made it or broke it if i hated the way the rebel felt,just would have made me get another lens with the body)

[Master Mason]

All of those are good choices.

Stating here that I have the Rebel XT, so that was my choice, and of course since I made the best choice possible thats the one you should get...

Seriously though, you can't go wrong with any of those, Jann's suggestion is correct, go and play with them at a store, see what feels good, and what menus seem more intutitive to you.

One suggestion though if you do decide to get the XT, I found that the 18-55 lens left me feeling I didn't have enough zoom. I would highly recommend the body only and getting a sigma 18-125 lens as your "kit" This will give a a much greater range, and I would bet make you much happier in the end.

Good luck with your choice.

[Jeanne B]

I see you have the K110D listed, you may want to consider the K100D which has image stabilization. Great feature and Pentax is currently running a $50 rebate on both the K110 and K100.

I purchased my K100 from beachcamera.com. They're very reputable and have had the best prices on the Pentax dSLR's.

[civileng68]

Hi,

New here and heading down for our first family trip at the end of April (ages 35, 34, 5.5 and 3.5).

Anyway, the wife and I have decided we need to upgrade to a good Digi-SLR as our Christmas gift and need help choosing one.

Keep in mind that my wife is an avid scrapbooker and I sell on Ebay. I've got some experience on regular digital cameras. The major concern for us is pictures in low(er) light.

We are looking in the 6-8MP range (as that's our price range). We are considering the following (standard kits that include either 1 or 2 lenses, not just the body):

Canon EOS Rebel XT 8.0MP (Maybe Xti if there's a good sale - 10MP)
Pentax K110D 6.1MP
Nikon D50 6.1MP
Olympus Evolt E-500 8MP

I've read a lot of reviews (B&H Photo, Circuit City, Epinions, etc...) and these for the most part have similar ratings.

Can anyone give us any suggestions???


Of course your price range is a main factor but let me inject my opinions on some things.

first off, the best review site on the net (in my opinion) is www.dpreview.com. Go there and find your camera and you'll learn more about it than you ever imagined. You can determine what to buy at that time.

Now, one thing to realize is........the larger the sensor and the more megepixels will allow you to print larger photos without losing resolution. This is a HUGE factor since many cameras do not print 8X10's very well.

I have gone into the site and compared each camera.

Obviously the Pentax is the best price.

Obiously of all those cameras, the XTI is the better of them. However, lets assume you are NOT getting that one, for comparison of the others.

The high resolution output of the cameras goes in order of prices. The Canon is the best, followed by Olympus then Nikon, etc.

My personal Opinion is Nikons and Canons are the best cameras but, you are putting difference classes of cameras together. I'd compare the listed Canon with the NIkon D70S, not so much the D50, so while I think the Nikons cameras are better than Olympus, the higher end Olympus is better than this lower end Nikon. (I would DEFINATELY look into the D70S as it is a FANTASTIC! camera).

In today's age of cameras, I wouldn't go below 8 MP, so that takes the Pentax and Nikon D50 out (again, look into the NIkon D70s)

The Nikon has the largest sensor of any of them listed, which helps compensate for the lack of megapixels some but still, I wouldn't go below 8 MP.

ISO: The Pentax and Nikon D50 don't go below 200 ISO, so honestly those cameras cannot be considered. I'd demand that my camera go as low as 100 or 50, which the others do. The ISO will control how "clear" the image is. In lower light, you bump up the ISO to increase light but you also get more "graininess". The lower the ISO the clearer the image is. 200 is just to high for a lowest setting IMHO.

Out of the cameras listed, I'd say I'd go for the Canon but again, though I use a Nikon D200, I think your best bet for what you get vs what you pay is getting a Nikon D70S. The ISO is a 200 at the lowest but honestly this camera is so nice.

The Olympus looks appealing but with a digital SLR you must realize the most expensive investment is the lense.

I have lenses that cost more than these cameras listed. The camera is the beginning. With that said, you want a camera that handles the best lenses. Manufactures make lenses specifically for their cameras, meaning a much better peformance. With that said, if you are going to invest in this, go with either NIkon or Canon so you can buy Nikon or Canon lenses, which are definately better than an Olympus or off-name lense.

If you have any other questions, just ask and I'll help the best I can.

