WOW, head spinning with new camera options!

[Matsu]

Anyone else looking to buy a new digital camera in the next 2-3 months?

The high-end consumer options (fixed lense) have just gotten incredible.

Fuji has an S7000 coming:

6/12MP 35-210mm equivalent for 800USD

Minolta has the A1:

5MP 28-200mm equivalent, probably for twice the price, but it has built-in mechanical image stabilization, and is supposed to have a very fast AF.

And now Sony has the 828? Aparently a french photo mag (print) got a sneak

Basically a black (SLR styled) F717 with an 8MP sensor and a pretty amazing 28-200 f2-2.8 lense. WOW! no word on the price yet, probably over 1000USD.

Then there are the new 5MP semi-compact models. The Olympus c5050 and Canon G5, and now, Nikon 5400 (also with a 28mm wide end) and SOny's mini 717, the V1 (also 5MP)

All I can say is WOW! This is really a great time to be in the market for a digital camera.

Anyone else looking for cameras?

[Panther]

I just got an Olympus few weeks ago. 3,2 mpi, 10 x optical zoom and 3,2 x digital ... very happy with it. No need to upgrade it at least yet... :)

[gordy]

I have a 3MP now. I won't buy another one until 6MP cameras are around $500, or Canon releases the G6.

[Harald]

Been playing with an Olympus E10. Wow.

[Eugene]

The F828 looks pretty hot. Especially with the brand new 4-color image sensor. I can't wait for DPReview to post a review of the production model.

[Matsu]

Just read the preview on it. It looks HUGE in pics, but relative to a hand and the DSC-717, it doesn't look that much bigger than the previous model. It is quite a bit heavier though. SOme say it's ugly, but I kinda like the look of it.

At 1200 it won't be cheap, and some people are talking about 999 D-SLR's (body only) in a year's time, so that's something to consider, though buying an equivaent 35mm or (APS, DX format) would cost you at least another grand on top of that, and the SOny will likely come down in price after a few months. And if Sony is good at killing the noise at ISO-800, with that fast lense (f/2), then it should be a very flexible shooter.

The A1 is bound to cost 200-300 more*** (which certainly takes it out of my reach), and the anti-shake supposedly provides significant stabilization (3 stops worth) with a really fast AF and shutter speeds. hmmm...

***edit: Maybe Not. Dpreview speculates that it will cost 999GBP. What does that work out to in USD? Aren't electronics typically more expensive in the UK in that they're ussually sold at a highly unfavorable exchange?

If the sony and Minolta are about the same price... choices choices...

The other option is the S7000, which at 800USD is a LOT cheaper, but still has good features and might be worth considering over only slightly cheaper P&S like the G5.

[Matsu]

JUst checked around the net a little more.

Looks like the A1 and the DSC828 will have the same MSRP.

From here it looks like Sony will have the superior lense and Minolta the superior AF and metering system.

Then there's the whopping 8MP 4 color sensor of the sony versus the Image stabilized 5MP sensor of the Minolta.

1199?

1800 canadian pesos.

Which one would you all go for at first glance? I will of course wait for reviews before making a selection.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Matsu

Which one would you all go for at first glance? I will of course wait for reviews before making a selection.
I would definitely go for the Sony. The larger image sensor in a way negates image stabilization since you can take the same photo as the A1 without zooming in as far...

The superior lens will always overcome AF and metering, which you can always adjust manually.

[Matsu]

You're probably right, I sometimes have delusions of "fast action" snap shooting, and in reality I'd let me down, probably, before the auto focus of either camera did.

I think they're both the same size 2/3rds sensors, just that Sony has more pixels packed into it than the minolta. Some people think that the smaller diodes will lead to more noise, but both cameras claim to do ISO 800 and Sony has traditionally beeen very good at taming noise.

AH, I get it, you mean the bigger res, Only have to zoom in 60-70% as far as on the minolta to get the same shot, b/c of the greater cropping latitude.

