Hi, I dont mean to intrude this thread with my question but i really need help . Yesterday, I updated Aperture to 1.1 1C107 now I am keep getting this.
Please fix the picture or your server settings. I don't get a picture, what I get is an error, and a request for a password every time I try to see this page. It's pretty irritating. I didn't recognize the server name, I thought it was something trying (and failing) to hijack my browser.
There is some merit, a heavier camera can be more stable just by inertia, rigidity, durability or shock dampening. Weight is only part of the story anyway, though if it means a more durable camera or otherwise, then it can be good. Still, too much weight might be unweildy and tiring for a shooter, the weight of dragging everything around (tripod, laptop, camera, lenses, etc.) can be a consideration too.
I don't think a single issue is necessarily enough to kill a deal though. Normally I don't care what brand except that the camera is good and doesn't require proprietary crap. On that last part, the fact that Nikon had obfuscated or encrypted the white balance table in their raw files in their D2X cameras gives me the chills.
Let me make this clear. Nikons do not have better build quality. Nikon is not KNOWN to have better build quality. And, nowhere will you find that Canons are even in the slightest bit, more susceptible to breakdown.
The Rebel is the smallest camera of its type. It is also the lightest. In 1976, Canon pioneered the use of polycarbonate in cameras, and lenses. It's been acknowledged, over the years, that these materials offer substantial advantages over the more traditional materials. Except for the high end pro cameras, there is absolutely no advantage to using aluminum in a camera body, as was once done. The more expensive models use magnesium, which is more expensive to manufacture. But, in a lightweight body, it serves no purpose.
If anything, Canon's lenses have been made to a higher mechanical standard than Nikon's for decades. And, in the pro community, THAT is known.
Nikon's lenses have al, al, al focusing helical, whereas Canon uses al, brass, al, which is a much better solution. Listen to most Nikon lenses when you focus, and you will hear the scraping.
Well , it doesnt matter what material they use , what matter is how it feels. And when i went to local best buy , Rebel feels "plasticky" and cheap. Now i didnt compare it to any other camera , but for $999 that Best Buy sells them for i think i could expect little bit more.
Next to it was 20D just few hundred dollars more feels ten times if not more better. EVEN IF there was little to no technical advantage in 20D over Rebel i wouldnt touch Rebel with 10 foot stick for that price. It just feels "cheap"
Well , it doesnt matter what material they use , what matter is how it feels. And when i went to local best buy , Rebel feels "plasticky" and cheap. Now i didnt compare it to any other camera , but for $999 that Best Buy sells them for i think i could expect little bit more.
Next to it was 20D just few hundred dollars more feels ten times if not more better. EVEN IF there was little to no technical advantage in 20D over Rebel i wouldnt touch Rebel with 10 foot stick for that price. It just feels "cheap"
Well, that's fine. But I have to tell you that Canon's digital SLR's outsell Nikon's by about 3 to 1. That's in the pro lines, and in the prosumer lines. The typical person buying a low end digital SLR isn't like the typical person buying a low end computer, they are usually amateur photog's who read the camera magazines and talk to each other.
While "feel" is up to you, of course, and I won't dispute your own reaction, as it's as valid as anyone else's, I'm just pointing out that the camera is built every bit as well as the Nikon, and will last just as long. And, of course, it does matter what it's made of.
The cost difference lies in the sensor and associated circuitry. A good 8 Mpixel sensor costs more than a good 6 Mpixel one does. The circuitry needed to process that larger file, and the increased memory also cost more, so that's where the higher price comes in.
[B]Let me make this clear. Nikons do not have better build quality. Nikon is not KNOWN to have better build quality. And, nowhere will you find that Canons are even in the slightest bit, more susceptible to breakdown.
This is anecdotal evidence, and as such, it is no more truer than what I or anyone else has said.
Quote:
The Rebel is the smallest camera of its type.
It's also the crappiest camera of it's type.
Quote:
It is also the lightest.
Of course, being made of cheap plastic does have some advantages.
Quote:
In 1976, Canon pioneered the use of polycarbonate in cameras, and lenses. It's been acknowledged, over the years, that these materials offer substantial advantages over the more traditional materials. Except for the high end pro cameras, there is absolutely no advantage to using aluminum in a camera body, as was once done. The more expensive models use magnesium, which is more expensive to manufacture. But, in a lightweight body, it serves no purpose.
Yes it does. Stability is a very important factor in Pro photography, and as such, the camera must feel *heavy* on your hands. Lightweight cameras produce blurry images, unless used on a tripod.
Quote:
If anything, Canon's lenses have been made to a higher mechanical standard than Nikon's for decades. And, in the pro community, THAT is known.
