NEED A BETTER DIGITAL CAMERA

MikePA · Nov 9, 2003

<font color="blue"> Mike, awesome job! </font>
Thanks! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

<font color="blue"> Do you consider yourself a photographer? </font>
Nah. Just an amateur. The pictures would have been better with a tripod, but I didn't have time to look for it. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Frank's post was what prompted me to take some pictures.

Docsknotinn · Nov 9, 2003

Wow, now thats a great photo. I still use a Nikon N70 for prints. Someday I will figure out how to scan photos and the be able to get them out of my computer ? I use a Kodak digital but the only good thing about it is its great for computer dummies like me /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Dave

RobertN · Nov 9, 2003

I started years ago on a Pentax K1000. A few yaers ago, my Wife and I upgraded to a N70. It is a nice camera for the money, although the menu system is not the easiest to use.

For our Alaska trip, instead of using the old K1000, I sold it and bought a Nikon F100. I LIKE that camera. It works really well!

For scanning, we have had good results with an HP Scanjet 5370. It is a flatbed scanner with a film adapter. It works for positive and negative film. It's not near the resolution of a pro film scanner, but still works pretty well.

I'll try to get around to a scan tonite and post it.

RobertN · Nov 9, 2003

Check out the Nikon D100, Fuji Finepix-S2, Canon D10. Full SLR capabilites in nice platforms...

_RaT_ · Nov 9, 2003

Robert, Pentax has a SLR Digital, the *ist D. Lens selection is a little sparse. Some great digitals out there including what may be popular, the Sony DSC F-828 if it is ever released. I like the manual zoom on it as opposed to the electric zooms found on P&S cameras.

My current camera is down to a Olympus OM1. I've sold all other equipment for film. Waiting and thinking about a digital. The Nikon D100 and Canon 10D/ or 300D, the Sigma SD10 Pentax *ist D, Sony F-828 (a P&S digital not out yet).

Docsknotinn · Nov 9, 2003

Robert, you are sure right about the menues on the N70, but its got that Nikon quality to the photos and a great lens selection. I do find it a tad frustrateing at times but then I get some photos that are soo good I think man, I took those /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif I have never had another 35 mm SLR so I have no comparisons. The Kodak digital is useless in any sun as the screen totally washes out. Digital cameras are pretty useless at sporting events due to the shutter delay, or at least mine is. I really regretted not have the Nikon a few times this year. But then there is a lot to be said for being able to put your camera in your shirt pocket. Dave

RobertN · Nov 9, 2003

We have the N70 and F100, with shared lenses. The N70 has an entry level 28-80mm on it. We use a 80-200/2.8 a lot; that is a great lens!

My favorite now though, for a nice combo set , is the F100 with the 24-120mm. That lens covers a large number of photo situations very well. It is amazing the difference in the low end, using 24mm vs 28mm. That 4mm makes for nicer wide angles.

The coverage the 80-200 and 24-120 gives is nice.

If I could get more lenses, to run film or digital SLR, it would be nice to have the 2.8-AFS lenses in 80-200, and a 20mm wide angle. I have used a 300mm/2.8, which was nice.

I used the 80-400? VR lense pohotgraphing breaching whales in Alaska. It work really well. It was more of a travel lense though. I liked the Canon usm/IS lens for usablilty and ruggedness better. The shots from the Nikon VR lens came out great though.

We have a Nikon 4300 Coolpix. It works pretty good in all situations. I still want a digital SLR though, eventually...

Tonester · Nov 9, 2003

Thanks doc, not bad for a semi-pro camera, if I say so myself /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

To the guys with the Nikons: I have the original Nikon D1 Digital SLR (I got it for a marketing business I was running at the time). The real key to these higher end cameras, as you probably know, is that darn Nikon glass! My Nikon is 2.7 megapixels, my Sony DSC-f717 is 5 megapixels, and the Nikon BLOWS the Sony out of the water, hands down. I still have high-end magazine covers & ads I shot back then that you would swear were film. Something about a 28-70 AFS-D silent wave lens...... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

It is nice to be able to use the same lenses on the film camera as on the digital, too! (Although the Sony gets the "don't care so much if i drop it" Award!)

_RaT_ · Nov 10, 2003

I would hope that the very well built Nikon D1H does some great pictures, the price difference between it and a Sony DSC 717 is the Nikon with the 28-70mm 2.8D is about $4445 vs about $750 for the Sony DSC 717. Of course if money is no object, a Canon EOS 1Ds with a EF 600mm f/4L IS will set you back about $15000 add the 1200mm for about $70,000 as I recall and you will be all set or some nice wildlife shots. Don't forget your tripod.

Seriously though, it is going to be a matter of what you do with those pictures that will be more important. I've been hanging in limbo on a digital camera. The Sony DSC F-828 is due out in December. I really expect that Nikon is going to announce a predecessor to the D100 (provided Sony can get the sensors manufactured fast enough) Before I invest in a SLR, I want to make sure I'm going with the right company or that I really need one anymore. With a SLR, it's not the camera body manufactuer you decide on so much as the lenses. The body is just the down payment as they say. Be prepared to spend plenty more in the future, those nice lenses are very tempting.

Still looking for the right digital camera.

RobertN · Nov 10, 2003

I used that Canon 600mm IS lens a couple years ago in Alaska. The people who had it called it "Junior", cause the backpack they used for it looked like a kid carrier! I took a couple rolls in thier camera of some grizzly bear. It was definitaly sweet!