Comments:
>> Arcterex » Tuesday, June 24, 2003 08:49 AM

Depending on what you are using the camera for, you can get a *very* nice SLR (the canon EOS Rebel series for example) for about half the cost of a decent (3mp-ish) digital of about the same cost of a crappy (1.xmp-ish) digital.

I looked at the Rebel series a while back and they were about $300-400, and had many awsome features.

Of course, if you're looking for digital specifically, go for digital :) Well, or read some photography books and figure out why your pix aren't coming out well (assuming it's not a fault of the camera hardware). Remember the thing about a painter not blaming his brushes :)

>> Arcterex » Tuesday, June 24, 2003 08:51 AM

http://www.canoneos.com/
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=eos+rebel&btnG=Froogle+Search

>> Darren » Tuesday, June 24, 2003 09:14 AM

As it turns out, I can get a Canon A60 for $369 at London Drugs... which is the same price as a Pentax MZ60 SLR. The benefit of the A60 is size and versatility...

The Rebel is definitely a good camera -- it's one of the workhorse models... but it also starts getting pretty pricy once you start adding things like lenses and filters on...

>> Arcterex » Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:00 AM

Yup. Depends on what you're using it for, and how you're using it. My dad loves his little point-n-shoot canon s230 digital (go visa points!). Basically he carrys it around for interesting opportunities. However, for "real" pictures he uses a "real" camera, a non-digital SLR. Of course, he's been a photographer (even a paid professional one at one point), so he has a bias.

I personally learned a lot by reading a random photography book that explained all the f-stop/apater stuff, which made (I think) my non-digital pics better, especially on a completely manual camera. Probably goes to that thing of learning to do it the hard way before you get a tool to make it so you don't need to do it the hard way anymore.

I *definately* didn't appreciate the lack of features in the 600 digital (the s230) when I went to the zoo. I wish I had the freedom of being able to focus on what I wanted instead of what the camera thought I wanted to focus on :)

>> Arcterex » Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:03 AM

Oh, and speaking of lenses and filters, check the rebel out in the store, it comes with a decent zoom, and unless you're going really funky (wide angel, super zoom) you're fine. A simple polorizing filter is under $30 from what I remember. Of course, any camera you put funky lenses on to is going to get expensive, regardless of digital or non :)

What were you thinking of putting on it? Or just trying to rationalize a higher cost digital? (not that there's anything wrong with it).

Personally I like the one that the randomfoo guy uses, the $1600usd EOS digital version of the rebel (or close to it anyway).

*sigh* for more money....

>> Darren » Tuesday, June 24, 2003 11:24 AM

Lenses I'd need for an SLR are:

1. Macro lens - a good $3-400
2. Wide Angle Lens - pick on up used for $100 or so

You can add close-up filters, instead of the macro lens, of course... but that's still $100.

In contrast, the A60 gives you full manual focus/exposure settings, and up to 5cm focus range for macro.

more info: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_a60.asp

My quandry comes because most of the photos will only be used for the Web anyways. But, it'd be nice to have large prints for some photos, making a film camera a better choice. On the other hand, I've made exactly 5 large prints in the last 3 years. :)

Post a comment

You are: mailing address: URL:

Remember personal info? YesNo Comments:

* under no circumstances will your email address be traded for a sack of quarters. No-sirree.