Lenses have nothing to do with build quality. Lenses are interchangeable, and therefore irrelevant to the body itself.
Quote:
Nikon's lenses have al, al, al focusing helical, whereas Canon uses al, brass, al, which is a much better solution. Listen to most Nikon lenses when you focus, and you will hear the scraping.
Again, irrelevant. No one is disputing that Canon's have a (slight) edge over Nikon's when it comes to lenses. It's like the Mac/PC debate; yes, PCs have better parts and more choices, but they also fall apart a lot faster than Macs.
I have friends working at Wolf Camera and Ritz Camera (downtown Chicago) and I hear a lot of the times from them that people keep bringing those Rebels back because they have problems. This too is anecdotal evidence, and my contention is not to make Canon sound like a crappy brand (because it isn't), but this particular camera is not very good for its price point.
The 20D+ are better. But then we're talking Nikon D200 territory...
This is anecdotal evidence, and as such, it is no more truer than what I or anyone else has said.
It's also the crappiest camera of it's type.
Of course, being made of cheap plastic does have some advantages.
Yes it does. Stability is a very important factor in Pro photography, and as such, the camera must feel *heavy* on your hands. Lightweight cameras produce blurry images, unless used on a tripod.
Lenses have nothing to do with build quality. Lenses are interchangeable, and therefore irrelevant to the body itself.
Again, irrelevant. No one is disputing that Canon's have a (slight) edge over Nikon's when it comes to lenses. It's like the Mac/PC debate; yes, PCs have better parts and more choices, but they also fall apart a lot faster than Macs.
I have friends working at Wolf Camera and Ritz Camera (downtown Chicago) and I hear a lot of the times from them that people keep bringing those Rebels back because they have problems. This too is anecdotal evidence, and my contention is not to make Canon sound like a crappy brand (because it isn't), but this particular camera is not very good for its price point.
The 20D+ are better. But then we're talking Nikon D200 territory...
You can look in the camera mags, where they discuss these things, and you can check out Cu. I've been in the business for a long timr, and a fair number og my digital customers had both models, neither had any more problems thasn the other.
Polycarbonate is stronger than the aluminum used for part of the D50's body, and it sure isn't cheap!
And, yes, lenses do matter. When you buy into a system, you are buying into the lenses. Unless, of course, you're going to buy the cheap 3rd party lenses. Then it doesn't matter much what body you have.
I'll never understand Mac users who say that Canon is the best because it is the best selling brand.
If that's your main criterion, why did you buy a Mac? You should be using Windows.
In any case, for amateur photographers, take a look at the Pentax *ist DS or *ist DS2. It's about the same size and weight as the Canon Digital Rebel XT, but feels much more solidly built.
And the kit lens won't pinch your fingers when you try to focus manually.
I checked this thread to find out about Aperture and lo and behold, it's turned into the eternal Nikon-Canon debate.
Anyone interested in a entry level DSLR should go to a real camera store, not one of those mall thingees, and handle the D50 and Rebel XT. See how it fits your hands and how it feels. Check the controls and play with it as much as you can. Before you make your choice, though, research the lenses Nikon and Canon offer and try to visualize which one offers lenses that will best meet your needs. If you've had 35mm film experience this will be easy. You have to remember that for most people a DSLR becomes a disease, once you buy one you almost immediately think about adding lenses. Read the reviews on the net-- Google is your friend. Then make your decision. Each person has to make the choice that will work best for them.
In my case in May 2005 I decided to move back into more serious photography than I had been doing with my consumer digital camera. At one time had owned and used two Nikon F3 film cameras and had a nice assortment of lenses, which I had sold. I compared the D70 (D50 wasn't out yet) with the Rebel XT with 17-85IS lens. The D70 was a nice camera but after doing the things I mentioned above, I went with the Rebel XT. I particularly liked the small size and light weight, and the plastic feel didn't bother me. Also the lens choices worked better for me.
The Rebel XT, while it might feel cheap, is one rugged customer. While hiking I did a stupid thing and fell, doing a three-point landing, knee, head and the top of the XT. It put a scratch on the on-board flash but the camera functioned perfectly and still does.
From my readings, on-line camera boards aren't reporting on-going problems with the Rebel XT.
The light-heavy camera thing is open to debate. Frankly, if someone is that worried about it, they'd be using a tripod anyway, no matter what weight camera they were using.
IMO, the D50 is a "nice" camera but it seems the only advantage it has on the Rebel XT is price. Speaking of price, while the $999 for the XT may be the MSRP price, only a very unaware shopper would pay that. For example ZipZoomFly has it with the 18-55 kit lens and free shipping for $760 and that's before the Canon $100 rebate.
