PDA

View Full Version : Looking to get an SLR


phorsenuf
11-28-2005, 02:45 PM
My son (18) wants an SLR camera fro Christmas. He really prefers manual settings opposed to being automatic.
What is a decent (but not break the bank) brand and model? We were looking at some of the Canon Rebels (we have the Canon Rebel 2000). He mentioned a Nikon.

Thoughts?

Anewman
11-28-2005, 02:56 PM
My son (18) wants an SLR camera fro Christmas. He really prefers manual settings opposed to being automatic.
What is a decent (but not break the bank) brand and model? We were looking at some of the Canon Rebels (we have the Canon Rebel 2000). He mentioned a Nikon.

Thoughts?

This is the order I would rank the entry level Dslrs all prices are from BUYDIG dotcom(no tax,free shipping) and do not include lens except for the pentax.
IMO the Canon and the Nikon are pretty much tied for 1st choice and the Minolta and Pentax are pretty tight as well. But you can find plenty of Oly fans that would reverse the entire rankings. I only put the canon on top because you already have at least one canon lens.

Canon Rebel XT $760 (B4 $75 rebate)
Nikon D50 $550
Minolta Maxxum 5D $600
Pentax *IST DL $625(w/lens)
Olympus Evolt E-300 $590

AZ JazzyJ
11-28-2005, 02:58 PM
Both Canon and Nikon make great digital SLR models. I'm more of a Nikon guy so I can answer questions on those models if you have any. I would suggest either the D50 or D70s as great choices. The D70s is more advanced but both support his requirement of having manual settngs. The D70s has a more advanced focusing system but they are very similar in operation.


Jeff

phorsenuf
11-28-2005, 03:08 PM
Both Canon and Nikon make great digital SLR models. I'm more of a Nikon guy so I can answer questions on those models if you have any. I would suggest either the D50 or D70s as great choices. The D70s is more advanced but both support his requirement of having manual settngs. The D70s has a more advanced focusing system but they are very similar in operation.


Jeff

I should claify, I am not looking for a digital model, he wants 35mm.
Thanks!

Anewman
11-28-2005, 03:18 PM
You mentioned that you already have a Rebel 2000.

IMO there has not been any groundbreaking improvements in the 35mm cameras that would really merit an upgrade. Instead I would buy a nice lens and maybe a flash, I think that would improve pictures more than upgrading the body.

Is there a reason he does not like the Rebel 2000?

phorsenuf
11-28-2005, 03:21 PM
Is there a reason he does not like the Rebel 2000?

Nope, no reason. He just wants his own camera. :confused3

AZ JazzyJ
11-28-2005, 05:23 PM
My mistake, my digital bias leads me to assume non-film these days. If you have Canon lenses already it would make sense to be able to share those with him. If he is intent on Nikon, I really loved my N80 before buying the F100 which is probably the last film camera I will ever own as it has everything I ever wanted (and I don't shoot that much film any more so it will never wear out).

Jeff

LordAthens
11-29-2005, 03:43 AM
I loved my N80, it's a terrific mid-range body. You should beable to pick one up w\ a decent piece of glass for ~$400.

Charade
11-29-2005, 08:13 AM
I have an old Nikon 6006 that's now collecting dust. For a good reason. With the selection of digital cameras that available today with their quality and convenience, I would not recommend a film camera to anyone. Well, there is one time I would. I would recommend a disposable camera for situations that would possibly damage a more expensive camera (digital or not).

Some of the more moderately priced Point and Shoot cameras have manual settings. I think that if he's trying to learn about photography, the instant feedback would be a plus instead of waiting for expensive film processing and printing.

The Nikon D50 (with a lens (18-55 zoom)) is a bargain at around $650.

http://www2.butterflyphoto.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=D50KIT

A decent film camera is still going to cost $300-400 dollars. Then you have to add in the never ending film processing/printing costs.

phorsenuf
11-29-2005, 08:29 AM
I have an old Nikon 6006 that's now collecting dust. For a good reason. With the selection of digital cameras that available today with their quality and convenience, I would not recommend a film camera to anyone. Well, there is one time I would. I would recommend a disposable camera for situations that would possibly damage a more expensive camera (digital or not).

Some of the more moderately priced Point and Shoot cameras have manual settings. I think that if he's trying to learn about photography, the instant feedback would be a plus instead of waiting for expensive film processing and printing.

The Nikon D50 (with a lens (18-55 zoom)) is a bargain at around $650.

http://www2.butterflyphoto.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=D50KIT

A decent film camera is still going to cost $300-400 dollars. Then you have to add in the never ending film processing/printing costs.

