Digital SLR Camera

A whale on a moving ship. That's not something you see every day.

That's why I wanted a picture you silly!

You can find info on dpreview.com and Steve's Digicam reviews web sites. The megapixel thing is not as important as you might think. If you plan to view primarily on a computer screen or TV, then your resolution will be limited by the screen resolution. If you want to print, it will be limited by the printer more so than the camera--for most people under most circumstances. The bigger pixel world might help if you want to print 8X10 glossies to send to your friendly neighborhood modelling agency, but for most people, the megapixel race is like 'my daddy can beat up your daddy.' As I understand it, there is a significant different in the actual technology between different manufacturers, as opposed to a film camera. With that in mind, I am told by someone who knows about such things that Canon has the best technology for digital cameras. It also has the advantage of using a normal CF chip, which are cheap as chips (Britspeak) and not some poxy proprietary technology like the Sony rectal thermometer.

I'll just buy the latest best camera again in a few years, that's never been a problem. I'll end up with a collection as usual. In the meantime, I've pretty much narrowed my choices down to Nikon and Canon from the current Digital SLR crops. Fuji is out of the question, overpriced and underperformers. Mostly I was just wondering about anybody that may have one now and what they liked about it and disliked about it. The Canon Rebel XT (350) looks like the best buy right now. Nikon seems to be falling behind the curve. The lenses will cost more than the camera anyway. Thanks for the advice though.

I would sell my soul for the digi rebel Denver. If you can afford it, I would go for it. The printer vs megapixel thing doesn't really apply so much here anymore James, because you can now get prints from your chip for very little money at the chemists, for a very low price. Rebel, cor. It's a lovely camera - have used a friends in Prague, and it almost make me drool with lust.

Well I finally cracked up last week and blew the cash on the Canon 350D. After a bad experience on ebay where I won an auction for one at £565 and the bastard didn't deliver, I went back to Tottenham Court Road the day of the Extra Time meeting and bought one for £643. (I didn't use it to take the pics though, as it was still in the box and uncharged) That may sound extravagant for a camera but I had sold an old Rollei the week before on ebay for £270, so my new one is getting cheaper by the minute (and I have three further Canon SLR's to sell in the coming weeks). I shall be putting the 350D through its paces next month in LA.

lol...sometimes a warped wood can be fun ;) it does seem rather a shame that UK prices are out of this world as far as some electronics are concerned. I can never guess what will be cheaper than Im used to and what will be more expensive. Some odds and ends seem to be cheaper like camera leads, memory cards, etc...but the cameras themselves way overpriced. I wonder, do you get more features or add ins???? cause of course I noticed your MacDonalds was a lot better in service and products than they are here :)

A couple of friends of mine have Canon Rebels (professional use) and rave about them. The photos are certainly stunning. You're right about being about £1000 but lenses can be had on ebay over here which cuts the cost down a bit.

Anastasia, NO we get nothing extra, just the bigger bills. The government no doubt gets more tax and the retailer gets bigger profits. The British are ripped off for absolutely everything. It was even cheaper for truck drivers to go across to France and fill their tanks up there in recent years. I can't think of a single thing that is cheaper here than anywhere else, except perhaps for the service we get from the NHS.

I'll expect a full report. I almost purchased one this weekend. Decided instead to buy a smoker.

Liana, I know about printing at the chemists, but even there the printer has limits. For the most part, even a 3mp camera will produce excellent prints of a normal size. However, if you want to print an A3 or poster size, that's when the greater mps come in handy. Or so I've been told. I have a very nice Canon photoprinter (S800), but I've only used it to print on glossy paper once so far and that was not primarily a photo. I should take a few pics and try it out just to see what happens. *refers self to life audit thread*

I'm now considering the Canon 350D myself, Denver. I've handled one and it looks and appears to perform great. In the UK it comes with a 28 - 55mm zoom and retails for around £699 ($1286 at current exchange rate). The body can be bought cheaper on it's own but the bundled lens is cheaper than a separate one. I've seen it cheaper on ebay, but mostly they are sold from Hong Kong and mailed here, with no guarantees about VAT or import duties, so it's easy to come unstuck.

I'm trying to move beyond "consumer" level photography here. I've been involved with professional level film imaging for nearly 24 years. I'm just now getting into digital photography, as I believe that film is going to die a slow agonizing death. Best to move into the future and begin to understand the dynamics of the new wave. I can make perfectly acceptable home 8x10's with the 4 Meg camera, but I can't take perfectly acceptable pictures of everything with it, not enough "beef" in a consumer level camera and not flexible.

Well, I went to the local camera shop yesterday and got a 1st hand look at the Canon Rebel XT (350D in UK). The stock lense is okay, I had them put a 300mm zoom on it and it does kick ass. Nikon is supposed to be coming out with a 12 M-pix to compete, but right now the only competition for Canon is Canon. Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, are all behind the curve it would appear. I wish somebody would do a thorough technical review on the thing though. Maybe by the time I'm ready to buy it.