I'll never understand Mac users who say that Canon is the best because it is the best selling brand.
If that's your main criterion, why did you buy a Mac? You should be using Windows.
In any case, for amateur photographers, take a look at the Pentax *ist DS or *ist DS2. It's about the same size and weight as the Canon Digital Rebel XT, but feels much more solidly built.
And the kit lens won't pinch your fingers when you try to focus manually.
Because people, for the most part, who buy digital SLR's are not your average shopper. They are people who know much more about potography than the point and shoot person. They do more comparisons, read the photo magazines, go to the photo sites, and are more likely to belong to a photo club. The rest are pro's, who almost always have one or more cheap bodies as emergency back-up.
These are also people who intend to buy lenses, and other accessories.
Don't tell me that you went and bought your camera without doing any research.
While I have nothing against Pentax, right now, Canon and Nikon have 90% of all digital SLR sales. This doesn't seem to be changing in a downward direction. The problem is that all other camera manufacturers are losing money. Only those two are making any, based on their camera sales.
As Konica and Minolta were forced to merge several years ago, and have now given up on cameras completely, selling out to Sony, and Contax ceasing production, the field is shrinking. It's expected that several other manufacturers will either merge, or exit the digital camera business.
While I HATE to see this happen, the digital age has put pressure on companies who simply can't afford to come out with new models every 18 months or so. The camera business was stable for decades, even second tier companies could compete. Now that has changed. Pentax is one of those companies that is engaged in manufacturing equipment for the photolithography industry, for making chips. That is now the largest part of their company. It remains to be seen whether they can survive the camera business, or will be one of those to pull out within the next few years.
For those who want to stay with a system, and have the primary lenses available, with new models coming out, the only companies who we can say for certain will be around for the long term are Canon and Nikon.
Because people, for the most part, who buy digital SLR's are not your average shopper. They are people who know much more about potography than the point and shoot person. They do more comparisons, read the photo magazines, go to the photo sites, and are more likely to belong to a photo club. The rest are pro's, who almost always have one or more cheap bodies as emergency back-up.
These are also people who intend to buy lenses, and other accessories.
Don't tell me that you went and bought your camera without doing any research.
That seems rather insulting.
I did all of that and more. I also handled the cameras, and looked through the viewfinder.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross While I have nothing against Pentax, right now, Canon and Nikon have 90% of all digital SLR sales. This doesn't seem to be changing in a downward direction. The problem is that all other camera manufacturers are losing money. Only those two are making any, based on their camera sales.
As Konica and Minolta were forced to merge several years ago, and have now given up on cameras completely, selling out to Sony, and Contax ceasing production, the field is shrinking. It's expected that several other manufacturers will either merge, or exit the digital camera business.
While I HATE to see this happen, the digital age has put pressure on companies who simply can't afford to come out with new models every 18 months or so. The camera business was stable for decades, even second tier companies could compete. Now that has changed. Pentax is one of those companies that is engaged in manufacturing equipment for the photolithography industry, for making chips. That is now the largest part of their company. It remains to be seen whether they can survive the camera business, or will be one of those to pull out within the next few years.
For those who want to stay with a system, and have the primary lenses available, with new models coming out, the only companies who we can say for certain will be around for the long term are Canon and Nikon.
I think that's sad. But, it isn't looking good. [/B]
-- Konica/Minolta's lens mount will live on with Sony.
-- Pentax has a long-term deal with Samsung for sharing electronics and lenses (notice the "new" Samsung cameras are dead ringers for the *ist DS and DL?) Samsung is doing better in many markets than Sony. It's extremely strong financially.
So, it's pretty clear that there'll be the Big Four: Canon, Nikon, Konica/Minolta/Sony, and Pentax/Samsung. I agree that others could go by the wayside. These four won't go away any time soon.
In terms of what's available for the different lens mounts & accessories, they all have similar consumer/amateur -level lenses, and Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron support them all. Most amateurs are simply not going to put a $5000 Canon L lens on an XT. (I won't argue that none do; some people really are crazy )
So, for an amateur, there's no reason not to pick any of the Big Four. IMHO, amateurs are crazy for not looking at all consumer/prosumer cameras available by the Big Four. It's like discounting the usability of a Mac, simply because it has 3% market share and, until recently, was a very weak company. Saying anyone other than Canon & Nikon don't have the lenses & accessories is like saying OS X doesn't have the diversity of software that Windows has. Both arguments are true--but what (software or lenses) do you actually use?
I did all of that and more. I also handled the cameras, and looked through the viewfinder.
You really have to stop feeling inferior so often. It wasn't an insult. It was a compliment! Am I wrong in thinking that you are smart, and informed enough to do some research before buying something such as this? If I am, I will withdraw the compliment.