[MarkBarbieri]

In today's age of cameras, I wouldn't go below 8 MP, so that takes the Pentax and Nikon D50 out (again, look into the NIkon D70s)


I disagree with this advice. With most consumer lenses and typical amateur photography technique, you really won't notice a significant difference between 6 and 10 megapixels other than file size.

When I used a 10D, I printed several 11x14's that looked really good. Still, they were a small percentage of my "good" pictures because the others just weren't sharp enough. Higher resolution wouldn't have helped other than to show more of the limitations of the optics and my skill.

If you plan on getting pro lenses, shooting in really good light, using a tripod, and printing 11x14 or larger, worry about having more than 6 megapixels. If you plan on using a kit lens or consumer grade lens, hand holding your shots, and using available light, don't worry about it.

[ukcatfan]

Based on what I am thinking your shooting style is, I do not think you should count out the K100D or D50. If you are going to be doing a lot of action shots, then I would remove them from the list. I almost never take those types of shots, so I got a K100D and I love it. Usually scrapbooking shots and Ebay shots do not demand super fast reaction time. You will probably also be using the wide end more than tele. If this is so, that would probably remove the Olympus from the list b/c of its 2X crop ratio compared to 1.5X - 1.6X of the C N Ps and the cost of the lenses is higher. If you are not going to shoot really low light shots (where every camera would need a tripod), then the in camera image stabilization of the K100D will also help. You can get that on the other brands, but b/c it is in the lens, it will probably blow your budget out of the water.

civileng68 - Nothing personal at all, but I totally disagree with the minimum 8MP comment. I have never seen one bad 8x10 come out of my 3MP Canon S1 IS, so I do not know where that opinion came from. Some people go overboard with MPs and just waste memory space. If you crop almost every pic, then the more MPs, the better. I usually only do a significant crop on about 5% of my images and nothing too extreme then. If I did not frame the shot relatively close, then recovery is usually pointless. Again, nothing personal, but you seem to be speaking from opinion instead of experience on the ISO 200 statement. I compared tons of test shots while making my decision and the ISO 200 on the Pentax seemed as clean as the lowest on the Canon (100 if I remember correctly). For that matter, the 1600 ones compared very close to the Rebel and was really only noticeably different at a 100% view. The noise on the D50 is widely accepted as lower than the D70, so again, I think you are just stating your opinions instead of experience or facts. Based on your comment on how expensive your lenses are, I am guessing that you do not have one of these entry level models. Your experience with higher end models cannot be directly applied to this level. I feel like you are trying to persuade the OP away from some cameras that may be great deals for them.

For everyone's information, I went in looking at the XT or the D50, but ended up with a K100D. The XT felt less solid to me and the K100D beat the D50 out because of the SR. Olympus was never in my lineup b/c I shoot a lot of wide angle.

To the OP, if you are thinking of possibly going as high as the XTi, then also take a look at the K10D that will be out soon. The Pentax models seem to get price reductions quicker than other brands, so it might fall into your range. On paper, it blows away everything else in the same range.

Kevin

[ukcatfan]

civileng68

I just noticed that you are in SWFL. What part are you in? I am in Cape Coral.

Kevin

[DisneyFunfor3]

I'm an amateur photographer and avid scrapbooker. I've got a Digital Rebel and LOVE it...(so much so that it has replaced my ancient...and much beloved...Pentax SLR that I've had since high school which is about 20+ years ago). Don't get me wrong, I still miss developing my own black and whites that I used to take with my old Pentax...but my Digital Rebel takes such good shots that I'm WAY(!) behind on scrapbooking!

Good luck!

[civileng68]

I disagree with this advice. With most consumer lenses and typical amateur photography technique, you really won't notice a significant difference between 6 and 10 megapixels other than file size.

When I used a 10D, I printed several 11x14's that looked really good. Still, they were a small percentage of my "good" pictures because the others just weren't sharp enough. Higher resolution wouldn't have helped other than to show more of the limitations of the optics and my skill.

If you plan on getting pro lenses, shooting in really good light, using a tripod, and printing 11x14 or larger, worry about having more than 6 megapixels. If you plan on using a kit lens or consumer grade lens, hand holding your shots, and using available light, don't worry about it.

Your assessment is correct except you are not counting cropping into the equation. As a previous owner of an 6MP and now a 10MP camera, I can tell you there is a difference after cropping and then going up to an 8X10. If you go raw from the photo to 8X10 you are probably correct but, I hardly ever finish a photo without some cropping.