Ergo, to bring an object to the same size @ the 200mm tele end of the minolta, you only have to go about 120-140 on the Sony and then crop. True true. Couple that with the faster speed (f/2 wide, f/2.8 tele) and the 3 stops advantage of stabilization may not be as great as it at first appears. At 200mm the Minolta would be shooting f/3.5, at around 140mm the sony would still be at about f/2 -- I hadn't thought of that at all.

I wonder though, if the smaller photosites will be more suseptible to blur from camera shake? It's probably more or less the same, that's going to be a really neat comparo.

[JBL]

Originally posted by Eugene
I would definitely go for the Sony. The larger image sensor in a way negates image stabilization since you can take the same photo as the A1 without zooming in as far...

The superior lens will always overcome AF and metering, which you can always adjust manually.

I have to disagree. If you take telephoto pictures in low light, image stabilization is very important. The "giggle" you get from hand holding pictures is not a particular number of pixels, it is a particular visual angle. Under conditions where the limiting factor on resolution is my ability to hold the camera steady, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to having a higher pixel resolution. None. Zero. Zip.

Nor will a superior lens always overcome superior AF. If you need to focus quickly, the faster focusing mechanism will beat the more accurate focus every time.

This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer the Sony, but both image stabilization and fast auto focus can be extremely useful.

[Matsu]

Arrgh, this is going to break into math and then I'm going to get confused and go to bed. JBL, what you say also makes sense. If I can't hold the camera steady, extra res won't help me. But I thinkthere may be something to the argument that Sony could get by in some situations by not having to go as long at the tele end, to get the same shot. However, my original math, like most of my math, was wrong, I was way too generous with my eyeball estimate.

The comparison value between zoom and MP comes into play, though not to the extent I had mentioned.

Comparison Value = (zoom)^2 * #of pixels

Sony = (200mm)^2 * 8MP = 320 000

Minolta = (200mm)^2 * 5MP = 200 000

For the Sony to achieve the same value as the Minolta we need:

x^2 * 8 = 200 000

or 158mm

At 158mm the sony can put the same number of pixels on a subject in the frame as 200mm on the Minolta.

So -- assuming those smaller pixels can resolve the same detail -- the question then becomes, how much easier is it to hold 158mm steady than it is to hold 200?

[Xaqtly]

Just for whoever cares, I recently bought an Olympus C5050. It's an awesome camera, I highly recommend it. The modes and features this camera has are really extensive and impressive. For being such a small camera, it takes very, very good pictures at 5 megapixels. Just my opinion. :)

[JBL]

Originally posted by Matsu

So -- assuming those smaller pixels can resolve the same detail -- the question then becomes, how much easier is it to hold 158mm steady than it is to hold 200?

And the answer is that there is no advantage. The easiest way to think about this is that, the way you have it set up, each pixel represents the same area in the scene and therefore the same degree of visual angle. The blur from your inability to hold the camera steady comes from changes in the camera's angle toward the object while the shutter is open. The angle of this jiggle can thus be measured in pixels. Since the pixels in each case represent the same visual angle there is no difference between the two cameras. This assumes no image stabilization and the same shutter speed, which is where the actual difference between the cameras comes in. Because the Sony has a faster lens it can probably take this picture at f/2.4 or f/2.6 while the Minolta would be at f/3.5. Give the Sony a stop advantage there (you could use about a stop faster shutter speed). However, Minolta is claiming a 3 stop advantage to its image stabilization. If this turns out to be true, Minolta gets about a 2 stop advantage.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by JBL
I have to disagree. If you take telephoto pictures in low light, image stabilization is very important. The "giggle" you get from hand holding pictures is not a particular number of pixels, it is a particular visual angle. Under conditions where the limiting factor on resolution is my ability to hold the camera steady, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to having a higher pixel resolution. None. Zero. Zip.
If the image stabilization was perfect, of course. Once you start taking long exposures, you'd be better off with a tripod or monopod in most situations. A couple of Olympus cameras has image stabilization too...They are not particularly impressive.

Nor will a superior lens always overcome superior AF. If you need to focus quickly, the faster focusing mechanism will beat the more accurate focus every time.[b]
In a consumer camera with non-interchangeable lenses? You either camera Matsu mentioned above and you are stuck with those optics. Given the option of having soft focus all the time vs some of the time...