He took a photography class in school and really enjoyed it. He especially liked working with black and white.
He plans to take another course in college.
He also enjoyed doing his own processing, although that's not feasible at home right now. It's what he likes. Not everybody loves digital.....LOL

MICKEY88
11-29-2005, 09:45 AM
He took a photography class in school and really enjoyed it. He especially liked working with black and white.
He plans to take another course in college.
He also enjoyed doing his own processing, although that's not feasible at home right now. It's what he likes. Not everybody loves digital.....LOL


I know a few photographers who loved doing their own processing, and darkroom manipulation, said they'd never go digital, once they discovered the world of digital manipulation with good software, they forgot all about their darkrooms..

you might want to make him aware of what can be done before buying a 35mm camera, otherwise there is the risk that he will discover the digital darkroom.., and then want digital instead..

Charade
11-29-2005, 10:12 AM
otherwise there is the risk that he will discover the digital darkroom..,


But but but... that's not REAL photography!! :rotfl2:

MICKEY88
11-29-2005, 10:26 AM
But but but... that's not REAL photography!! :rotfl2:

neither is manipulating photos in a darkroom :cool1:

WillCAD
11-29-2005, 11:37 AM
My son (18) wants an SLR camera fro Christmas. He really prefers manual settings opposed to being automatic.
What is a decent (but not break the bank) brand and model? We were looking at some of the Canon Rebels (we have the Canon Rebel 2000). He mentioned a Nikon.

Thoughts?

If your son likes the Rebel 2000, then any of the Rebels will work fine for him. There are several newer models with a few more bells and whistles (more focus points, etc.), but any of them are good, solid, beginners cameras.

My 35mm is a Rebel G. I held onto that camera for a long time before buying a Digital Rebel, because the pics were so superb. I will miss it a lot, but since I got the Digital Rebel, the Rebel G is sitting in its box, waiting for somebody to buy it. Ah, well, that's progress.

After I had the Rebel G for a while, I found that the best accessories I could buy for it were the AA battery pack, a Speedlight external flash, and a 28-200 zoom lens. I've also found that a pocket-size tripod and a remote shutter release are excellent extras when taking long exposure night shots.

AZ JazzyJ
11-29-2005, 04:57 PM
He took a photography class in school and really enjoyed it. He especially liked working with black and white.
He plans to take another course in college.
He also enjoyed doing his own processing, although that's not feasible at home right now. It's what he likes. Not everybody loves digital.....LOL

Another area your son may be interested in is infrared photography. It is black and white and the photos have a surreal view to them. I've often thought about getting into that myself.

I completely understand his desire. In college I took a photography course (from the physics department - I am a closet geek that had to know "How" the camera worked). In that class we did our own processing. I loved everything from the dark bags for removing the film canisters to dealing with the chemicals. There is nothing quite like seeing an image magically appear when added to a tray of chemicals under the red glow of a darkroom light. I can still smell that on some of my old prints and it brings back lots of memories. You can't get that kind of connection with a digital camera. The smell of an inkjet printer just isn't the same.

Jeff

LordAthens
11-29-2005, 11:05 PM
Then you have to add in the never ending film processing/printing costs.

You still have to add in printing costs for digital as well, typically ~.25\print at home and $.10\print at a photolab.

While it's certainly cheaper than film processing, it's not exactly free like everyone pushing digital would like it to seem.

ndelaware
11-29-2005, 11:37 PM
You still have to add in printing costs for digital as well, typically ~.25\print at home and $.10\print at a photolab.

While it's certainly cheaper than film processing, it's not exactly free like everyone pushing digital would like it to seem.
But at least you only print the pictures you like. And I think most folks with digital print far less than they did when using film. Many just set them up as a slide show on their pc or tv. And $.10/print is alot cheaper than the last time I had film developed. I took almost 6000 pictures this year, I can't imagine what it would have cost to buy film and develope a similar amount of prints.

MICKEY88
11-30-2005, 09:22 PM
I took over 20,000 photos in an 8 month period, that would have cost a fortune shooting 35mm, but the cost was next to nothing since I only printed the pictures I wanted to hang..

Kelly Grannell
01-27-2006, 06:07 PM
I realize that this thread is old... but I'm still interested to know... why 35mm? :confused3

MICKEY88
01-30-2006, 04:35 PM
I realize that this thread is old... but I'm still interested to know... why 35mm? :confused3

I agree, especially in light of the fact that there is less film being produced these days, and I just read last week that Nikon has stopped production of mid level 35mm slrs, it's only a matter of time, 'till film cameras go the way of 8track tapes and beta video..

phorsenuf
01-30-2006, 04:42 PM
I realize that this thread is old... but I'm still interested to know... why 35mm? :confused3

Because that is what he wants. We have a nice digital ourselves but he prefers 35mm. He's taking a photo class at college and that is what they use. He is going into journalism/photojounalism.

phorsenuf
01-30-2006, 04:44 PM
Both Canon and Nikon make great digital SLR models. I'm more of a Nikon guy so I can answer questions on those models if you have any. I would suggest either the D50 or D70s as great choices. The D70s is more advanced but both support his requirement of having manual settngs. The D70s has a more advanced focusing system but they are very similar in operation.