If you are trying to make up for a lack of physical zoom by cropping, you'll DEFINATELY notice the difference in lack of megapixels. A lense can improve clarity and sharpness but CANNOT improve the number of pixels recorded with the photo.

[civileng68]

Based on what I am thinking your shooting style is, I do not think you should count out the K100D or D50. If you are going to be doing a lot of action shots, then I would remove them from the list. I almost never take those types of shots, so I got a K100D and I love it. Usually scrapbooking shots and Ebay shots do not demand super fast reaction time. You will probably also be using the wide end more than tele. If this is so, that would probably remove the Olympus from the list b/c of its 2X crop ratio compared to 1.5X - 1.6X of the C N Ps and the cost of the lenses is higher. If you are not going to shoot really low light shots (where every camera would need a tripod), then the in camera image stabilization of the K100D will also help. You can get that on the other brands, but b/c it is in the lens, it will probably blow your budget out of the water.

civileng68 - Nothing personal at all, but I totally disagree with the minimum 8MP comment. I have never seen one bad 8x10 come out of my 3MP Canon S1 IS, so I do not know where that opinion came from. Some people go overboard with MPs and just waste memory space. If you crop almost every pic, then the more MPs, the better. I usually only do a significant crop on about 5% of my images and nothing too extreme then. If I did not frame the shot relatively close, then recovery is usually pointless. Again, nothing personal, but you seem to be speaking from opinion instead of experience on the ISO 200 statement. I compared tons of test shots while making my decision and the ISO 200 on the Pentax seemed as clean as the lowest on the Canon (100 if I remember correctly). For that matter, the 1600 ones compared very close to the Rebel and was really only noticeably different at a 100% view. The noise on the D50 is widely accepted as lower than the D70, so again, I think you are just stating your opinions instead of experience or facts. Based on your comment on how expensive your lenses are, I am guessing that you do not have one of these entry level models. Your experience with higher end models cannot be directly applied to this level. I feel like you are trying to persuade the OP away from some cameras that may be great deals for them.

For everyone's information, I went in looking at the XT or the D50, but ended up with a K100D. The XT felt less solid to me and the K100D beat the D50 out because of the SR. Olympus was never in my lineup b/c I shoot a lot of wide angle.

To the OP, if you are thinking of possibly going as high as the XTi, then also take a look at the K10D that will be out soon. The Pentax models seem to get price reductions quicker than other brands, so it might fall into your range. On paper, it blows away everything else in the same range.

Kevin

hey it's fine to disagree. I can speak by evidence right in front of me the difference. In fact if you are shooting a 3MP I find it VERY very hard to believe you are getting the same clarity of a 10mp digital SLR when printing an 8X10. In fact, there's no way (in my opinion) that is going to happen.

Now, lets also think about this.......everyone's expectations are different. I'm pretty sure my opinion of a great quality photo is different from some others.

I had a Nikon D70S which is 6 mp and I can post and show you the difference in the photos tonight when I get home. There is a distinct difference between that and my D200 10mp camera now. I can crop it in and show you the lack of clarity you get when you crop.

We can agree to disagree but, I can assure you I'm familiar with this.

[civileng68]

civileng68

I just noticed that you are in SWFL. What part are you in? I am in Cape Coral.

Kevin


Hi there UKcatfan.

I'm in Naples, so you're just a bit north of me! Nice to see another somewhat local Diser!

[donaldduck1967]

I have the Olympus E-500 2 lens kit and love it. It's a great camera and the 2x factor and anti-dust are two of the reasons I bought it. Also from what i've read, user,magazine and web reviews, the kit lens' are the best kit lens' available. It's got alot of features, i'm still learning after 1 year from this (ukcatfan has given me some great advice) and other sites and I still have a lot to learn from it. The only thing I would suggest is get the 18-180 instead of the 2 kit len's. It wish I had it on my recent trip to WDW. It's not a hassle to change lens' but it seemes to happen at the wrong time

[AZ JazzyJ]

There has been some very good advice given here in this thread. Your best bet is to evaluate how you are going to use the camera and what your shooting style is like. I would also concur that megapixel count should not be a deciding factor. It is possible to get great pictures from your camera regardless of whether it is 3 megapixel or 15 megapixel. While cropping will degrade the clarity of some photos this can be mitigated by carefully considering the composition before snapping the camera. I've had success with 3 megapixel cameras producing a crisp 8x10 and I've had success with my 10 megapixel so I can attest that both are capable of giving you the results you are looking for.