I've been using a Nikon 5mpl camera for a year or two now. It's not an SLR but when it was first produced was hailed as semi-pro, with a £1000 price tag. I shopped around and got it for £745 in Tottenham Court Road. I bought it on the basis of good reviews and Nikon's legendary reputation. This past two weeks I've lost count of the times I nearly threw it in a bin. The poxy thing takes an age to 'boot up', and then another age to focus in poor light or indistinct surroundings. I am definitely replacing it in the next few weeks as I'm due to go back to LA in May and can't face the aggro again. Nikon can kiss my arse. I have a mate with the UK equivalent of a Canon Rebel, (which I believe is a US designation with minor spec differences). He's chuffed to hell with it, but it's a big chunky camera, as are almost all the SLR's. The Olympus that Dan speaks about can be bought direct from Hong Kong via Ebay for £350, my nephew bought one a month ago and it's brilliant!

My friend John, who knows all about this sort of thing, says: ---------------------------------------------- The best place to look is www.dpreview.com. There are reviews of most things. Also, the forum boards are pretty good - lots of friendly people and useful info. Right now, The new drebel (350D over here) is about the most camera you can get for the money. I suspect Nikon aren't that far off with their reply to it though. At the moment the only 8MP competition is the Canon 20D (very nice, but not quite so cheap) and the Olympus E300. (eVolt in the US?). The Olympus is worth a look, it's more compact and does look a little odd due to it's peculiar viewfinder/mirror setup but I think it is comparable to the drebel feature-wise. One thing to consider is the lenses. If you already have good Nikon glass then you are much better off sticking with a Nikon body (D70 or wait a few months for the D70 mark II). The lenses can cost a _lot_ more than the body! Otherwise, I reckon Olympus have the best digital specific glass at the moment. Their good stuff isn't as cheap as Canon/Nikon but it tends to be either brighter (2.8-3.5 vs 3.5-5.6) or smaller and lighter. There is no image stabilisation but I'd rather have genuine extra f-stops than stabilised ones - more generically useful, brighter viewfinder, faster focus, etc.. The balance may well change though as Canon/Nikon start bringing out more digital specific lenses rather than 35mm capable ones. Personally, I've got an Olympus E1 and it's great :). It's fairly old by today's standards (only 5MP) but it still produces 'professional SLR quality' images. You can probably get them for under $1500 by now including a kit lens that is on par with a Canon L series. Also the body, lenses, flashes, etc. are fully sealed so no worries about shooting in the rain! There rumours about Olympus's 8MP version of the E1 being pending but it's going to be at least as expensive as a 20D, probably more. It will probably be much better too though (for the six months before Canon bring out the 30D!). Basically, any D-SLR is a very good camera indeed, whatever you get will take great pictures. So if you pick a few up in a shop and decide that one just feels more comfortable to hold then that's as good a reason as any to go for it :). But don't forget to budget for a decent lens (or several) to go with it! ---------------------------------------------- which mostly went straight over my head but is sounds clever, hope it helps.

James, I agree... a friend of a friend in prague who owns a casino (coughs discreetly) and he owns a printer which prints out poster size. The quality of photography from the rebel on that is amazing. The other good thing about it is that you can crop and blow up and crop again almost to the nth degree, and the quality is still supreme. I do a lot of cropping.

That was great Dan, some solid feedback exactly along the lines I was looking for. I read the reviews on the Olympus E-Volt (300) and it has a problem with noise compared to Cannon and Nikon. I'm still trying to find a good solid review on the Cannon Rebel XT. I'll check out the review sites that have been mentioned. My son-in-law is a Nikon addict, he says the old Nikon lenses work on his SLR but they actually crop a bit but not so much to notice, just that you won't see everything in the photo that you get from the viewfinder and you loose the electronics of the newer lenses. I'm not that worried about saving a few bucks on a new lense or two, but I do have a budget. Next stop-the twilight zone.

Here's a good site for camera reviews;

Yep, I've been to that site about a dozen times this week. Thanks

These new cameras are too small, you hardly have room to fix the black hood that goes over the head even without a trilby! I also found that the sulphur dust from the flash tray tends to collect in all those buttons and makes it harder to clean.

Yea...and the wood warps too easily.

George, by all means buy the camera in the US--it will be dramatically cheaper.

I'm slightly flummoxed (all Bushed out, I think you Yanks say). It isn't the technical vocab that defeated me, more what came between - for example - "I'm hankering for something a little more beefy". (Have you tried a steak Nicoise?) "it just doesn't do enough" (This is a camera, right? What would you like it to do?) And so on....

hahaha....hankering....more beefy... I strongly desire something more of professional quality at a reasonable price. Looking at 8 megapixel + Digital Single Lense Reflex camera's in the $1k-$2k cost range (dollars...about 1000 british pounds) I'm daydreaming at the moment. In a month or so, I'll fork over the cash, only after having done exhaustive research. I'll then make the wrong decision.

I like those old 110 films the best, or Instamatics. I feel that the quest for sharpness and clarity is a wasted one.

Not when you're trying to photograph a whale at 200 yard on a moving ship.