 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2006Beginner Looking for DSLR Advice
I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am looking at two unit and was wondering some things. I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense. Both around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ? >I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am > looking at two unit and was wondering some things. > > I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense. > Both > around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ? Why not Minolta, Canon or another Nikon? >>I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am >> looking at two unit and was wondering some things. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Why not Minolta, Canon or another Nikon? Mainly price >>>I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am >>>looking at two unit and was wondering some things. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mainly price Check reviews: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=alpha and look specifically at the features you want as the reason for moving up (e.g. low light performance, shutter lag, frames per second, etc.) Roger photos: http://www.clarkvision.com >>>I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am >>> looking at two unit and was wondering some things. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>Why not Minolta, Canon or another Nikon? > Mainly price Go to DPReview as Roger recommends, but ask yourself, how long do you want to have this camera before you upgrade again? Maybe then think about spending a little more to really get the better features, ergonomics you want and get better quality too. Personally I don't like the Olympus line up, but that's just me. I bought the Minolta 7D and it is pretty damn good for my hard earned dollar. The new Canon's and Nikon's are equally impressive too. or even Pentax? I've not handled the Minolta but both the Pentax & Nikon bodies feel more solid than the Canon and have a wider range of lenses to use. Collin >I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am > looking at two unit and was wondering some things. > > I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense. > Both > around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ? I have the E300. There are some differences in the two cameras - function wise - that make the E500 slightly better BUT most people that have the E300 would not consider the differences big enough to change. The build quality on the E300 - while a little strange looking and feeling to some - is much better than the E500. > >I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am >> looking at two unit and was wondering some things. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > differences big enough to change. The build quality on the E300 - while a > little strange looking and feeling to some - is much better than the E500. I have an E1. When I was shopping I looked at the E300 and the E1. I liked the feel of the E1 better.(It fit my hand). It also had more controls on the body, more solid body, etc. So I bought the E1. This Fall I tried out the E500 and it felt better than the E300. I bought one for my wife. She loves it. It is much lighter and has more megapixels than mine. She has the 2 lens outfit, which is a great bargain. I have the 14-54 lens, which is a fabulous lens, but her 14-45 is almost as good. I also have the 50-200 which is more than fabulous. However her 40-150 weighs considerably less. You can walk around all day with the E500 and this lens and hardly notice it. Put the 50-200 on the E1 and you get a pretty sore arm. I think you would be very happy with the E500. It has its warts, they all do. Keep the ISO down, 1600 should only be used for emergencies, unless you want to spend a bit of time with post processing. There aren't a lot of lenses for the Olympus, and most of them, though very good, are expensive. If you need a lung telephoto, get an OM adaptor and pick up some used OM lenses. They work pretty good, though you have to manually focus in a stopped down mode. You can use aperture priority, however. One thing about Olympus. You need a lot of self confidence. Because you will get all sorts of heat from Canon users telling you what a mistake you made. Nikon users are more accepting. Just remember that it's not the camera, but the photographer. So have fun. > I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am > looking at two unit and was wondering some things. > > I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense. Both > around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ? I'm probably biased, but I'd suggest trying to stretch the budget to something like a Canon 20D (or if desperate, a Canon 350D/ XT). > I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am > looking at two unit and was wondering some things. > > I am looking at a Olympus E-300 with 2 lenses and a E-500 with 1 lense. Both > around the same price . Is the e-500 a much better camera than the E-300 ? I think the first thing you need to do is establish both a short-term and long-term budget. Basically, I would expect you'll get hooked on the capabilities of dSLR photography, and you'll want to expand as much as possible. Most advice on this group is from either serious amateurs, gear junkies, or pros who have a much greater budget than me - by one or two orders of magnitude. If spending $1000 now for a basic setup might lead to spending $2000/year on new gear in the future, then you will make decisions differently than a guy like myself who managed to spend $1000 but won't be spending any more for quite some time. (Some here find my budget limitations inconceivable or imaginary, but I assure you it's a normal thing). While my gear has limitations that I occasionally bump into, it still produces great shots and is far better than the digital cameras that cost not much less. Try to budget for the best lenses you can afford, regardless of which system you choose. So when you say price is an issue, be more specific. Dave >> I am just about to make the jump from a Nikon 5700 to my first DSLR. I am >> looking at two unit and was wondering some things. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Dave Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit. > Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit. Part time job?  SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". >> Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit. > >Part time job? My schedule does not allow it would have to work every other week . Cause 8 days on at 11 hours each day then 6 days off. >> Most advice on this group is from either serious amateurs, gear >> junkies, or pros who have a much greater budget than me - by one or two [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit. $800 - I presume that means your initial purchase. You need to decide if later you might buy a couple more lenses and accessories - I can almost guarantee you'll want to. I personally did something like that - $550 for a Canon 300D, $200 for a Tamron 75-300mm, $100 for 1GB of CF cards. Dave >>> Most advice on this group is from either serious amateurs, gear >>> junkies, or pros who have a much greater budget than me - by one or two [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dave This is first purchase have CF Cards around 5 gigs worth . I have someone who is going to pay me 2.50 per picture I do per sale he makes on his site . He sales around 150 photos a month. He mainly needs pictures of Court houses and such. Historical building in parts of teh state I travel in. David Geesaman wrote: > Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard > limit. You then are a perfect customer for a Pentax DSLR with kit lens (28~80mm equivalent). Try Froogle for ist-DL or ist-DS2. Any Pentax DSLR is both a great camera and a great value. I have a ist-DL and love it. Beats anything in its price range or costing hundreds more. SignatureAnti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA Not difficult. *ist DS or DS2 body only and use inexpensive lenses to start. Collin Don't know if this is allowed but check out www.Kenrockwell.com/tech/camera_recommendations_2005.htm He's got what I consider to be great advice and he explains his rationale. It's the only website I've been impressed with enough to $upport. The entire site is a wealth of information regarding film and digital photography. Enjoy, OldtimerCurt > Not difficult. > *ist DS or DS2 body only and use inexpensive lenses to start. > > Collin This paragraph must really be quoted more often: "For under $2,000 you can get a 4x5" film camera, lens, scanner and everything you need to make 100 megapixel images. This is far better quality than any digital camera at four times the price!" Collin What about the processing costs of film? SignatureJoan > This paragraph must really be quoted more often: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Collin The cost of the film up front as well as the processing does add up. B&W is pretty cheap. Color negs & chromes really add up. It's about $2 per sheet here in Columbus, OH. <Ramble> I do use digital as well as film. But right now most of my snapshots are digital (Pentax *istDS) and anything "serious" is 4x5. APX-100 4x5 -- my favorite from 2004: http://www.brendemuehl.net/images/model.jpg Really didn't get to do anything at all during 2005. I'm lining up some for this year. Since it's just a hobby, once a year is about all I can fit into my life. </Ramble> Collin > > Most advice on this group is from either serious amateurs, gear > >junkies, or pros who have a much greater budget than me - by one or two [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wife will not let me spend over 800 bucks on camera . This is a hard limit. If you just need a portrait lens, then a 50/1.8 + DSLR is under your budget. If you want other lenses, both wide and tele, then to get something decent you probably need at least $1500 total for the lenses and the camera. Minolta 5D: Anti-Shake Pentax DS: TTL Flash Nikon D50: 1/500s X Sync Canon 350D: 8MP http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr An opinion: One nice thing about the DSLR revolution is that the lowly, ubiquituous, under-rated 50/1.4 from virtually all the manufacturers is not the portrait lens of choice? Used to be $500+ for a 70mm-90mm range lens. Now the same basic results come for 20% of the price. Personally, I think it's great. Three years ago I got my FA50/1.4 for a modest $100 + shpg -- a pretty good price at the time and they were usually selling for about $175. Today I don't know that one can be touched for < $250. They're still the cheaper option by far. Collin > ... 50/1.4 from virtually all the manufacturers > is not the portrait lens of choice? I thought that the advice of decades for portrait work was to use a lens longer than 50mm, say 100mm. This was because although 50mm is meant to reproduce natural perpective of the naked eye there is a subjective enhancement that leads to a "nose too big" effect. Backing off and using 100mm is more flattering... Of course if taking a group of people this is all, including the flattery, less relevant! Mike. SignatureIf reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee. I was tired last night and meant "now the portrait lens of choice". It provides the crop factor of roughly a 70mm lens on 135 film or 200 on 4x5. Just a little crop but with still good working room. When doing a manual portrait shot many manual-focus 50/1.4 lenses are as good but also cost half the af lens. The SMC Pentax-A50/1.4 is a bargain to be had at any time. Good manual grip, decent construction, and contrasty, cool cast. It's a Leica-like blue/purple cast as opposed the Pentax-M's brownish cast which is Nikon-like, or the F/FA50/1.4 and the other new Pentax AF lenses (that I've seen) which have a very clean brown-purple combination coating cast. Collin > I thought that the advice of decades for portrait work was to use a lens > longer than 50mm, say 100mm. This was because although 50mm is meant to > reproduce natural perpective of the naked eye there is a subjective > enhancement that leads to a "nose too big" effect. Because naked eye does not look at another person that close. > Backing off and using 100mm is more flattering... 50mm on 1.6x digital is equivalent to 80mm on full frame. The "normal" focal length on 35mm full frame is 43mm. Longer length compresses perspective. 85mm, being twice long as normal, is a popular portrait length. For tight portrait, 135mm at 3 times normal, is often used. Longer length compresses more, but a longer lens is more expensive, heavier, of a smaller aperture, more difficult to hand hold, more difficult to back off... > Of course if taking a group of people this is all, including the flattery, less relevant! For group, the camera is farther away, thus the perspective will be similar to a single person portrait with a longer lens. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.