Jeff

We ended up getting him the D70 model. He loves it!

MICKEY88
01-30-2006, 04:48 PM
Because that is what he wants. We have a nice digital ourselves but he prefers 35mm. He's taking a photo class at college and that is what they use. He is going into journalism/photojounalism.

sounds like his professors need to join the modern world, most photojournalists use digital , for convenience and most print media these days want digital files.., not film or negatives...

WillCAD
01-30-2006, 05:49 PM
You still have to add in printing costs for digital as well, typically ~.25\print at home and $.10\print at a photolab.

While it's certainly cheaper than film processing, it's not exactly free like everyone pushing digital would like it to seem.

It is for me, because I never print any of my pics - I keep them on my computer (and in several backup locations), and view them exclusively on-screen.

I have a screen saver that steps through my entire photo album, and because of this, I get to see my pics a lot more often then if they were sitting in albums on my shelves.

It may not be right for everybody, but the way I keep my pics not only allows me to see my pics more often (and more clearly as they are zoomed to fit my 19" monitor instead of printed at a measly 4"x6"), but saves me all the money I used to spend on film processing and printing.

handicap18
01-30-2006, 06:08 PM
So you did end up getting him the digital not film SLR?? Its a little confusing because in one post you said he wanted the 35mm because of what the college class uses then 2 minutes later you posted that you got him the D70 which is digital.

So I'm assuming that he now see's the light and has welcomed himself into the 21st century and the dSLR. If so. Great choice. Though I like my D50 better than the D70. But the D70s I almost got. Instead I went with the lens the D70 & D70s come with and the D50.

Have him check out http://www.nikonians.org/ lots of great info there. Even a specific forum for D70/70s owners and users.

AZ JazzyJ
01-31-2006, 04:49 AM
I don't believe film is dead. There are too many times that film still outperforms the digital sensor. The sensors are getting better but still cannot capture all of the detail of film. Nikon like other manufacturers are stepping back production of 35mm cameras due to lack of profitability since mid-level 35mm users are moving up to higher-end 35mm systems or better yet moving to medium format for increased depth and detail. Everyone keeps saying digital will be the death of film but I don't believe it will happen. It may not be a prevelant as digital but will still have a solid base with professionals and amateurs alike. While I am waiting on the arrival of a Nikon D200 digital camera, I seriously considered getting a Nikon F6 film camera instead. For only $300 more I could have the top of the line film camera that was built to last a lifetime. Compare that price to the top of the line digital SLR cameras and film is a much better value. I do believe that digital will rule the market from a point-and-shoot standpoint, but as for higher end SLR I don't yet see film going away. And if you take into consideration other formats beyond 35mm, then digital has a long way to go. There isn't a cost effective digital alternative for medium format. The digital backs sell in excess of $30K and the file sizes are enormous. There is no reason to leave film if you shoot medium format or above. It's all in your perspective.


Jeff

MICKEY88
01-31-2006, 08:15 AM
I don't believe film is dead. There are too many times that film still outperforms the digital sensor. The sensors are getting better but still cannot capture all of the detail of film. Nikon like other manufacturers are stepping back production of 35mm cameras due to lack of profitability since mid-level 35mm users are moving up to higher-end 35mm systems or better yet moving to medium format for increased depth and detail. Everyone keeps saying digital will be the death of film but I don't believe it will happen. It may not be a prevelant as digital but will still have a solid base with professionals and amateurs alike. While I am waiting on the arrival of a Nikon D200 digital camera, I seriously considered getting a Nikon F6 film camera instead. For only $300 more I could have the top of the line film camera that was built to last a lifetime. Compare that price to the top of the line digital SLR cameras and film is a much better value. I do believe that digital will rule the market from a point-and-shoot standpoint, but as for higher end SLR I don't yet see film going away. And if you take into consideration other formats beyond 35mm, then digital has a long way to go. There isn't a cost effective digital alternative for medium format. The digital backs sell in excess of $30K and the file sizes are enormous. There is no reason to leave film if you shoot medium format or above. It's all in your perspective.


Jeff

this could be debated forever, a large number of pros, went from medium format to 35mm, when 35mm film became much better grain wise... from what I've heard and read, the number of people going from 35mm to digital far exceeds the number of people going from 35mm to medium format..or from low end 35mm to high end 35mm..

but the original thought was 35mm will be replaced by digital,,,medium format is a different story

WillCAD
01-31-2006, 11:28 AM
I think 35mm and APS will go the way of the 8-track within 10 years.

When you look at the massive switch that the photography industry has made in teh past 3 years, and extrapolate from that, it seems very possible that consumer film will be nothing but a relic and a niche hobby by 2015.

Pros who shoot medium and large format will likely last a but longer; after all, if you have invested $100K in equipment, you want to get as much use out of it as you can! And medium and large format film, because of their greater physical size, will still capture better images than any digital camera currently on the market - but that may not be the case 10 years from now.