Once you have decided on the kinds of pictures you are going to shoot and what the environment will be like for your photos (indoors, product, low light, high speed, etc) you can then try to find friends or aquaintences who have each model you are considering. Ask them questions or if possible take a couple of shots with each and get a feel for the camera. You will get much better results with a camera you feel comfortable using rather than one that has all the techno-gadgets currently on the market. Of the cameras you have listed in your post, you can't go wrong with any of them from a technology perspective.

Jeff

[civileng68]

There has been some very good advice given here in this thread. Your best bet is to evaluate how you are going to use the camera and what your shooting style is like. I would also concur that megapixel count should not be a deciding factor. It is possible to get great pictures from your camera regardless of whether it is 3 megapixel or 15 megapixel. While cropping will degrade the clarity of some photos this can be mitigated by carefully considering the composition before snapping the camera. I've had success with 3 megapixel cameras producing a crisp 8x10 and I've had success with my 10 megapixel so I can attest that both are capable of giving you the results you are looking for.

Once you have decided on the kinds of pictures you are going to shoot and what the environment will be like for your photos (indoors, product, low light, high speed, etc) you can then try to find friends or aquaintences who have each model you are considering. Ask them questions or if possible take a couple of shots with each and get a feel for the camera. You will get much better results with a camera you feel comfortable using rather than one that has all the techno-gadgets currently on the market. Of the cameras you have listed in your post, you can't go wrong with any of them from a technology perspective.

Jeff\

I think jeff said it best. Feel out the camera that you feel is right for you specifically.

Personally, I heavily crop my photos because I am not trying to just get photos for putting in an album to share. I am taking most of my photos (not the ones on my site) and working to create basically a "show" photo. I'm working to build a home gallery, so your goals are likely different than mine.

I will agree that without manipulating the photos and doing much post processing you can't tell the difference.

However, I will tell you that alot of digital SLR's are pretty advanced and have a good learning curve. Make sure you are going to get something you're comfortable in working with. My brother in law is a photo geek like me but, my camera is over his head and he can't use it, so make sure you are comfortable with it.

As always, if you want to do anything manual, learn a little about exposure, ISO, Aperture and shutter speeds.

I think digital SLR's are so great because they can move with the technology times. While the bodies themselves are getting more advanced, the lenses are too so a camera bought today can last you for over 20 years if kept up and you can keep adding modern lenses to take great photos.

[ukcatfan]

hey it's fine to disagree. I can speak by evidence right in front of me the difference. In fact if you are shooting a 3MP I find it VERY very hard to believe you are getting the same clarity of a 10mp digital SLR when printing an 8X10. In fact, there's no way (in my opinion) that is going to happen.

Now, lets also think about this.......everyone's expectations are different. I'm pretty sure my opinion of a great quality photo is different from some others.

I had a Nikon D70S which is 6 mp and I can post and show you the difference in the photos tonight when I get home. There is a distinct difference between that and my D200 10mp camera now. I can crop it in and show you the lack of clarity you get when you crop.

We can agree to disagree but, I can assure you I'm familiar with this.

I try to be careful not to offend so we can keep this board friendlier than some of the other camera boards around. There was a bitter spell going a few months ago, but everything seems fine these days. That is why I do 99% of my posting here even though I read many other boards.

Just for comparison purposes, the clarity out of my S1 IS seems to me to be on par with 8x10s that we get from portrait studios. I know that those places are not the best out there either, but they are usually acceptable to me. I am guessing that my 6MP images are going to be more than enough for my taste.

I have not printed any of my pics from my K100D yet, but I can tell on screen that they are better than the S1. Also, like I said before, I have a pretty laid back shooting style so I have the time to frame it pretty close to what I want. I consider a crop on every picture, but it is usually only to cut a small band off. If I do something drastic, I would not even try to print it more than 4x6.

