jay pettitt on 5/12/2006 at 18:15
My old camera requires it's own special rucksack, many lenses, filters, flash unit and a tripod to hold it from quivering under it's own weight.
And here's me thinking that it's nearly 2002 and I really should go digital. And while I'm conversant in f-stops and aperture; the reality is that the control and flexibility you get with a manual SLR comes at a cost - that taking photos is a fucking chore and that I haven't taken one in over a year.
So what should I buy?
Aircraftkiller on 5/12/2006 at 19:16
If you're going to go digital, I seriously suggest Olympus cameras. I've been saving up, slowly, for the E-VOLT E-330 the past year. I use their C-7070WZ camera and I've been thoroughly impressed with it.
The E-330 works like a traditional SLR, but it has a live-view LCD screen so you can see what your shot is going to look like. It also has the dust elimination system that was incorporated on the E-500, so when you change the lenses out, dust will not settle on the image sensor.
(
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1226)
Personally I can't wait to get it. It's only .4 megapixels above my C-7070WZ. If you want some examples of Olympus image quality, check my (
http://aircraftkiller.deviantart.com/gallery) deviantart gallery to see what I mean.
Good luck with whatever you choose, but you're not gonna beat the E-330. :)
tungsten on 5/12/2006 at 20:46
Look at the image-stabilisers that you can buy in some lenses (Canon and others, I think). They're expensive, but they're worth it. There are none available for my brand and I regret it.
An analog Minolta alpha 7 for me for the "real images" and a pentax optio wr43 (water resistant, digital, small) for the snapshots and the water sports. If you want to spend the money for a SLR, you probably can also shell out a little more for a snapshot digital toy in addition.
Ask yourself: to what size did you enlarge your pictures in the past?
Kolya on 5/12/2006 at 21:20
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
And here's me thinking that it's nearly 2002 [...]
:confused: Again?
Myoldnamebroke on 5/12/2006 at 21:58
It really depends a lot on your current setup. If you've invested a lot in a decent set of lenses, buy a body from the same company. The Nikon dSLRs will all work with any Nikon SLR lens, and so on.
Megapixels are also a poor guide to the quality of image you'll get - there are a zillion other factors involved. But yeah, what you've got at the moment in reality is the biggest factor to take account of when you're looking.
Aircraftkiller on 5/12/2006 at 22:00
Of course megapixels are a bad guide to image quality. It's mostly about size and printability. 7.1 gives me 3072x2304 size photos at maximum quality settings - more than enough for texture creation or for large prints.
jay pettitt on 5/12/2006 at 22:58
Quote Posted by Myoldnamebroke
It really depends a lot on your current setup. If you've invested a lot in a decent set of lenses, buy a body from the same company. The Nikon dSLRs will all work with any Nikon SLR lens, and so on.
I hear what you're saying - but no need to worry about my current kit. It's somewhat antiquated obscure East German stuff from the days before auto-focus.
ACK, did you migrate from SLRs and if so, how did you find it?
Aircraftkiller on 5/12/2006 at 23:09
I used to work with an old Olympus auto-drive 35mm camera for quite a few years, because my family didn't have enough money and interest in photography to fork over the cash for a SLR.
Dr Sneak on 5/12/2006 at 23:30
I only have a little experience with digi cams, but I'd say 5 megapixels minimum and if you want good zoom functions go for optical over digital zoom.