Quote:
-- Konica/Minolta's lens mount will live on with Sony.
No one can tell what will happen. There is no reason to believe that Sony will be any more sucessful with the cameras than the old extablished names in the business have been with it.
Quote:
-- Pentax has a long-term deal with Samsung for sharing electronics and lenses (notice the "new" Samsung cameras are dead ringers for the *ist DS and DL?) Samsung is doing better in many markets than Sony. It's extremely strong financially.
That doesn't mean that they will be around either. Perception counts as well. Pentax got into the digital SLR market very late. There were questions all around as to why they weren't there. My customers used to ask me that same question. But then, Pentax had been long forgotten as a major brand for quite some time. Despite a sterling reputation in the '60 through the '80's, they lanquished. They came out with few new bodies, or lenses. Their concentration was elsewhere. It's too bad. They had a number of firsts, back then. They seemed to have lost interest. I would like to see them make it.
Quote:
So, it's pretty clear that there'll be the Big Four: Canon, Nikon, Konica/Minolta/Sony, and Pentax/Samsung. I agree that others could go by the wayside. These four won't go away any time soon.
I hope you're right. But it was a shock when first Konica and Minolta merged, and then it was a shock when they announced that they were leaving the business.
But, Fuji might remain. They had the smarts to go with Nikon's lens mount. They have the muscle, and they also make the sensors and chips, as does Canon and Sony. but, I'm not too sure about the commitment of Samsung.
Quote:
In terms of what's available for the different lens mounts & accessories, they all have similar consumer/amateur -level lenses, and Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron support them all. Most amateurs are simply not going to put a $5000 Canon L lens on an XT. (I won't argue that none do; some people really are crazy )
You are partly correct. But some companies are only putting their lenses on Canon and Nikon mounts. That says something important. Sigma supports Canon and Nikon. Tokina supports Canon and Nikon. Tamron supports Canon, Nikon and Minolta. These are all for APS "C" size sensors, of course, the one's we are talking about. The older series from these companies support 35mm, so, support more makes. But, the handwriting is on the wall. They won't much longer.
Quote:
So, for an amateur, there's no reason not to pick any of the Big Four. IMHO, amateurs are crazy for not looking at all consumer/prosumer cameras available by the Big Four. It's like discounting the usability of a Mac, simply because it has 3% market share and, until recently, was a very weak company. Saying anyone other than Canon & Nikon don't have the lenses & accessories is like saying OS X doesn't have the diversity of software that Windows has. Both arguments are true--but what (software or lenses) do you actually [B]use?
From my response above, which you can check out easily enough for yourself, you can see that this paragraph is also not entirely correct. Look at the ads from the makers in the latest issue of Pop Photography. That's the easiest way, or, you can go to their sites. The results will be the same.
[B]You can look in the camera mags, where they discuss these things, and you can check out Cu. I've been in the business for a long timr, and a fair number og my digital customers had both models, neither had any more problems thasn the other.
For a person who was successful enough to form a company that was 'in the business for a long time' you certainly show some lack of understanding about pro photography, camera weight, the importance of stability, and last but not least, you show a disturbing lack of grammar skills. In a hurry?
Quote:
Polycarbonate is stronger than the aluminum used for part of the D50's body, and it sure isn't cheap!
You missed the whole point. They can use rose gold and pay through the nose for it, but that doesn't change the fact that the camera feels like a snapshot camera that is cheaply built. 'Cheaply built' doesn't mean that the exterior was cheap to get for Canon, or that it's made of cardboard, but that it's a camera that was not built to last a long time.
Quote:
And, yes, lenses do matter.
Not in a discussion about camera bodies.
Quote:
When you buy into a system, you are buying into the lenses. Unless, of course, you're going to buy the cheap 3rd party lenses. Then it doesn't matter much what body you have.
Again, this doesn't matter when talking about the build quality of the CAMERA BODY. Lenses are interchangeable. The body is not. That's the point.
And Canon lenses are not a God's gift to humanity, au contraire, most of Canon lenses are lenses that are not of higher quality when compared to Nikon/Nikkor lenses; only the highest of high-end Canon lenses have a slight advantage when compared to high-end Nikon lenses.
Lightroom is like 0% there. Have you SEEN the beta. No class, no functionality, no usefullness.
The only thing that can compete with Aperature is Photoshop itself. If Adobe gets CS3 with a really nice organization system *NOT LIGHTROOM* it would compete
Comments
Originally posted by macuser74
Hi, I dont mean to intrude this thread with my question but i really need help . Yesterday, I updated Aperture to 1.1 1C107 now I am keep getting this.
http: //moutachouik.spymacdisk.com/Upload/Aperture%20Error.png
Can anybody help me please?