[b]This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer the Sony, but both image stabilization and fast auto focus can be extremely useful.
Superfast AF + FPS would be even better.

[the cool gut]

I just picked up a G3 after the price fell from the release of the G5. Would have gotten the G5 but I've heard too many reports that the G3 was a better camera.

It's fantastic, my only gripe with digital cameras is the shallow depth of field. A year from now I hope to pick up a DSLR when their ripe for the picking.

[Matsu]

Originally posted by JBL
And the answer is that there is no advantage. The easiest way to think about this is that, the way you have it set up, each pixel represents the same area in the scene and therefore the same degree of visual angle. The blur from your inability to hold the camera steady comes from changes in the camera's angle toward the object while the shutter is open. The angle of this jiggle can thus be measured in pixels. Since the pixels in each case represent the same visual angle there is no difference between the two cameras. This assumes no image stabilization and the same shutter speed, which is where the actual difference between the cameras comes in. Because the Sony has a faster lens it can probably take this picture at f/2.4 or f/2.6 while the Minolta would be at f/3.5. Give the Sony a stop advantage there (you could use about a stop faster shutter speed). However, Minolta is claiming a 3 stop advantage to its image stabilization. If this turns out to be true, Minolta gets about a 2 stop advantage.

Yeah I figured as much, just to say that the adantage of the Minolta would not be a full three stops because Sony seems to have sprung for some neat glass and a (perhaps?) better CCD.

So there's no advantage to greater res when standing at the same distance? That is true the way I figured it, I guess, cropping the Sony image down to 5MP would be like using a smaller sensor at 200mm anyway. And then there are the smaller pixels to deal with. But isn't a lense more susceptible to shake at the long end, than in the middle of its range? Perhaps not a major difference, but at least some. While cropping an image with more pixels and enlarging a print can produce the same net result, it is not really the same thing as using a longer tele in the camera, if more magnification refracts more light, during the actual shooting, the longer lense would be more susceptible to shake, I think of it as a kid sitting at the long end of a seesaw versus one sitting in the middle.

eeek, it's enough to make me want to go back to bed. From what I've read I do believe it has a small influence, but perhaps a negligible one in this case. but iDunno...

I wonder about the pixel pitch of the 8MP vs 5MP sensors. When you read some photography pages out there, people are getting all spasmodic about pixels getting to small, an therefore noisy... ISO800 at the ful res must be a good indicator of Sony's confidence in the new sensor though -- not bad for this class of camera.


PS

About AF and FPS :/ :p

Imaging Resource -- who time test cameras -- are saying that the Sony has the fastest shutter release of any non SLR camera they've ever tested so far, .39-.61, (wide-tele) versus .167 for a Canon SLR, the previous speed king for a non SLR was the S602 at about .56-.8 sec.

They're putting the A1 between .6-.7 (Slower!) but are holding off because it seems wrong to them and may just be a pre-production glitch.

This is important to autofocus because these tests are all done with full auto-focus mode enabled so it gives an indication of how "fast" the camera focuses, though it doesn't tell us how accurately.

Interesting stuff because all the Minolta news has been about how the camera was/is going to be the fastest focusing ever, but all the previews so far have said that the Sony is the fastest thing they've seen and that the AF is impossible to fool ??? Simpler but better perhaps.

I wonder when production models will be made available for review?

PMS.

cool gut, iThink you mean deep depth of field, no? The smaller sensors and slower lenses of most of the non-SLR cameras usually produce a deeper depth of field, and sometimes make it hard to get that nice pleasing background blur that's so easy to get with an SLR. You might ant to try the C5050, it's got a reallt fast f/1.8 which may be able to gt that DOF effect you crave.

OMG, this is a long post. After studying photographs for academic purposes for a few years, I've really been into shooting as much B&W 35mm and using the VERY limited capabilities of a 2MP Fuji P&S I got (free!) It's an amazing hobby, I've been on a total photography kick for the past few months, and with a few friends (professionals) and the internet and magazines for a guide, you can litereally teach yourself.

