RobertN
Super Member
Funny, I usually shoot manual or aperture priority. Drives me nuts on the little digital point and shoot to go thru menu's to try and do that...
Good digital SLR camera?
- Thread starter Sigarms
- Start date
- Views: 8485
/pine
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 12,450
I still have and use a Sony FD91
For those that aren't familiar they use a 3.5 diskette to record the pictures on...this camera was one of the first digital cameras Sony made for the public. I paid $1000 in '99' for it...
Even though it is only about 850,000 pixels (not even one megapixel) it takes great pictures for digital display (not so great for fine detail print jobs)
The best part of the camera (also has "steady shot") is the 14X Optical Zoom...even some of the most expensive production cameras out there can't match the zoom lens quality of this camera...
Since then I have bought several other cameras but still use the FD a lot of the time (mostly because of the zoom)
I just got the Sony Ericsson C905 Cell phone that is really a Sony Cybershot 8.1 megapixel camera...so now I rarely take a conventional camera with me...
For those that aren't familiar they use a 3.5 diskette to record the pictures on...this camera was one of the first digital cameras Sony made for the public. I paid $1000 in '99' for it...
Even though it is only about 850,000 pixels (not even one megapixel) it takes great pictures for digital display (not so great for fine detail print jobs)
The best part of the camera (also has "steady shot") is the 14X Optical Zoom...even some of the most expensive production cameras out there can't match the zoom lens quality of this camera...
Since then I have bought several other cameras but still use the FD a lot of the time (mostly because of the zoom)
I just got the Sony Ericsson C905 Cell phone that is really a Sony Cybershot 8.1 megapixel camera...so now I rarely take a conventional camera with me...
Bird
Rest in Peace
PILOON
Super Star Member
Funny---
I do the same as uploading for the net is much easier, click, click insert the diskette and bamm done.
So, my Mavica is my 'Internet/EBay' camera and I use others for photos I want to save or print.
Really irks me to see folks posting megapixel pics that take forever to download as I cannot get hi-speed where I live.
In truth on the computer screen I see no difference a 1 meg pix vs a 20 meg one.
Just purchased a Cannon XTI for every day use, mainly due to all the lenses and options available + the great popularity and all the excellent revues.
But like others have said; it becomes a ford/chev, kubota/deere debate.
riptides
Super Member
Do you zoom in for details on anything?
Bird
Rest in Peace
Ten years ago, I thought that was what I wanted; thought the 3.5" diskette was a good idea. So on January 6, 2000, I ordered one direct from Sony. It wasn't as expensive as yours ($418.95); probably a differeent "FD" model number. Anyway, it was defective when it arrived, flash didn't work, etc. And by the time I finally got it sent back and got a refund, I had decided that I'd probably never buy another product with the Sony name on it.
I know they make some good products, but I sure spent a lot of time on the telephone, and on hold waiting for a human, getting transferred from one to another over a period of several days. Then when I did send it back, they told me it would be 2 billing cycles; i.e., 60 days before the refund would show up on my credit card bill. I let them know in no uncertain terms that was not satisfactory and got the refund in two weeks instead of 2 months.dmccarty
Super Star Member
If you are "just" doing quick snapshots of your family, the dogs, the tractor, a project, etc, then any decent point and shoot will work. The thing about photography equipment is the more you pay the more you get. It really is a question of will you use what you get to make what you pay worth it.
I assume you have a 50mm F1.8 lens on the old FE camera. That lens will very likely work on many of the modern Nikon DSLRs. You won't get auto focus but I would guess a good many of the new cameras would support the lens.
I have five lenses four of which I bought in the 90s for film cameras. I bought a 50mm lens a few years ago. One thing to be careful of in DSLR's today is that the full sensor which is the size of 35mm film is only in the high end cameras. Most cameras are cropped sensors which change the perspective on the lens from a full frame sensor. A 50mm lens becomes 75 on a smaller sensor camera. The reason I brought this up is that there are lenses being built that are for the smaller sensor. Moving up to a full frame sensor on those lenses will be problematic. But the older film lenses will work just fine on the cropped or full frame cameras.
The other reason I brought this up is that DSLRs are NOTHING more than computers to attach lenses. In 18-24 months there will be another DSLR out for the same money with even better features to temp you out of your money. The lenses, not so much. Nikon has "improved" one or two of my lenses since the 90s. Nothing they have changed has made me spend more money on the latest and greatest lens. Lenses hold their value while camera's loose value quickly.
Unless someone is taking photos in extreme conditions like low light requiring fast shutter speeds a high end DSLR is not needed. Spend more on the glass not the camera. Glass Lasts. Right now I am taking photos of kids basketball games. The gym is very well lit for a gym but it still is taking a very good camera and the professional lenses I have to get the photos. However most of my photos are being taken with a 50mm/F1.4 and 105mm/F2.8 prime lens with the aperture set to F2.8. The 50mm/F1.8 lens would do just as well set to F2.8. It is $124 which is dirt cheap for good glass.
