 |
 | 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 / April 2007Real cheap dslrs coming?
US$299 dslrs by the end of the year? http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070312/tc_usatoday/goingdowngetsetforgreatcam eradeals;_ylt=AlIHerX.u4c9igzkk9voXmIjtBAF or http://tinyurl.com/37wjm5 I kind of doubt it, but further price reductions - perhaps not to this scale - wouldn't be a surprise. > US$299 dslrs by the end of the year?http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070312/tc_usatoday/goingdowngetset... > orhttp://tinyurl.com/37wjm5 > I kind of doubt it, but further price reductions - perhaps not to this > scale - wouldn't be a surprise. What they need to produce is a P&S for that price with a larger sensor. No reason why it should cost $1000 like the Sony R-1 did. Nice camera, but slow like all P&Ss and way too large. Why make one? Is anyone really going to start outfitting a $300 DSLR (does that include a kit lens?) with an array of lenses? Better to equip a fixed lens 1.5x sensored camera with a 35mm-200mm equivalent. It need not be very good either, given the low end of the DSLR lens scale we see now. But even then, a crappy (cheap) P&S with a 1/2.5" sensor and a long zoom costs at least $300 so is it reasonable to expect a DSLR to cost $300? No. Maybe an ultracheap and shoddy plastic body with no kit lens. >> US$299 dslrs by the end of the year?http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070312/tc_usatoday/goingdowngetset... >> orhttp://tinyurl.com/37wjm5 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > expect a DSLR to cost $300? No. Maybe an ultracheap and shoddy > plastic body with no kit lens. Why not put good lenses on a cheap dslr? For example, a Nikon D200 isn't going to produce better quality images than a D40x - even though it's better made and has more features. >>> US$299 dslrs by the end of the >>> year?http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070312/tc_usatoday/goingdowngetset... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > For example, a Nikon D200 isn't going to produce better quality images > than a D40x - even though it's better made and has more features. Yep. >Why not put good lenses on a cheap dslr? >For example, a Nikon D200 isn't going to produce better quality images >than a D40x - even though it's better made and has more features. That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are prepared to use manual focus, for which the focusing screen in the D40X is badly suited. The D200 has the huge advantage of being able to accept the majority of Nikkors, both manual and automatic focus, made since the 1960s. >>Why not put good lenses on a cheap dslr? >>For example, a Nikon D200 isn't going to produce better quality images [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The D200 has the huge advantage of being able to accept the majority > of Nikkors, both manual and automatic focus, made since the 1960s. Yeah, I'm lovin' this camera--runnin' around with a 24mm 2.8 ais, mostly. I've been using the mirror lockup feature a lot, too. -- www.mattclara.com >>>Why not put good lenses on a cheap dslr? >>>For example, a Nikon D200 isn't going to produce better quality images [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Yeah, I'm lovin' this camera--runnin' around with a 24mm 2.8 ais, mostly. >I've been using the mirror lockup feature a lot, too. That's a nice combination, Matt. One of Nikon's best lenses, and you are ony using the best part of its image. > That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to > AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The D200 has the huge advantage of being able to accept the majority > of Nikkors, both manual and automatic focus, made since the 1960s. I think you just described their upgrade path. Want a cheap entry level DSLR with a decent kit lens and some options, get the D40/D40x. Want to use prime AF lenses? Spend more and get the D80. Want to use your AI lenses? Spend more and get the D200. With the D40x, this range almost encompasses the film attribute where all cameras could use any available 35mm film and the differences were in other than imaging features. (I know the sensors are different in some aspects, but overall they are pretty similar.) -hank >> That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to >> AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -hank Methinks you misunderstand the Nikkor attributes and the interchangeability of the AF-S, AF-D, and AF-G lenses. Also, to think the D40/D40x is limited to the use of "kit" lenses because it lacks an in-body focus motor is inaccurate in the extreme. Similarly, most, "prime AF lenses" (in the Nikkor lineup) certainly don't "require" the D80 as most are of the AF-S persuasion which happens to be just what the D40 series was designed for. In other words a natural fit. Bob >>> That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to >>> AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > series was designed for. In other words a natural fit. > Bob I didn't do a count, but it appears that only about a third of Nikon's prime lenses offer AF-S functionality, and they start at 105mm and go up, and the cheapest among them is the 105mm VR macro at $800. I'm using the word "prime" in its most