Kevin

[handicap18]

You really can't go wrong with any of the camera's you listed. I am a D50 user and have gotten 12x16" enlargements that came out awesome. I guess that if you happen to be someone that does heavy cropping then maybe the higher MP's are better, but the vast majority of regular everyday amerture photo enthus' don't do heavy cropping. I've been a Nikon SLR user for almost 20 years so the Canon's really weren't a consideration for me. Though they do make excellent dSLR's. I have held both the Canon's and Pentax' and found them to be to small for my hands (except for the Canon 20D and 30D which are quite a bit larger than the XT and XTi). So the advise to go out and hold them in your hands is probably the most important piece of advise.

Also someone mentioned possibly avoiding the kit lens, I would agree. Though the kit lenses are very good lenses and are better than P&S lenses, they are very limiting in their range (18-55mm). Canon has an 17-85mm lens, Nikon makes an 18-70mm, 18-135mm and also an 18-200mm (though it is on the expensive side and hard to come by). Sigma also makes an 18-125mm lens that is available for Canon, Nikon and Pentax.

When I was in the buying process for my dSLR I was convinced that the Nikon D70s was for me. However, after reading lots of reviews and consumer opinions I ended up with the Nikon D50. It has a better sensor, has EXCELLENT high ISO performance (better than the D70s) and is less expensive. I don't need the extra bells and whistles the D70s offered and really haven't missed any of them. Also, re: ISO, when I was shooting film I mostly used ISO 200 & 400, so ISO 100 to most amertures isn't going to make much of a difference over ISO 200. That being said, I would really love to upgrade to the new Nikon D80. I also like the lenses Nikon has as well as the flashes that are available (SB-600 was my choise). Canon and Nikon both have a similar line of lenses, prices for Canon are a bit lower in some ranges and Nikon has lower prices in other ranges.

All in all, I would recommend getting (though not all at the same time)
a speedlight flash (the pop-up flashes are good, but nothing compared to a speedlight flash and the speedlight flashes have more options, ie: more powerful, bounce, diffuser, etc..).
3 lenses: Regular "everyday" lens in the 18-??? range, (Nikon's 18-135mm is a great "walk-around" lens, as is Sigma's 18-125), Long Zoom: 70-300mm, Canon and Nikon both make one with VR/IS (vibration reduction/image stabilization) and also have lesser expensive ones without VR/IS. These 2 lenses will give you great coverage from 18-300. I would also suggest eventually getting a 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. Both Nikon and Canon make one that is very inexpensive (all things considered). They are super sharp and excellent for low light situations (the f/1.8 is a very wide aperture and will allow you to get very good shutter speeds in lower light situations combined with ISO 1600) and is also great to use as a portrait lens.
Other recommendations: a good tripod and a remote shutter release.

These extra's you don't have to get right away or at all. You can do just fine with the body and an 18-125/135mm lens. Its all going to depend on what you use your camera for. Also since you say you do a lot for ebay, maybe a lens with a macro feature might be something to consider down the road as well.

[YEKCIM]

Not trying to muddy the waters here, and I'm in the same boat as many; I, too, am strongly considering the move to dslr.

I have a question for those of you who have the digital expertise: to what degree is the limiting factor the lens's resolving power/sharpness, and to what degree is it the sensor? To ask it another way, if one is using a "consumer" (i.e., not $1500 pro glass) lens, would the sensor resolution (6MP vs 10MP) be all that significant?

I seem to be getting the impression (via photo boards, not here...) that in order to *really* take advantage of 10MP sensors, you need better glass; consumer lenses are not capable of resolving detail finely enough to make the $2X cost of 10MP cameras a worthwhile investment.

Any commentary on that subject would be of great interest to me, and perhaps the OP and others.

~YEKCIM

[civileng68]

I try to be careful not to offend so we can keep this board friendlier than some of the other camera boards around. There was a bitter spell going a few months ago, but everything seems fine these days. That is why I do 99% of my posting here even though I read many other boards.

Just for comparison purposes, the clarity out of my S1 IS seems to me to be on par with 8x10s that we get from portrait studios. I know that those places are not the best out there either, but they are usually acceptable to me. I am guessing that my 6MP images are going to be more than enough for my taste.

I have not printed any of my pics from my K100D yet, but I can tell on screen that they are better than the S1. Also, like I said before, I have a pretty laid back shooting style so I have the time to frame it pretty close to what I want. I consider a crop on every picture, but it is usually only to cut a small band off. If I do something drastic, I would not even try to print it more than 4x6.