I really think that right now is just a great time to buy a digital camera and take up the sport, so to speak.

C5050, G3, G5, S602/7000, A1, 717, 828, they're all AMAZING in light of what you could hope for only 2 years ago, especially at the price, sure they'll be eclipsed, but that just means we can buy even better cameras in 2-3 years.

[IdigIt]

Xaqtly (Re: Olympus C-5050)

I totally agree with you as I have one also...the thing is AWESOME!! :)

[JBL]

Originally posted by Matsu
But isn't a lense more susceptible to shake at the long end, than in the middle of its range?

Your pictures are more likely to look blurry due to shake when you use a telephoto than when you use a wide angle. That is because each pixel represents a smaller visual angle when you use a telephoto than when you use a wide angle. When you shake your camera while shooting a picture you turn the camera by roughly the same number of degrees whether you are using a telephoto or a wide angle. This means that your shaking spreads objects out over more pixels using a telephoto than a wide angle.

For example (using completely unrealistic numbers for simplicity):
Suppose you are taking a picture of an object that is .2 degrees square, and suppose that each pixel on your wide angle lens is .1 degree square and each pixel on your telephoto is .01 degree square. If you could hold your camera perfectly still this object would be a 2x2 pixel square on using the wide angle and a 20x20 pixel square on the telephoto. Now suppose you move the camera .5 degrees horizontally while you shoot the picture. The object now is a 7x2 pixel rectangle using your wide angle and a 70x20 pixel rectangle on your telephoto. There are two important things to notice in this example. First, the blur is the same proportion of the size of the object. This is why using a shorter lens and cropping doesn't help. The second thing is that the blur is a lot bigger on a absolute scale using the telephoto. That is why people always say you need to use faster shutter speeds using a telephoto (or equivalently that telephotos are more susceptible to shake): your uncropped pictures look blurrier using the telephoto.

[Matsu]

Not to disagree with you, a lot of this is just me thinking out loud. You could feasibly shoot 160mm a bit slower than 200, could you not, just a little? Your explanation makes sense, it's probably just me having a little trouble thinking about all the variables at once, or just thinking too much and confusing myself.

If the object takes up the same amount of space (degrees of visual arc) stabilization is the deciding factor. But at 160 (or 158) it takes up less space. It hits the same number of pixels, because the pixels are smaller (in the 8MP senor). So doesn't it come down to the quality of those smaller pixels? If they are as adept as the larger pixels of a 5MP sensor, then you could shoot wider and crop more, conceivably. You'd still have to be pretty still, but holding a 160mm shouldn't be too dificult with good technique. Then again, because those pixels are smaller, they would be more sensitive to small movements, and you lose the gains you had if you crop too much? eeek.

I almost get it, I'm just trying to reconcile it with other info, but that could be wrong, or inaccurate.

[GardenOfEarthlyDelights]

Originally posted by JBL
I have to disagree. If you take telephoto pictures in low light, image stabilization is very important. The "giggle" you get from hand holding pictures is not a particular number of pixels, it is a particular visual angle. Under conditions where the limiting factor on resolution is my ability to hold the camera steady, there is ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE to having a higher pixel resolution. None. Zero. Zip.

Nor will a superior lens always overcome superior AF. If you need to focus quickly, the faster focusing mechanism will beat the more accurate focus every time.

This is not to say that I wouldn't prefer the Sony, but both image stabilization and fast auto focus can be extremely useful. Rule of thumb: Shutter speed should be the reciprocal of your lens to avoid "jitter," when shooting by hand.

If you're using a 200 mm lens, the fastest you can shoot by hand is typically 1/200s. Any slower, and you should use a tripod. Of course, being a rule of thumb, your mileage will vary.

I've never looked into image stabilization in digital cameras, but I would expect "fuzziness" if it's similar to a camcorder (feel free to enlighten me here).

For me, the quality of the image starts with good glass (lens). If the glass is bad, who cares what other features the camera has?

But, to each his own.