It used to work before the update
Please fix the picture or your server settings. I don't get a picture, what I get is an error, and a request for a password every time I try to see this page. It's pretty irritating. I didn't recognize the server name, I thought it was something trying (and failing) to hijack my browser.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Happens to all of us.
Hehe. I said that at the right time, didn't I? Little did I know.
Originally posted by JeffDM
There is some merit, a heavier camera can be more stable just by inertia, rigidity, durability or shock dampening. Weight is only part of the story anyway, though if it means a more durable camera or otherwise, then it can be good. Still, too much weight might be unweildy and tiring for a shooter, the weight of dragging everything around (tripod, laptop, camera, lenses, etc.) can be a consideration too.
I don't think a single issue is necessarily enough to kill a deal though. Normally I don't care what brand except that the camera is good and doesn't require proprietary crap. On that last part, the fact that Nikon had obfuscated or encrypted the white balance table in their raw files in their D2X cameras gives me the chills.
Let me make this clear. Nikons do not have better build quality. Nikon is not KNOWN to have better build quality. And, nowhere will you find that Canons are even in the slightest bit, more susceptible to breakdown.
The Rebel is the smallest camera of its type. It is also the lightest. In 1976, Canon pioneered the use of polycarbonate in cameras, and lenses. It's been acknowledged, over the years, that these materials offer substantial advantages over the more traditional materials. Except for the high end pro cameras, there is absolutely no advantage to using aluminum in a camera body, as was once done. The more expensive models use magnesium, which is more expensive to manufacture. But, in a lightweight body, it serves no purpose.
If anything, Canon's lenses have been made to a higher mechanical standard than Nikon's for decades. And, in the pro community, THAT is known.
Nikon's lenses have al, al, al focusing helical, whereas Canon uses al, brass, al, which is a much better solution. Listen to most Nikon lenses when you focus, and you will hear the scraping.
Next to it was 20D just few hundred dollars more feels ten times if not more better. EVEN IF there was little to no technical advantage in 20D over Rebel i wouldnt touch Rebel with 10 foot stick for that price. It just feels "cheap"
Originally posted by wally007
Well , it doesnt matter what material they use , what matter is how it feels. And when i went to local best buy , Rebel feels "plasticky" and cheap. Now i didnt compare it to any other camera , but for $999 that Best Buy sells them for i think i could expect little bit more.
Next to it was 20D just few hundred dollars more feels ten times if not more better. EVEN IF there was little to no technical advantage in 20D over Rebel i wouldnt touch Rebel with 10 foot stick for that price. It just feels "cheap"
Well, that's fine. But I have to tell you that Canon's digital SLR's outsell Nikon's by about 3 to 1. That's in the pro lines, and in the prosumer lines. The typical person buying a low end digital SLR isn't like the typical person buying a low end computer, they are usually amateur photog's who read the camera magazines and talk to each other.
While "feel" is up to you, of course, and I won't dispute your own reaction, as it's as valid as anyone else's, I'm just pointing out that the camera is built every bit as well as the Nikon, and will last just as long. And, of course, it does matter what it's made of.
The cost difference lies in the sensor and associated circuitry. A good 8 Mpixel sensor costs more than a good 6 Mpixel one does. The circuitry needed to process that larger file, and the increased memory also cost more, so that's where the higher price comes in.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]Let me make this clear. Nikons do not have better build quality. Nikon is not KNOWN to have better build quality. And, nowhere will you find that Canons are even in the slightest bit, more susceptible to breakdown.
This is anecdotal evidence, and as such, it is no more truer than what I or anyone else has said.
The Rebel is the smallest camera of its type.
It's also the crappiest camera of it's type.
It is also the lightest.
Of course, being made of cheap plastic does have some advantages.
In 1976, Canon pioneered the use of polycarbonate in cameras, and lenses. It's been acknowledged, over the years, that these materials offer substantial advantages over the more traditional materials. Except for the high end pro cameras, there is absolutely no advantage to using aluminum in a camera body, as was once done. The more expensive models use magnesium, which is more expensive to manufacture. But, in a lightweight body, it serves no purpose.
Yes it does. Stability is a very important factor in Pro photography, and as such, the camera must feel *heavy* on your hands. Lightweight cameras produce blurry images, unless used on a tripod.
If anything, Canon's lenses have been made to a higher mechanical standard than Nikon's for decades. And, in the pro community, THAT is known.
Lenses have nothing to do with build quality. Lenses are interchangeable, and therefore irrelevant to the body itself.