typical usenet useage, and that is, "a lens of a single focal length." -- www.mattclara.com >>>> That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to >>>> AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > word "prime" in its most typical usenet useage, and that is, "a lens of a > single focal length." http://tinyurl.com/2tkg7e That links to the search results I refered to in my previous post. -- www.mattclara.com >>>>> That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to >>>>> AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > -- > www.mattclara.com No disagreement with your stats! However, Tony's (I think it was Tony) mention of "cheap" and "kit Lens" in the same sentence and the non-mention of "prime" when referring to the AI lenses left the impression his use of "prime" was to indicate "high quality" instead of "single focal length". In that context, the opinion that you need a D80 to avail yourself of the "top quality" Nikkors is misleading at best. In fact, the target audience for the D40 series are unlikely to want to limit themselves to the use of "single focal length" Nikkors when there is a multitude of high quality AF-I, AF-S and AF-G lenses available either new or used which will serve their purposes admirably. Bob >>>>>That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to >>>>>AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > http://tinyurl.com/2tkg7e > That links to the search results I refered to in my previous post. http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5 I sorted the list of current lenses into AF, AF-S & MF AF Lenses 14mm f/2.8D ED AF Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D AF Fisheye-Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2D AF DC-Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D ED-IF AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-80mm f/3.3-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR Zoom-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF AF Micro-Nikkor AF-S Lenses 300mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor 400mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor 500mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor 600mm f/4D ED-IF AF-S II Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor - NEW! 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW! 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW! 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200mm f/2G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor MANUAL LENSES 24mm f/2 Nikkor AI-S 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor AI-S 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AI-S 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikkor >>>>>>That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to >>>>>>AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > 50mm f/1.2 Nikkor AI-S > 85mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikkor Interesting--Nikon doesn't list a couple AIS lenses B&H is carrying--must be old stock. -- www.mattclara.com > I'm using the word > "prime" in its most typical usenet useage, and that is, "a lens of a single > focal length." "Prime" is wholly acceptable accept to the holy purists. Don't defend yourself for using it.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I'm using the word "prime" in its most typical usenet useage, and that >> is, "a lens of a single focal length." > > "Prime" is wholly acceptable accept to the holy purists. -except- <sigh> Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> I'm using the word "prime" in its most typical usenet useage, and that >>> is, "a lens of a single focal length." >> >> "Prime" is wholly acceptable accept to the holy purists. > -except- <sigh> lol. I agree with your statement, however stated. I just wanted to make sure we weren't confusing our terms. -- www.mattclara.com >Want a cheap entry level DSLR with a decent kit lens and some options, >get the D40/D40x. Besides being a camera for "beginners," the D40 is also ideal for "old fogies" like myself. I learned to take pictures in the 1950's; my first SLR was a Zeiss Contaflex. From that, I "graduated" to a Nikkormat and then to an FM2. I *hate* zoom lenses (too big and too slow) and I dislike autofocus. Who cares if the D40 doesn't have a screw drive for AF? Use a manual lens (the only one that meters on it is the 45mm f/2.8P) or an AF lens in manual mode. (Actually, because of the new design of the minimum-aperture switch, you can mount *any* F-mount lens, even the earliest.) The only improvement that it really needs for manual focusing is the Katz Eye screen. What really sold me on the D40 was its small size (overall size is comparable to the FM). The low price was just a bonus. I would have paid considerably more. >>That's generally good advice, however the D40X is strictly limited to >>AF-S lenses, which rules out many good AF Nikkors, unless you are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Want to use prime AF lenses? Spend more and get the D80. Or spend less & get a D50. > Want to use your AI lenses? Spend more and get the D200. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -hank > >> US$299 dslrs by the end of the year?http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070312/tc_usatoday/goingdowngetset... > >> orhttp://tinyurl.com/37wjm5 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > For example, a Nikon D200 isn't going to produce better quality images > than a D40x - even though it's better made and has more features. It's not a question of whether it makes sense but whether people who buy $200-$300 DSLRs would even want to invest in lenses. Back in the SLR days, when a decent SLR cost $400 (about $1000 in modern terms) very few SLR buyers sprung for anything beyond a 50mm standard lens or a dirt-cheap 35-70 offbrand zoom. There are only a few lenses you can buy under $300 to expand a collection. I doubt the buyers of cheap, cheap DSLRs will be inclined to buy extra lenses unless somehow, they could make them for under $200.00. >> >> US$299 dslrs by the end of the >> >> year?http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070312/tc_usatoday/goingdowngetset... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > to buy extra lenses unless somehow, they could make them for under > $200.00 Not entirely accurate... If you have need of a small camera body what are your options except for these "entry level" cameras??? DP > Not entirely accurate... If you have need of a small camera body what are > your options except for these "entry level" cameras? Quite - I managed to drag my girlfriend to the local camera store yesterday to have a look at some budget DSLRs - she was shocked and horrified by how "enormous" they (Pentax K100D, Canon 350, Nikon D40) were (compared to our old SLR) - and these are amongst the smallest DSLRs. Maybe everyone has grown bigger hands in the last 20 years. Daniele In article <1hv7qn6.1y507az89d6wpN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>, > > Not entirely accurate... If you have need of a small camera body what are > > your options except for these "entry level" cameras? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > were (compared to our old SLR) - and these are amongst the smallest > DSLRs. but the 'film' got a LOT smaller... and what old slr did you have? the size difference isn't as much as it might seem. > > Quite - I managed to drag my girlfriend to the local camera store > > yesterday to have a look at some budget DSLRs - she was shocked and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and what old slr did you have? the size difference isn't as much as it > might seem. A Praktica Jenaflex AM-1. Daniele In article <1hv7w8m.yd5xu01aeifslN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>, > > > Quite - I managed to drag my girlfriend to the local camera store > > > yesterday to have a look at some budget DSLRs - she was shocked and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A Praktica Jenaflex AM-1. i couldn't find any specs on your camera but here's a comparison of a few digital slrs and some of the small classic film slrs. sorted by weight (with slight roundoff), film cameras are marked with a *, use a monospace font for everything to line up : 130 x 91 x 53 mm (5.1 x 3.6 x 2.1 in) 435 g (1.0 lb) Olympus E-410 130 x 95 x 66 mm (5.1 x 3.7 x 2.6 in) 479 g (1.1 lb) Olympus E-500 136 x 83 x 49 mm (5.4 x 3.3 x 1.9 in) 495 g (1.1 lb) * Pentax MX 136 x 83 x 50 mm (5.4 x 3.3 x 2.0 in) 510 g (1.1 lb) * Olympus OM-1 126 x 94 x 64 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) 524 g (1.2 lb) Nikon D40 127 x 94 x 65 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.5 in) 556 g (1.2 lb) Canon EOS 400D 142 x 90 x 58 mm (5.6 x 3.5 x 2.3 in) 590 g (1.2 lb) * Nikon FE 133 x 95 x 71 mm (5.2 x 3.7 x 2.8 in) 638 g (1.4 lb) Sony DSLR-A100 129 x 93 x 70 mm (5.0 x 3.7 x 2.8 in) 660 g (1.5 lb) Pentax K100D 132 x 103 x 77 mm (5.2 x 4.1 x 3.0 in) 668 g (1.5 lb) Nikon D80 the size differences are small (sometimes as little as just a few mm), despite the fact that the dslrs include a 'motor drive' which was an add-on for the film cameras. adding that to the film camera, and the digital camera is even smaller in comparison. another difference is that 20 years ago, the typical lens was a compact 50mm and today it is a much bigger and heavier zoom lens. and don't forget that bag of film instead of a 2 gig memory card. <http://www.dpreview.com/articles/olympuse410/page3.asp> <http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/M/MX.html> <http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/om 1/om1manual/index5.htm#Spec> <http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonfeseries/f e/specification.htm> [] > Quite - I managed to drag my girlfriend to the local camera store > yesterday to have a look at some budget DSLRs - she was shocked and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Daniele The 4/3 system with its smaller sensor should have provided the chance of making some truly lightweight, compact DSLRs, but hasn't done so yet. David > [] >> Quite - I managed to drag my girlfriend to the local camera store [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David Was gonna wait for that new Olympus, but lack of primes was a deal breaker. DP > The 4/3 system with its smaller sensor should have provided the chance of > making some truly lightweight, compact DSLRs, but hasn't done so yet. > > David Actually the new Olympus E-400 and E410 are both lightweight and compact . Yoshi |
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.