[JBL]

The rule of thumb about not being able to hand hold a picture when your shutter speed is less than the reciprocal of your focal length is based on the amount of blur that is going to be tolerable if you don't crop the picture. There is simply no difference between using a 200 mm equivalent lens with a 5Mp sensor and using a 158 mm equivalent lens with a 8Mp sensor and cropping off the outer 3Mp.

Here is another way to think about it. Nobody actually quotes the real focal length or the physical sensor size in their specs (okay, they do but it is way down on the list someplace). Instead they quote the pixel resolution and the 35 mm equivalent focal length. That is because all that really matters is how many pixels you have and what area of the image is going to cover those pixels. If you limit the 828's lens to 158 mm and then crop off the outer 3 Mp, the resulting camera would be advertised as a 200mm, 5Mp camera, exactly the same as the A1.

[Producer]

What do you guys think of the new Sony DSC-F828? Is this good enough for headshots? more info HERE (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0308/03081502sonydscf828.asp)

[Matsu]

I've seen a big print done with 4-6MP. A six MP frame cropped square and then interpolated to a larger file in the computer (12-16MP, or something like that) and printed out up to 40X30, two people (bride and groom) and it looks pretty good. Probably for a couple of reasons, the softness helps the portraits b/c most wedding couples aren't exactly supermodels and you want them to look good, and past tabloid size you tend to view things from far away.

3364x2448 should give perfect letter size prints @300dpi or cropped out to a standard 8x10 at the same res.

@150dpi you could get gallery size 20x16 without doing any fancy interpolation to the image, I think for head shots there's probably resolution to spare.

Plus, you can shoot the RAW file and push the interpolation quite a bit in a computer. A little softer, perhaps, but it will let you make a pretty big print with more than enough detail for a face or two.

[Escher]

Originally posted by Matsu
Anyone else looking to buy a new digital camera in the next 2-3 months?

Yup. And my head is spinning as well, Matsu. My 2.5 year-old Canon PowerShot A20 worked alright this summer, but I want faster autofocus, faster optics, more flash range, and more zoom.

I'm tempted to go all out for a DSLR like the Canon 10D. But despite recent leaps in price/value ratios, DSLRs are still too expensive for my taste. At this point I'm trying to decide whether to go for a pseudo-DSLR like the just-announced Sony DSC-F828 (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscf828/) (the inclusion of a CF card slot makes this the first interesting Sony) OR a high-end P&S.

The PowerShot A20, an entry-level P&S, has done a surprisingly good job of fulfilling my day-to-day needs. So a better P&S like the PowerShot S400 or S50 would probably be OK. However, I really miss the precision and flexibility of my manual film SLR. On top of that, I would prefer interchangeable lenses, or at least a fast mechanical zoom, and an external flash option. Finally, I want to see how the Olympus E-1 (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse1/) (and the Four Thirds system) and the Pentax *ist D (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistd/) stack up before deciding.

As with the upcoming PowerBook revision, only time will tell.

Escher

[Placebo]

Sony's going to be out with a high-megapixel camera that has all the features of the F717, but without the 'soda can and a box of matches' for factor. It's called the DSC-V1. See it here:http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start;sid=mSRXY_H1y75XZ8638LVdaL75vi4dV1ec1CQ=?Cat alogCategoryID=S6YKC0%2eNjh8AAAD3B3iquAcK&ProductID=hWIKC0%2eNxxwAAAD3PgSquAcS&Dept=dcc

[Matsu]

Originally posted by Escher
On top of that, I would prefer interchangeable lenses, or at least a fast mechanical zoom, and an external flash option. Finally, I want to see how the Olympus E-1 (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse1/) (and the Four Thirds system) and the Pentax *ist D (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistd/) stack up before deciding.

Escher

Early word on the E1 is that it has all of the cost of larger APS/35mm sensor cameras without the noise free performance. Poor showing in early tests so far. 4/3rds doesn't look like it has much of a future at 2399 for a body that requires you to immediately invest in new lenses. But Kodak and Fuji supposedly signed on to support the system and they may be able to intro more affordable models.