Nikon's lenses have al, al, al focusing helical, whereas Canon uses al, brass, al, which is a much better solution. Listen to most Nikon lenses when you focus, and you will hear the scraping.
Again, irrelevant. No one is disputing that Canon's have a (slight) edge over Nikon's when it comes to lenses. It's like the Mac/PC debate; yes, PCs have better parts and more choices, but they also fall apart a lot faster than Macs.
I have friends working at Wolf Camera and Ritz Camera (downtown Chicago) and I hear a lot of the times from them that people keep bringing those Rebels back because they have problems. This too is anecdotal evidence, and my contention is not to make Canon sound like a crappy brand (because it isn't), but this particular camera is not very good for its price point.
The 20D+ are better. But then we're talking Nikon D200 territory...
Originally posted by Gene Clean
This is anecdotal evidence, and as such, it is no more truer than what I or anyone else has said.
It's also the crappiest camera of it's type.
Of course, being made of cheap plastic does have some advantages.
Yes it does. Stability is a very important factor in Pro photography, and as such, the camera must feel *heavy* on your hands. Lightweight cameras produce blurry images, unless used on a tripod.
Lenses have nothing to do with build quality. Lenses are interchangeable, and therefore irrelevant to the body itself.
Again, irrelevant. No one is disputing that Canon's have a (slight) edge over Nikon's when it comes to lenses. It's like the Mac/PC debate; yes, PCs have better parts and more choices, but they also fall apart a lot faster than Macs.
I have friends working at Wolf Camera and Ritz Camera (downtown Chicago) and I hear a lot of the times from them that people keep bringing those Rebels back because they have problems. This too is anecdotal evidence, and my contention is not to make Canon sound like a crappy brand (because it isn't), but this particular camera is not very good for its price point.
The 20D+ are better. But then we're talking Nikon D200 territory...
You can look in the camera mags, where they discuss these things, and you can check out Cu. I've been in the business for a long timr, and a fair number og my digital customers had both models, neither had any more problems thasn the other.
Polycarbonate is stronger than the aluminum used for part of the D50's body, and it sure isn't cheap!
And, yes, lenses do matter. When you buy into a system, you are buying into the lenses. Unless, of course, you're going to buy the cheap 3rd party lenses. Then it doesn't matter much what body you have.
If that's your main criterion, why did you buy a Mac? You should be using Windows.
In any case, for amateur photographers, take a look at the Pentax *ist DS or *ist DS2. It's about the same size and weight as the Canon Digital Rebel XT, but feels much more solidly built.
And the kit lens won't pinch your fingers when you try to focus manually.
Originally posted by bikertwin
I'll never understand Mac users who say that Canon is the best because it is the best selling brand.
If that's your main criterion, why did you buy a Mac? You should be using Windows.
That argument can be turned against you. If your argument that heft==quality, then why not buy a Windows luggable?
Anyone interested in a entry level DSLR should go to a real camera store, not one of those mall thingees, and handle the D50 and Rebel XT. See how it fits your hands and how it feels. Check the controls and play with it as much as you can. Before you make your choice, though, research the lenses Nikon and Canon offer and try to visualize which one offers lenses that will best meet your needs. If you've had 35mm film experience this will be easy. You have to remember that for most people a DSLR becomes a disease, once you buy one you almost immediately think about adding lenses. Read the reviews on the net-- Google is your friend. Then make your decision. Each person has to make the choice that will work best for them.
In my case in May 2005 I decided to move back into more serious photography than I had been doing with my consumer digital camera. At one time had owned and used two Nikon F3 film cameras and had a nice assortment of lenses, which I had sold. I compared the D70 (D50 wasn't out yet) with the Rebel XT with 17-85IS lens. The D70 was a nice camera but after doing the things I mentioned above, I went with the Rebel XT. I particularly liked the small size and light weight, and the plastic feel didn't bother me. Also the lens choices worked better for me.
The Rebel XT, while it might feel cheap, is one rugged customer. While hiking I did a stupid thing and fell, doing a three-point landing, knee, head and the top of the XT. It put a scratch on the on-board flash but the camera functioned perfectly and still does.
From my readings, on-line camera boards aren't reporting on-going problems with the Rebel XT.
The light-heavy camera thing is open to debate. Frankly, if someone is that worried about it, they'd be using a tripod anyway, no matter what weight camera they were using.
IMO, the D50 is a "nice" camera but it seems the only advantage it has on the Rebel XT is price. Speaking of price, while the $999 for the XT may be the MSRP price, only a very unaware shopper would pay that. For example ZipZoomFly has it with the 18-55 kit lens and free shipping for $760 and that's before the Canon $100 rebate.
Just my $.02.
