# digital SLR's



## mike bell (Oct 28, 2004)

Anybody have a digital with a big lense attached yet?  Im still using my 35mm with a 210 zoom, but Im wanting one for Christmas but not sure if I should wait for awhile untill the price comes down some and more options become available.

I really want to get one and play around on the computer with the pics. 


(sorry wrong lense size, I was dreaming I had a 500mm  )


----------



## Skipper (Oct 29, 2004)

Digital SLR's have just begun, and are definitely the way of the future for the serious photographer. There are basically 2 manufacturers leading the race by about 10 laps and the rest have been in and out of the garage the whole time. Nikon and Canon are unquestionably the leaders in the market with the others just sort of being there for the sake of having an entry. 

 You can purchase a digital SLR for as little as $900 MSRP or as much as $8,000 MSRP. It just depends on how serious you want to get and your budget. Honestly, Mine's kind of thin, and the $900 Rebel was what I chose. 

   The SLR's have several advantages over point and shoot cameras.

 First, they have a much larger image chip even in the less expensive Rebels and D-70. Pixel count and Chip size are two things that are not necessarily related. In otherwords, you can have 5 mp chips coming in different physical sizes. The larger the chip, the larger each pixel is, and the more light it can receive. Larger chips are just better. When Nikon and Sony bumped up their flag ship prosumer cams the 5700 and F717 to 8 mp versions in the 8700 and F828, some reports have indicated a slight loss in the quality of the pictures because the chip size is pysically the same but there are more photo cells crammed into it. The thought is the law of diminishing returns comes into play when you increase the number of pixles on a given size chip. The SLR's have a chip that is about twice the size of the ones in the prosumer cams even though they rate the same number or similar pixels. The long and short is they give a better quality image.

 In the Canon line, both the Rebel and the D-10 have the exact same chip in them. The Rebel at about $900 and the D-10 at about $1500. The difference between the two is the body and functions of the camera. The D-10 is a pro-body with a consumer grade SLR chip in it. The Rebel is a Consumer body with a consumer grade SLR chip in it. The plastic and steel of the Rebel is replaced with Magnesium and Aluminum in the D-10, and the controls are more closely akin to the pro-cameras. The chips in either of these cams are not full size chips or they are not the same size as 35mm film. Their slightly smaller size results in a lens multiplication factor. A 300 mm lens one either of these cameras or the D-70 Nikon is equivalent to a 480 mm lens on a 35 mm camera. That is great if you want a big zoom but not so great if you want a wide angle. Your 17 mm lens becomes a 27 mm lens.

 There is a huge step between the Rebel/D10 cams and the next step up, the D1 Mark II. The price is suddenly $4,000 for the camera body. Of course the body has every switch known to man, the chip is an 8.2 mp chip with a 1.3 size factor so it's a larger chip than in the 2 lower priced SLR's Your 300 mm lens would be 390 mm effective with this camera. That's a not so great thing with wildlife, but a great thing for landscapes. 12 mm lenses are as expensive as 500 mm lenses.

 From there, you go to the top dogs, Canon's D1s and Nikon's D1x. Really, the D1x is no match for the D1s other than they both have full frame chips that result in 0 magnification. The D1s is a 11.something mp chip the D1x is a 5.47 mp chip. Of course the price on these is up in the solar system at about $5,000. 

 Canon has anounced an update of the D10 called the D-20 (8mp chip) that will be on the market next month. A D1s Mark 2 with a 16 mp chip will be on the market the first of the year for $8000. There are a lot of retailers dumping D10's right now at prices similar to the Rebels. There's nothing really wrong with a D10, and now might be a good time to buy.

 One thing you will notice in a hurry using a D-SLR is their speed relative to a camera like a Nikon 5700 point and shoot. The point and shoots can typically shoot 3 or less shots before they have to stop and write, and in many cases it may take 2 minutes to shoot those 3 shots. In 2 minutes with my Rebel, I can shoot about 12 shots and on the order of 40 shots in 5 minutes. The D-10's are even faster. The difference is the write buffers in the SLR's. The D1 Mark II can buffer up about 30 shots at about 4 shots a second.

 Guys who have shot film are probably cringing at the number of shots I'm talking about, but that is one of the purposes of digital and a prime advantage over film. I can shoot 200 pictures of the same elk if I want to, it doesn't cost me until I select the ones I want and print them. Where film shooters have to wait for the right moment and hope, digital shooters can just snap away and cull later without significant cost. It's not uncommon for me to take 1200 or so shots in a days time when we go somewhere like Cades Cove. I'll usually cull them down to about 200 or so usable shots. The ones where the elk stuck it's tongue out at me, wiggled it's ears, chomped down on it's cud, someone walked into the view, a car drove around the road, the wind gusted and moved a branch, well you get the idea. With the slower point and shoot cameras, it seemed to take an eternity to write the files and many times I've had a desirable subject walk off while I was "reloading" so to speak. It doesn't happen often with an SLR. I don't even have the newer 40x speed cards, just regular CF and some 2x cards. 

   Skipper


----------



## mike bell (Oct 29, 2004)

wow Skipper,

Thanks for the comments, sounds like your an expert   I will deffenatly ask your opinion on what I find while looking over the options.  I took photography as an elective while in gunsmithing school in Colorado.  I did not take it serious then, and now I wish I did.  


I think I might wait untill after Christmas before buying one.  A few years back, a day or two before Christmas, I bought a Sony Handi-cam digital-8mm.  After I bought an extra battery I think I payed a little over $800.  The next month they were $550 to 600 !!   I still have not decided on a camara , a lap top or a new bow : 

from now on anything that I BUY is going to have to WAIT UNTILL AFTER THE HOLIDAYS!


----------



## Ga-Spur (Oct 29, 2004)

Skipper , the one with the lawnmower without the deck on it; very good information. I'll ask you  before I buy again. Thank you.


----------



## RSnyder (Apr 6, 2005)

My wife is a photographer.  She does portraits and such.  Back last fall I bought her a Quantaray zoom lens for her Canon digitals (she has a 20D with a Rebel for a backup).  I thought she could use it for taking wildlife photos which is an interest of hers.  She's extremely happy with it as are other photographers.  Quantaray has to live up to Canon's specification without Canon's prices.


----------



## Razorback (Apr 6, 2005)

Mike,

Did you ever step up to the plate & get a D-SLR?

I'm in the biz of selling the stuff & ALL that goes w/ them to make them sing & dance.

Razorback aka Kenneth


----------



## mike bell (Jun 24, 2005)

No Razor I aint bought one yet.  Ive been watching and learning about the Minolta line.   I have a 35mm. Maxxum with two lenses, so I will be going with this brand because I can use those lenses on it.  What kind of deals you get on Minolta's?


----------



## Razorback (Jun 27, 2005)

Mike,

I wish I could help you out on your Minolta but I carry Canon, Fuji (S3), Nikon & can order some other brands as well.

Kenneth


----------