I'm leaning towards a psuedo SLR myslef, to tide me over for a few years untill the DSLR market options/directions become clearer.

[JBL]

Yeah, the E1 looks like it may have problems. Still I really like the concept behind the 4/3 system. Specifically I like the idea that you aren't stuck with one manufacturer for bodies, lenses and accessories. You can upgrade or side-grade your body and keep your lenses or vice versa.

[Matsu]

Speaking of options, Kodak might have decided they'd actually like to sell a camera this Xmas season. They now have a 4MP 10X optical zoom model. 380mm of zoom seems a little excessive for an unstabilized model, but hey, people will buy it.

[BuonRotto]

I'm sticking with my old analog Nikon FG and especially my 50mm and 35-105mm Nikkor lenses until a compatible DSLR comes down to around $1000.

[Escher]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
I'm sticking with my old analog Nikon FG and especially my 50mm and 35-105mm Nikkor lenses until a compatible DSLR comes down to around $1000.

That sounds quite reasonalbe. Aside from a (relatively) low price, fully mechanical manual operation (i.e. via dials and switches, not buttons and LCD-screens) and good prime lenses are two factors I will be looking for in any DSLR I buy. Some twenty years ago, I learned to shoot with 35mm and 100mm prime lenses on my father's manual SLR. It's still my preferred way of shooting. I don't want no stinkin' autofocus zooms! ;)

I know this might be a paradox, but I would really like to see a "simple" DSLR that works exactly like a good old manual film SLR. The only difference would be its use of a digital sensor instead of film. That would float my photographically conservative boat.

Escher

[Matsu]

I too have an old Nikon system and three manual lenses. (28, 50, and 80-200 zoom) The camera is marked only "FE" followed only by a sequence of numbers on the back, no model numbers on the front. I don't a lot about it, it was given to me, and I've been using it for the last few months.

Have Nikon mounts changed at all over the last 20 years, or were there a couple of different types of mount that were NOT interchangable with each other. Basically, will my old manual focus Nikon lenses work (without any of the electronic features, natch) with a new digital body from Fuji or Nikon? I could be tempted to go for a used S1 or Nikon body, depending on price.

Nobody at dpreview has an answer for me, anyone here?

[Escher]

Originally posted by Matsu
Have Nikon mounts changed at all over the last 20 years, or were there a couple of different types of mount that were NOT interchangable with each other.

AFAIR, you can use at least some modern autofocus Nikkor lenses on old manual Nikon bodies and some old manual Nikkor lenses on new autofocus Nikon bodies. I think this is not the case with Canon and Pentax lens systems. Don't know about Olympus and Minolta lens systems, but I don't think their respective manual and autofocus systems are compatible either.

Matsu: Why don't you grab your manual lenses, head down to your local photo dealer, and try them out with a D100 or other Nikon DSLR? That would be an experiment worthy of your time.

Escher

[Matsu]

Originally posted by Escher
AFAIR, you can use at least some modern autofocus Nikkor lenses on old manual Nikon bodies and some old manual Nikkor lenses on new autofocus Nikon bodies. I think this is not the case with Canon and Pentax lens systems. Don't know about Olympus and Minolta lens systems, but I don't think their respective manual and autofocus systems are compatible either.

Matsu: Why don't you grab your manual lenses, head down to your local photo dealer, and try them out with a D100 or other Nikon DSLR? That would be an experiment worthy of your time.

Escher

So they might work. I guess it's easier to slap a manual lense on a body provided the mounts match up, none of the contacts would supply power, IS, or focus control anyway. One interesting thing is the crop factor of the APS size. My 28 becomes 42; my 50, 75; my 80-200, 120-300. A workable collection, but no wide end.

[Matsu]

A quick look over at henry's shows that DSLR's are still rather expensive in Canadian dollars and that I might have to wait a bit longer before I get a DSLR, I can always learn to simulate DOF in photoshop. A D100 would cost me 2799 plus tax, a DX lense adds another 1500.

Probably safe to assume that these are not for me, yet.