Originally posted by bikertwin
I'll never understand Mac users who say that Canon is the best because it is the best selling brand.
If that's your main criterion, why did you buy a Mac? You should be using Windows.
In any case, for amateur photographers, take a look at the Pentax *ist DS or *ist DS2. It's about the same size and weight as the Canon Digital Rebel XT, but feels much more solidly built.
And the kit lens won't pinch your fingers when you try to focus manually.
Because people, for the most part, who buy digital SLR's are not your average shopper. They are people who know much more about potography than the point and shoot person. They do more comparisons, read the photo magazines, go to the photo sites, and are more likely to belong to a photo club. The rest are pro's, who almost always have one or more cheap bodies as emergency back-up.
These are also people who intend to buy lenses, and other accessories.
Don't tell me that you went and bought your camera without doing any research.
While I have nothing against Pentax, right now, Canon and Nikon have 90% of all digital SLR sales. This doesn't seem to be changing in a downward direction. The problem is that all other camera manufacturers are losing money. Only those two are making any, based on their camera sales.
As Konica and Minolta were forced to merge several years ago, and have now given up on cameras completely, selling out to Sony, and Contax ceasing production, the field is shrinking. It's expected that several other manufacturers will either merge, or exit the digital camera business.
While I HATE to see this happen, the digital age has put pressure on companies who simply can't afford to come out with new models every 18 months or so. The camera business was stable for decades, even second tier companies could compete. Now that has changed. Pentax is one of those companies that is engaged in manufacturing equipment for the photolithography industry, for making chips. That is now the largest part of their company. It remains to be seen whether they can survive the camera business, or will be one of those to pull out within the next few years.
For those who want to stay with a system, and have the primary lenses available, with new models coming out, the only companies who we can say for certain will be around for the long term are Canon and Nikon.
I think that's sad. But, it isn't looking good.
Originally posted by melgross
Because people, for the most part, who buy digital SLR's are not your average shopper. They are people who know much more about potography than the point and shoot person. They do more comparisons, read the photo magazines, go to the photo sites, and are more likely to belong to a photo club. The rest are pro's, who almost always have one or more cheap bodies as emergency back-up.
These are also people who intend to buy lenses, and other accessories.
Don't tell me that you went and bought your camera without doing any research.
That seems rather insulting.
I did all of that and more. I also handled the cameras, and looked through the viewfinder.
Originally posted by melgross While I have nothing against Pentax, right now, Canon and Nikon have 90% of all digital SLR sales. This doesn't seem to be changing in a downward direction. The problem is that all other camera manufacturers are losing money. Only those two are making any, based on their camera sales.
As Konica and Minolta were forced to merge several years ago, and have now given up on cameras completely, selling out to Sony, and Contax ceasing production, the field is shrinking. It's expected that several other manufacturers will either merge, or exit the digital camera business.
While I HATE to see this happen, the digital age has put pressure on companies who simply can't afford to come out with new models every 18 months or so. The camera business was stable for decades, even second tier companies could compete. Now that has changed. Pentax is one of those companies that is engaged in manufacturing equipment for the photolithography industry, for making chips. That is now the largest part of their company. It remains to be seen whether they can survive the camera business, or will be one of those to pull out within the next few years.
For those who want to stay with a system, and have the primary lenses available, with new models coming out, the only companies who we can say for certain will be around for the long term are Canon and Nikon.
I think that's sad. But, it isn't looking good. [/B]
-- Konica/Minolta's lens mount will live on with Sony.
-- Pentax has a long-term deal with Samsung for sharing electronics and lenses (notice the "new" Samsung cameras are dead ringers for the *ist DS and DL?) Samsung is doing better in many markets than Sony. It's extremely strong financially.
So, it's pretty clear that there'll be the Big Four: Canon, Nikon, Konica/Minolta/Sony, and Pentax/Samsung. I agree that others could go by the wayside. These four won't go away any time soon.
In terms of what's available for the different lens mounts & accessories, they all have similar consumer/amateur -level lenses, and Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron support them all. Most amateurs are simply not going to put a $5000 Canon L lens on an XT. (I won't argue that none do; some people really are crazy
So, for an amateur, there's no reason not to pick any of the Big Four. IMHO, amateurs are crazy for not looking at all consumer/prosumer cameras available by the Big Four. It's like discounting the usability of a Mac, simply because it has 3% market share and, until recently, was a very weak company. Saying anyone other than Canon & Nikon don't have the lenses & accessories is like saying OS X doesn't have the diversity of software that Windows has. Both arguments are true--but what (software or lenses) do you actually use?
Originally posted by bikertwin
[B]That seems rather insulting.
I did all of that and more. I also handled the cameras, and looked through the viewfinder.
