I'm looking for a mid-priced (4-500 CAD/USD - that's 2-300 Pounds, or 3-400 Euro) digital camera of decent quality, and functionality. That's VERY important to me is to be able to manually select aperture and shutter speed, and most perferably, focus as well. I don't care much for brand, as long as it is reputable - but perferably NOT Sony (bad experiences), and as for zoom, I don't care much for it either. A Macro feature would also be nice. Any ideas?
Well, you certainly can't go wrong with a Canon Digital Rebel XT (aka Canon EOS 350D). It might be a hair over your listed budget, but you can probably find a sale going on somewhere to get it in your price range. Or, you can look for its predecessor, the 300D (the "old" Digital Rebel model). It's a great camera for the pro-sumer level. Has completely manual or completely auto functionality, and every step in between. It doesn't have a macro function, per se, but you can get a macro lens for it. If you're not keen on buying a dedicated macro lens, and you don't mind losing some depth of field, you can get close-up filters. They do a decent enough job. I''ve been using mine for over a year now (the old model), and It hasn't let me down yet. -monkey
I've considered the Rebel. It's set aside for now, if there's anything cheaper. Could I possibly take a lense off a camera from the 70s, and adapt it to a dSLR body? I find older lenses have a much more solid build, and don't deel as cheap as the bundled lenses. Also, was it just me and my Sony (Cybershot from 2001-2002), that digital cameras tend to lose focus and images become blurry after a few years? Or was it just the immature technology back then?
I cant think of why or how a camera would loose its focus after a few years, but maybe someone like Pookeyhead (cough) would be able to shed some light on this... ...not a fan of Sony cameras at all, so would not reccomend them, as I think of them more as toys rather then a camera...can only reccomend the 350D though, been using it for coming up to a year now, and it has been one of my best investments in terms of camera gear! to use a lens with the Canon range of dSLR'r you just have to make sure its and EOS compatible lens, even though old(er) manual lenses can be adapted to fit with an adaptor, but functions like Autofocus will not work on this for obvious reasons! ..tried having a look on ebay for a dSLR?
Your old lenses from teh 70s probably will not work on the Digital Rebel. In fact, they may not work on any modern Canon camera. The Rebel uses the EF lens mount, which means it is compatible with EF and EF-S lenses. The EF lens mount has a wider diameter than the previous FD mount, so you'll have to get an adaptor, as felix stated. You can find an example here. Either way, a good lens nowadays can be jsut as durable than a lens from the 70s. Also, a new lens may yield a better image, depending on the current quality of the old lens. As far as your Sony camera losing its focus, don't worry, it's not indicative of digital camera technology. It could be any number of things. My guess is either the lens itself is altered (scratches, smudges, etc) or there is some other mechanical problem involving the lens elements (a lens has shifted inside the camera, for example). -monkey
I can highly recommend the Konica Minolta Z range I have a Z5 (supposed to be better than the z6) and i love it. 5mp and the anti shake is the best ....... my dodgy hands aint good at all.
Unfortunately, as of 31st March, Konica Minolta has withdrawn from the photo imaging business. They are no more. "On 19th January 2006, Konica Minolta Holdings, Inc. Tokyo, Japan (KMHD) announced its withdrawal from the photo imaging business. Consequently, Konica Minolta Photo Imaging (UK) Limited ceased operations on 31st March 2006. The following page is provided for information only." You'll struggle to get macro, a good lens, decent res and full manual control in a camera that's not a full dSLR (and therefore expensive) to be honest. The Nikon Coolpix 5400 ticks all the boxes, but it's still around £400. I rarely study the compact, or non dSLR market however, so I may have missed something... I'm still pretty sure 2~300 quid for a decent camera with full manual control for aperture, shutter AND focus is pushing it.
What about one of the "Super zoom" cameras (so-called ZLRs for no good reason)? If you're not wanting to spend DSLR-money, then this is probably the closest you'll get. Something like the Fuji s5200/s5600 or the Canon Powershot S2IS. They don't have full manual controls per se - they have a few different F-stops and shutter speeds that you can change via menus, rather than on dials like an SLR. There's not as much to play with, but there is still plenty to get your teeth into. Good points: they're smaller than SLRs and the Canon has a pretty decent image-stabilising lens, something that would certainly be out of your budget in the SLR world.
Er, no. My 6.2MP Canon RAW files come out at about 30MB each IIRC, so 8MP is going to be 40MB ish. Or around 3Mb for the Jpegs, depending on how much compression you use
Well, I've read that the general rule of thumb for a 24bit, RGB, uncompressed TIFF file is MP x 2.93 = approx file size. According to the Canon website , the digital Rebel XT has a RAW image that is approximately 8.3MB at 8MP (3456 x 2304). Other manufacturers and models may vary. Having said that, don't fall into the megapixel marketing trap. What are your intended uses, and how big do you want to print? At 4x6 inches, the difference between 4MP and 8MP is all but invisible to the untrained eye. 6-8MP willl give you fairly large prints, but you'll pay more for the extra pixels. -monkey
I've decided to settle with the Canon Rebel XT. The 8 MP is nice, but it wasn't the deciding factor. I'm just waiting for it to arrive in the mail now... Question - could I use other branded lenses with the camera? Would say, a Nikon lens usually fit without having to fidget around with adapter rings etc. And would the AF/MF focus usually be compadible between brands as well? I was considering a Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8 for a Rebel. How much of a difference will I see between F/1.8 and F/3.5? I'm a huge fan of shallow depths of fields, as well as faster shutter speeds, so I was thinking of buying a standard 50mm lense. Thanks
With adapter rings you can fit any lens, but there are plenty of EF & EF/S lenses about. A huge difference the Canon 50mm f1.8 is a cracker of a lens and can be found for less than 70GBP. The 1.4 is a light magnet and produces nice bokeh effects. Have a look at some of these. If you go up a level from here it lists pretty much all of the Canon lenses so you can have a look at what they are capable of (bearing in mind post processing and user ability). Also worth a look are the Sigma lenses, generally a bit cheaper the Canon, but if you're not a "white L glass" snob then you'll find some good deals. As a parting shot take a trip to Photography on the net. This place is stuffed full of pros, semi-pros and amateurs who should be pros. You will learn a lot from them, you can't help it
I was thinking of the Canon 50mm f/1.8 Have you used it, and is it any good? Build quality aside, and the fact that it's slightly inferior to the f/1.4, the price is all too attractive, and while I want a good portrait lense/fast lense, I couldn't help but notice the price difference between the two.
The 1.8 is great, I picked mine up second hand for 55GBP (the guy was upgrading to the 1.4, I think I will too). It's all plastic construction (the lenses are still glass obviously). But to be fair if you respect your equipment there's no reason for it to fail. As a portrait lens I love it, it also came in handy in a pub a little while back as I managed to get get lots of shots without the flash. The only downside to this is that you will want better glass and that costs. I'm after this next EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM, about 1300gbp