Anyone know of any good Toronto area camera dealer's? Someone once mentioned a shop (not Henry's) but I lost the thread, it was a long while back, I think they sold mac stuff too. Anyone, I'm so scatter-brained, can't remember a thing any more.

[BuonRotto]

AFAIK, pretty much any Nikon/Nikkor lense works on any Nikon body. My 35-105mm lens is AF and I bought it new in '99, and it works on my FG from 1979 (though since the FG is totally manual, it actually works as an MF lens). All Nikon lenses at least going through the 1970's use the same mounting system, including the prosumer DSLRs. It's why I'm sort of stuck in Nikon shopping mode, though Sigma and maybe others can also use the F-mount Nikkor lenses on their bodies.

[Escher]

Originally posted by BuonRotto
AFAIK, pretty much any Nikon/Nikkor lense works on any Nikon body. My 35-105mm lens is AF and I bought it new in '99, and it works on my FG from 1979 (though since the FG is totally manual, it actually works as an MF lens). All Nikon lenses at least going through the 1970's use the same mounting system, including the prosumer DSLRs.

There you have it, Matsu! IMO, that's a huge plus for the Nikon system.

I remember that Canon was able to move the focusing motors into the lens for faster near-silent operation. OTOH, Nikon had to locate the motors in the body to maintain compatibility with older manual lenses. That's why Nikon's AF lenses were originally slower and louder. AFAIK, Nikon now offers lenses with motors in the lens barrel as well, so this point is now moot.

It's why I'm sort of stuck in Nikon shopping mode, though Sigma and maybe others can also use the F-mount Nikkor lenses on their bodies.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, BuonRotto. I would consider myself lucky if I already had manual lenses that could work with a modern DSLR body. Plus you'll retain the option to use your manual body, including with new AF lenses. That's very cool if you ask me.

My own manual SLRs and lenses are Pentax, and they won't work with Pentax's upcoming DSLR. So I'm going to have to buy into a new lens system when I move to DSLR. That's why I've been taking my time and carefully considering my options. Picking one lens system over the others is a big financial and long-term comittment.

Escher

[Matsu]

Good to know, I have options for the future. I can wait on the used Nikon mount (compatible) DSLR market, and in the meantime see how 4/3rds shapes up. Part of me thinks that between Canon and Nikon, those two are pretty much the "standards" so 4/3rds doesn't have much room, but if Olympus is quickly followed by Kodak and Fuji then the 4/3rds system does have the enviable advantage of a truly "standard" mount. The prices and performance need to improve though.

I think it's going to be 2-3 years before we can really speak with certainty about the future of the DSLR market. The APS/35 body plus lense hybrids look neat too. Someone could effectively own two systems that share most of their lenses by getting an APS size and full frame Nikon body that both use the same mount. Similarly, a Canon buyer could do the same with 10d and 1d type cameras.

Now if 4/3rds could be moved down to the "prosumer" level, well then... a whole new ballgame, bt not for the same prices as APS/35mm.

[Matsu]

And as I write, news of a Canon digital Rebel comes to us. People are saying the D-SLR may finally hit 1000USD. I wonder if Nikon of Fuji will make something similar.

[Escher]

Originally posted by Matsu
And as I write, news of a Canon digital Rebel comes to us. People are saying the D-SLR may finally hit 1000USD. I wonder if Nikon of Fuji will make something similar.

Holy ****, the Canon EOS Digital Rebel (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0308/03082005canoneos300d.asp) will go for US$899 body only! That's insane! Looks like I'll be going with the Canon lens system unless the competition goes below the US$1000 price point before X-mas.

Canon's official EOS Digital Rebel (http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/) has more info too.

Escher

[Matsu]

Not only that, 999 with lense, an 18-55 equivalent to 28-90.

Suddenly the DSLR system choise become a LOT clearer.

I wonder what Sony and Minolta were thinking, or if anyone knew or suspected what Canon was up to? Looks like they've been caught out investing a lot of development into a small sensor "prosumer" only to be beaten out by a proper DSLR for less money! That's gonna sting. I'm sure prosumer EVF's will sell well for one more Xmas season, but only to gadget geeks and not photographers. After that, unless they can get their prices down to 700-800, they're gonna get nailed.