Good lens do help make good photos. I have shown some of the photos to people at work and they have noticed the "pop" in my photos that they don't get in theirs. This is due to the camera, the photo paper, knowing photography fundamentals, but I think the big reason is the lens.
So you could buy a low end DSLR with a cheap nifty fifty. The good thing about digital photography is that you can do all of your own processing at home. This is also a bad thing. Do you WANT to process RAW/NEF files into JPGs? Do you want to learn a photo editing program to get the best image possible? Do you just want to take the danged picture and be done with it?
Later,
Dan
I assume you have a 50mm F1.8 lens on the old FE camera. That lens will very likely work on many of the modern Nikon DSLRs. You won't get auto focus but I would guess a good many of the new cameras would support the lens.
I have five lenses four of which I bought in the 90s for film cameras. I bought a 50mm lens a few years ago. One thing to be careful of in DSLR's today is that the full sensor which is the size of 35mm film is only in the high end cameras. Most cameras are cropped sensors which change the perspective on the lens from a full frame sensor. A 50mm lens becomes 75 on a smaller sensor camera. The reason I brought this up is that there are lenses being built that are for the smaller sensor. Moving up to a full frame sensor on those lenses will be problematic. But the older film lenses will work just fine on the cropped or full frame cameras.
The other reason I brought this up is that DSLRs are NOTHING more than computers to attach lenses. In 18-24 months there will be another DSLR out for the same money with even better features to temp you out of your money. The lenses, not so much. Nikon has "improved" one or two of my lenses since the 90s. Nothing they have changed has made me spend more money on the latest and greatest lens. Lenses hold their value while camera's loose value quickly.
Unless someone is taking photos in extreme conditions like low light requiring fast shutter speeds a high end DSLR is not needed. Spend more on the glass not the camera. Glass Lasts. Right now I am taking photos of kids basketball games. The gym is very well lit for a gym but it still is taking a very good camera and the professional lenses I have to get the photos. However most of my photos are being taken with a 50mm/F1.4 and 105mm/F2.8 prime lens with the aperture set to F2.8. The 50mm/F1.8 lens would do just as well set to F2.8. It is $124 which is dirt cheap for good glass.
Good lens do help make good photos. I have shown some of the photos to people at work and they have noticed the "pop" in my photos that they don't get in theirs. This is due to the camera, the photo paper, knowing photography fundamentals, but I think the big reason is the lens.
So you could buy a low end DSLR with a cheap nifty fifty. The good thing about digital photography is that you can do all of your own processing at home. This is also a bad thing. Do you WANT to process RAW/NEF files into JPGs? Do you want to learn a photo editing program to get the best image possible? Do you just want to take the danged picture and be done with it?
Later,
Dan
RobertN
Super Member
Part of it is. Nikon and Canon make the best camera's, some others are pretty close though. to an "average" user, the differences would be negligible. Then it comes down to how the camera fits you, feels in your hand ect.
What isn't though, is the grade of equipment out there. Even in the Nikon and Canon line, you can get entry level lenses, semi-pro, and pro lenses. Definite differences. Quality of glass, speed of the aperture(not only for depth of field, but for low light ability), and build of the lens.
Glass is important, cameras, spotting scopes, rifle scopes; have seen difference at very low light, or the opposite, lens flare when looking too much towards the sun. Had to pass on a shot with a $150 Simmons scope that was an easy one for my buddy with the $500 Leupold. Better glass, better coatings.
Mentioned before, As much as the camera, some basic composition instead of fast point and shooting makes a big difference too.
What isn't though, is the grade of equipment out there. Even in the Nikon and Canon line, you can get entry level lenses, semi-pro, and pro lenses. Definite differences. Quality of glass, speed of the aperture(not only for depth of field, but for low light ability), and build of the lens.
Glass is important, cameras, spotting scopes, rifle scopes; have seen difference at very low light, or the opposite, lens flare when looking too much towards the sun. Had to pass on a shot with a $150 Simmons scope that was an easy one for my buddy with the $500 Leupold. Better glass, better coatings.
Mentioned before, As much as the camera, some basic composition instead of fast point and shooting makes a big difference too.
RobertN
Super Member
I've used camera's in full auto mode, and again of same subject in partial program or manual mode. Was able to make better pictures in partial or manual mode. The full auto came out ok. But not wonderful.
It does not take a high dollar camera; even entry DSLR's have override and manual modes.
Manual or part programming does not guarantee a good photo though; that is still up to the composition by the photographer.
It does not take a high dollar camera; even entry DSLR's have override and manual modes.
Manual or part programming does not guarantee a good photo though; that is still up to the composition by the photographer.
That's the reason I don't have a high dollar camera.
riptides
Super Member
Let us also not forget - photography is an art.
Even the best most expensive camera cannot overcome a poor setting or poor choice of action.
But photoshop can help!
Even the best most expensive camera cannot overcome a poor setting or poor choice of action.
But photoshop can help!