You really have to stop feeling inferior so often. It wasn't an insult. It was a compliment! Am I wrong in thinking that you are smart, and informed enough to do some research before buying something such as this? If I am, I will withdraw the compliment.
-- Konica/Minolta's lens mount will live on with Sony.
No one can tell what will happen. There is no reason to believe that Sony will be any more sucessful with the cameras than the old extablished names in the business have been with it.
-- Pentax has a long-term deal with Samsung for sharing electronics and lenses (notice the "new" Samsung cameras are dead ringers for the *ist DS and DL?) Samsung is doing better in many markets than Sony. It's extremely strong financially.
That doesn't mean that they will be around either. Perception counts as well. Pentax got into the digital SLR market very late. There were questions all around as to why they weren't there. My customers used to ask me that same question. But then, Pentax had been long forgotten as a major brand for quite some time. Despite a sterling reputation in the '60 through the '80's, they lanquished. They came out with few new bodies, or lenses. Their concentration was elsewhere. It's too bad. They had a number of firsts, back then. They seemed to have lost interest. I would like to see them make it.
So, it's pretty clear that there'll be the Big Four: Canon, Nikon, Konica/Minolta/Sony, and Pentax/Samsung. I agree that others could go by the wayside. These four won't go away any time soon.
I hope you're right. But it was a shock when first Konica and Minolta merged, and then it was a shock when they announced that they were leaving the business.
But, Fuji might remain. They had the smarts to go with Nikon's lens mount. They have the muscle, and they also make the sensors and chips, as does Canon and Sony. but, I'm not too sure about the commitment of Samsung.
In terms of what's available for the different lens mounts & accessories, they all have similar consumer/amateur -level lenses, and Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron support them all. Most amateurs are simply not going to put a $5000 Canon L lens on an XT. (I won't argue that none do; some people really are crazy
You are partly correct. But some companies are only putting their lenses on Canon and Nikon mounts. That says something important. Sigma supports Canon and Nikon. Tokina supports Canon and Nikon. Tamron supports Canon, Nikon and Minolta. These are all for APS "C" size sensors, of course, the one's we are talking about. The older series from these companies support 35mm, so, support more makes. But, the handwriting is on the wall. They won't much longer.
So, for an amateur, there's no reason not to pick any of the Big Four. IMHO, amateurs are crazy for not looking at all consumer/prosumer cameras available by the Big Four. It's like discounting the usability of a Mac, simply because it has 3% market share and, until recently, was a very weak company. Saying anyone other than Canon & Nikon don't have the lenses & accessories is like saying OS X doesn't have the diversity of software that Windows has. Both arguments are true--but what (software or lenses) do you actually [B]use?
From my response above, which you can check out easily enough for yourself, you can see that this paragraph is also not entirely correct. Look at the ads from the makers in the latest issue of Pop Photography. That's the easiest way, or, you can go to their sites. The results will be the same.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]You can look in the camera mags, where they discuss these things, and you can check out Cu. I've been in the business for a long timr, and a fair number og my digital customers had both models, neither had any more problems thasn the other.
For a person who was successful enough to form a company that was 'in the business for a long time' you certainly show some lack of understanding about pro photography, camera weight, the importance of stability, and last but not least, you show a disturbing lack of grammar skills. In a hurry?
Polycarbonate is stronger than the aluminum used for part of the D50's body, and it sure isn't cheap!
You missed the whole point. They can use rose gold and pay through the nose for it, but that doesn't change the fact that the camera feels like a snapshot camera that is cheaply built. 'Cheaply built' doesn't mean that the exterior was cheap to get for Canon, or that it's made of cardboard, but that it's a camera that was not built to last a long time.
And, yes, lenses do matter.
Not in a discussion about camera bodies.
When you buy into a system, you are buying into the lenses. Unless, of course, you're going to buy the cheap 3rd party lenses. Then it doesn't matter much what body you have.
Again, this doesn't matter when talking about the build quality of the CAMERA BODY. Lenses are interchangeable. The body is not. That's the point.
And Canon lenses are not a God's gift to humanity, au contraire, most of Canon lenses are lenses that are not of higher quality when compared to Nikon/Nikkor lenses; only the highest of high-end Canon lenses have a slight advantage when compared to high-end Nikon lenses.
The rest are... well, lenses.
While Aperture is certainly a great piece of software, if Lightroom is 75% there, I can't see Creative Pros paying for a separate program.
Lightroom is like 0% there. Have you SEEN the beta. No class, no functionality, no usefullness.
The only thing that can compete with Aperature is Photoshop itself. If Adobe gets CS3 with a really nice organization system *NOT LIGHTROOM* it would compete