If Canon were to use a CCD, possibly others might have caught on, but I think Canon does their own CMOS tech (not sure though) Seems no one was ready for this. The whole point of 4/3rds was to make smaller cheaper DSLR body/lense systems. Then Oly comes in with a 2300+ body. Canon comes in with a 1000USD body with lense!

The only companies with an inkling of the future might be Fuji and Nikon -- and either one will do well enough to save my lense collection. Nikon hasn't touched their "prosumer" EVF model and instead went down market with the 5400. And Fuji, with the S7000 went quite a bit under expectations to get a 799 MSRP (compared to 1200 for Sony and Minolta)

I think we're about to see at least 2 more DSLR bodies in the 1000USD range!

[GardenOfEarthlyDelights]

Originally posted by Escher
Holy ****, the Canon EOS Digital Rebel (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0308/03082005canoneos300d.asp) will go for US$899 body only! That's insane! Looks like I'll be going with the Canon lens system unless the competition goes below the US$1000 price point before X-mas.
I was going to post this earlier, but I couldn't wipe the drool off the keyboard. I've been eyeing the 10D for a long time, but meine Frau has different ideas on what to do with $2k. But $1k for you, $1k for me could work. I have a Canon 70-200 mm L-lens just looking for something to do.

[Escher]

Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights
I was going to post this earlier, but I couldn't wipe the drool off the keyboard.

LOL :lol:

I've been eyeing the 10D for a long time, but meine Frau has different ideas on what to do with $2k. But $1k for you, $1k for me could work. I have a Canon 70-200 mm L-lens just looking for something to do.

Argh, those wives. They can never get their priorities straight. ;)

From what I've read so far, the Digital Rebel has the same sensor and autofocus system as the 10D. Those are the two most important elements. I can live with a plastic body instead of metal. I can live with a smaller buffer. And I can live without 3200 ISO sensitivity, all for a savings of ca. US$600.

The only caveat when comparing the Digital Rebel with lens at US$1000 to the Sony and Minolta pseudo-SLR competition is that the Rebel's standard lens is slow and short, while the latest crop of pseudo-SLRs has fast and long zooms. So if you're only going to have a single zoom lens, a pseudo-SLR may still be the best choice. You'll certainly have less problems with dust on your sensor. ;)

Escher

[cj3209]

You'll need a lot more than a good lens and a Dslr body. Add Photoshop 7, lots of big (ie. at least 512MB) compact flash cards, adapters, and you'll want to get an external flash and other lens. Trust me, a 70-200, while a superb lens, will have you yearning for a wider angle lens - like a 17-35.

Keep in mind the 1.6x factor (your 70-200 is actually a 105-300mm equivalent lens); great for wildlife but difficult to use for group/panorama shots.

Canon is taking the Epson printer approach: sell seemingly cheap printers and nail you on the ink cartridges.

cheers,
:)

[Matsu]

If nothing else it puts pressure on the rest of the market to make spuedo SLRs cheaper and/or intro true (if entry level) DSLR systems.

ALl good, excpet the insane Canadian conversion ($200O CAD folks, even more perverse than Apple's conversion rates. Luckily NY is a hop skip and a jump, and nice enough that it needs no camera hunting excuse as a reason for a visit.

AS to the speed, the much higher ISO 1600 and 6X bigger sensor should equalize things, though you'll shoot a little differently, and it does come with an 18-55 (which works out to 28-90 with the 1.6x crop factor) Not too bad. And you'll be able o get a convincingly shallow DOF effect, unlike the 828 et al.

One thing though, and we should wait for reviews to confirm. Lenses that you buy specifically for the canon APS size may not work with other/future Canon bodies, something about back-focus that I've been reading -- the 18-55 ONLY works with the 300D. I'm sure 10D users have better lenses anyway (mebbe not any APS friendly wides yet) but you have to think about that if you were thinking to migrate lenses to a future body.