Kevin


No sweat! I take everything in a friendly way. I am an easy debater. Some can't do it and get too emotional, which is crazy considering it's a message board. Anyways, if you are getting that clarity on a larger photo, that's great. I just am surprised, that's all but, if you are, I think that's a great camera for this OP then possibly.

[Master Mason]

Yekcim,

I am certainly not an expert by any means. But I do remember reading that somewhere in the 8mp range is where that particular source said the lens became the limiting source rather than the sensor.

I don't remember the exact source, but I do remember it was a thing about upgrading from the XT to the XTi and if it was worth it.

[Groucho]

Now, one thing to realize is........the larger the sensor and the more megepixels will allow you to print larger photos without losing resolution. This is a HUGE factor since many cameras do not print 8X10's very well.
The size of the sensor is only part of the equation - a very important one, yes, but not the only one. There are many other factors to consider.

Obiously of all those cameras, the XTI is the better of them. However, lets assume you are NOT getting that one, for comparison of the others.
Why? I haven't seen any reason to rate the XTi higher than the competition apart from the on-paper higher resolution. I would not take this as an automatic assumption. DPReview's review actually had quite a number of gripes with it IIRC. (Not many relating to image quality, but other things.)

In today's age of cameras, I wouldn't go below 8 MP, so that takes the Pentax and Nikon D50 out (again, look into the NIkon D70s)
If you're chasing megapixels, you are generally gaining noise as well.

The Nikon has the largest sensor of any of them listed, which helps compensate for the lack of megapixels some but still, I wouldn't go below 8 MP.
FWIW, the Nikon and the Pentax use the same sensor.

ISO: The Pentax and Nikon D50 don't go below 200 ISO, so honestly those cameras cannot be considered. I'd demand that my camera go as low as 100 or 50, which the others do. The ISO will control how "clear" the image is. In lower light, you bump up the ISO to increase light but you also get more "graininess". The lower the ISO the clearer the image is. 200 is just to high for a lowest setting IMHO.
200ISO is the native resolution of the Sony sensor used in those cameras. Going below 200 will lower image quality. I can assure you that there is no noise with these cameras at that ISO (you won't notice any noise until 800 and then it's still very slight, especially compared to a PnS.)

With that said, if you are going to invest in this, go with either NIkon or Canon so you can buy Nikon or Canon lenses, which are definately better than an Olympus or off-name lense.
This is quite a bit of a generalization. Don't Canon fans often complain that the kit lens is subpar? Name a lens brand and no doubt we can easily find one great and one lousy lens from them.

All the lines have various superb lenses. And many third-party lenses are extremely good, as well. (Don't forget that Sigma makes a DSLR as well!)

In response to the original poster - feel is important, see if you can hold each one to check out the ergonomics. With the current $50 rebate, the Pentax K110D and K100D are outrageously affordable, and I'd spend the extra few bucks to get image stabilization on the K100D. They are clearly the cameras to beat in terms of value. I don't believe there are any significant downsides to them as compared to the competition, but the others are certainly all great cameras.

[MarkBarbieri]

I have a question for those of you who have the digital expertise: to what degree is the limiting factor the lens's resolving power/sharpness, and to what degree is it the sensor? To ask it another way, if one is using a "consumer" (i.e., not $1500 pro glass) lens, would the sensor resolution (6MP vs 10MP) be all that significant?

You'll get quite a lot of different answers to this question because it's really not black and white. I would certainly think that the new 12mp sensors for point & shoots are a total waste, but it's a bit trickier with DSLR.

The first problem is that some consumer lenses are very good. The classic example is the standard 50mm prime. It's extremely simple to build a really good one. In fact, it gets harder the further from 50mm you go and the more zoom range you add in. A cheap 50mm prime is likely to outperform a really expensive wide ranging pro zoom at 50mm in every way.

The next problem is that even cheap zooms can often shoot OK at some ranges and apertures. If you take a typical zoom in the middle of it's range and shoot it stopped down a few stops (say f11), it will usually shoot quite well. I would be that if you compared a Canon 70-200 f2.8 lens (a really nice pro lens) shooting at f2.8 at 100mm with a Canon 70-300 f4-5.6 (a decent consumer lens) shooting at f11 at 100mm, they would probably perform similarly.

Finally, one of the biggest problems in getting the most from a camera setup isn't just the lens but the photographer. Lot's of technique errors often detract from getting the best sharpness. A lot of people use the reciprical rule for picking a shutter speed, but that's intended to get you to good enough, not critical sharpness. A lot of people focus on the wrong part of the subject or use focus lock on a moving subject. A lot of people shoot tripod shots but still push the shutter button manually or don't use mirror lockup.

Another problem with extremely dense sensors is diffraction. The smaller the pixels on the sensor, the sooner diffraction starts to become a problem. This is one reason why when comparing two sensors with the same resolution, the larger one can sometimes take better pictures. The effect of diffraction gets worse the smaller the aperture. It starts to become an issue somewhere around f11 on a 1.6x crop sensor and gets progressively worse as you stop down. This is a problem that cannot be fixed with better glass or better sensors, only wider apertures or larger sensors.

Finally, if everything else is equal, you will get more noise with a higher density sensor. If the don't change anything about the sensor design or image processing and simply pack more pixels on the same size sensor, you'll get more noise. Of course, everything else is rarely equal, so as they have increased the density of pixels on sensors they have also done a good job of decreasing noise as well.

That's probably a longer and more boring answer than you want. My simple answer is that after about 6mp, the law of diminishing returns sets in and improvements in megapixels start to matter a whole lot less. That's partly because of the limitations above. The other reason I stress that is that most people mentally compare pixel numbers linearly when they should compare them exponentially. When most people hear that the new Rebel XTi is 10 megapixels and the original Rebel was only 6 megapixels, they have this gut notion that they'll have almost twice the horizontal and vertical resolution. In fact, the pictures go from being 3072 pixels wide to 3888 pixels wide or an increase of just over 25%.

Excluding the old 3 megapixel Canon D30, I don't think that megapixels should be that big a factor in selecting a DSLR. For my shooting style, I'd put having more megapixels behind noise levels, autofocus speed, autofocus accuracy, autofocus coverage, ease of use, durability, buffer size, write speed, metering accuracy, or spot metering ability.

One other thing to consider is that if you camera is capable of shooting at a very high resolution and you want to shoot RAW, you can't throttle back. If you want to use smaller file sizes to fit more pictures on a card, shoot faster, or use less disk space, you're out of luck. Your only options are to either shoot full resolution or switch to JPG and giving up all the benefits of RAW. That's why a 1Ds is great for landscape shooters who take a lot of time getting each shot just right and a 1D is better for photojournalists.

OK, now that's way too much info.

[YEKCIM]

OK, now that's way too much info.

Mark, Actually, that is *excellent* info and has confirmed my suspicions about the importance (or lack thereof) of chasing megapixels. I think that for my purposes, a 6MP dslr will be very sufficient. Probably going to be D50, although the K100D and the K10D (for the sealing and SR more than the MP) are attractive as well.

Thanks very much for your detailed analysis of my question. Much appreciate your time and expertise.

~YEKCIM

[boBQuincy]

I don't worry about megapixels very much, at least not unitl I print larger than 8x10. I have 3, 6, and 8 MP Canon dSLRs and can see very little difference between an 8x10 print from any of them.

Since 6 MP is the smallest you will find anyway, you can't lose with any of the current crop of dSLRs.

Lower ISO is not always the best deal, some cameras have more noise at ISO 160 than at ISO 400. Whatever the lowest setting the camera has is likely to be the best, but a direct comparison between brands is tricky. I doubt there is a significant difference between 100 and 200 on any of them.

If low light photography is your goal Canon's 20/30D series have lower high ISO noise than the Rebel series. SOme reports claim the Rebel XTi has more noise than the XT.

[KYCruiseCrazy]

rebel XT here gets my vote. when it comes to low light shots you just adjust the setting. i love this camera. :banana:

[Kies99]

Okay, now that my heads stopped spinning I can say a big THANKS to all who've posted. You've given me some great information.

The suggestions on lenses is very helpful.

This has really narrowed down my search now.

[Groucho]

Probably going to be D50, although the K100D and the K10D (for the sealing and SR more than the MP) are attractive as well.
I agree about the K10D. I plan to pick one up for my next camera for its many features but megapixels is not one of the big reasons.

Anxiously awaiting the first full reviews... and to see what Beach sells it for!