opinions on DSLR

[snooter]

I can only see
marginal improvements when comparing DSLR sports images to those
from my UZI or 717.

Lower end DSLR's with cheaper lenses, maybe. But, there is absolutely no way that the UZI or 717 can take sports pictures similar to what can be captured with the Canon 1D, except if the 1D is in the hands of a weekend warrior who doesn't know how to use it.

8 fps, 21 image buffer, and instant autofocus==1D is the sports photo killer. The 1D is in a league by itself when it comes to sports pictures. Of course, you pay through the nose for it (well make that, you are going to pay through the nose, ears, eyes, and legs for it--$4K just for the body, and then add in a 300mm f2.8 IS lens and you are at about a cool $8,000). Of course that set-up would be phenomenal, even if you add a doubler to it (giving about 800mm of reach). I got to shoot a few photos with that exact set-up a few weeks ago--trust me, you get what you pay for in that set-up (but you do pay a lot).

--Mike

 

[upsidedown]

I was thru that as many others and picked S2 over D100 and D60. You wouldn't be wrong buying any of these. I selected S2 because it has Nikon mount and I would have more choices if i decide to change camera again as more makers use that mount. Also I liked the straight out of camera images of S2 over D100 and the power options provided by S2 (some people hate it tho).

But again you wouldn't be wrong with any of these. The images are much better, the ability to use various lences is wonderful, the noice level at ISO 400 is less than Sony's at ISO100.

The thing you should be aware though: these cameras do demand good glass. They are much more sensitive than film in some cases. That means that you need to add at least a half of the cost of the body for 1-2 decent lences (if you are goimg to use zooms). As someone mentioned before you are buying the lenses not the body. Lenses could quickly cost you much more than the body

Before I bought S2 I thought that i'll keep my 707 but it happened that I didn't touch it for a month or so. So I sold it on ebay. I miss sometimes the lightness and compactness of 707 but that is really minor issue. I love my semi (x1.5) wide-angle lense

good luck

 

[johnd1]

Thats what I meant. If you use IS and L glass i'm sure the gap widens but the price also goes up with it.
John

I can only see
marginal improvements when comparing DSLR sports images to those
from my UZI or 717.

Lower end DSLR's with cheaper lenses, maybe. But, there is
absolutely no way that the UZI or 717 can take sports pictures
similar to what can be captured with the Canon 1D, except if the 1D
is in the hands of a weekend warrior who doesn't know how to use it.

8 fps, 21 image buffer, and instant autofocus==1D is the sports
photo killer. The 1D is in a league by itself when it comes to
sports pictures. Of course, you pay through the nose for it (well
make that, you are going to pay through the nose, ears, eyes, and
legs for it--$4K just for the body, and then add in a 300mm f2.8 IS
lens and you are at about a cool $8,000). Of course that set-up
would be phenomenal, even if you add a doubler to it (giving about
800mm of reach). I got to shoot a few photos with that exact
set-up a few weeks ago--trust me, you get what you pay for in that
set-up (but you do pay a lot).

--Mike

 

[BANNED Mr. Stacey]

Tim,

I don't think you will like the conversion to DSLR.

I use a Fuji S2 Pro and I suffer from camera shake but then the Fuji people say that the S2 is more prone to camera shake.

I was looking at my Canon D60 archives, and said, "D@MN! Why'd I dump this and go with Fuji?"

I continued and then saw why. Even though the D60 rocked outdoors and had good matrix metering, it suffered indoors---couldn't lock focusing, lots of hunting.

The things that you're gonna miss are F2.0, the zoom, wide angle, DOF, and electronic shutter (less prone to camera shake).

The things that you do gain are:

Custom White Balance
More flash options
Speed
Less noise

Lenses are gonna be killer. Might even cost as much as 3/4 your DSLR.

You'll probably want start out with a wide-angle telephoto.

Here's Nikon's best:

17-35mm F2.8, wide angle
28-70mm F2.8, wide angle telephoto
80-200mm, F2.8 telephoto

I think they're all $1500 EACH! There are cheaper lenses but the maximum aperture are smaller. I use a Tamron 24-135mm F3.5-5.6. My next lense is gonna be a wide angle.

--
[email protected]

 

[pdqgp]

Thanks again to all, but Mr. Stacey kinda nailed it down and on top of it, he's not alone in making the below clear. The costs are just a bit out of line with what I want to invest right now.

No doubt, I love the 717. I'm sucking it up and playing with Neat Image again. Just got off to a bad start with it a while back.

Seems to work great once the settings are down pat and I'm sure it takes some practice. This is clearing up some test images I've shot in what I call dumb user mode....Auto P with auto ISO, so f2.0, s1/30th and ISO of 320. That's where a lot of average room lighting images hand held seem to come out best.

In the hospital with the new baby coming, I can't see using a tripod or monopod too easily....although I am looking into a monopod with a tri-pod like base.

Anyway, the above noted images are cleaning up real nice. Just takes so long.

Perhaps I'll practice more tonight and get used to it. Not sure if the registered version runs faster though.

tim

Tim,

I don't think you will like the conversion to DSLR.

I use a Fuji S2 Pro and I suffer from camera shake but then the
Fuji people say that the S2 is more prone to camera shake.

I was looking at my Canon D60 archives, and said, "D@MN! Why'd I
dump this and go with Fuji?"

I continued and then saw why. Even though the D60 rocked outdoors
and had good matrix metering, it suffered indoors---couldn't lock
focusing, lots of hunting.

The things that you're gonna miss are F2.0, the zoom, wide angle,
DOF, and electronic shutter (less prone to camera shake).

The things that you do gain are:

Custom White Balance
More flash options
Speed
Less noise

Lenses are gonna be killer. Might even cost as much as 3/4 your DSLR.

You'll probably want start out with a wide-angle telephoto.

Here's Nikon's best:

17-35mm F2.8, wide angle
28-70mm F2.8, wide angle telephoto
80-200mm, F2.8 telephoto

I think they're all $1500 EACH! There are cheaper lenses but the
maximum aperture are smaller. I use a Tamron 24-135mm F3.5-5.6.
My next lense is gonna be a wide angle.

--
[email protected]

--
-tim
Sony 717, Nikon 995 & Konica KD400Z
Accessories....tons of course
pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp

 

[BANNED Mr. Stacey]

The Fuji S2 Pro has the best P mode.

...which of course I found after I purchased the camera. STFU!

Anyway, so many people hate Gary Fong (famous wedding photag) http://www.GaryFong.com for using P mode for WEDDINGS and shoots at 3.5mp JPG NORMAL on his Fuji S2 Pro.

http://www.storybookstudio.com/pages/congrats.html





Who cares when you're laughing all the way to the BANK.

--
[email protected]

 

[David (r00t)]

Here's Nikon's best:

17-35mm F2.8, wide angle
28-70mm F2.8, wide angle telephoto
80-200mm, F2.8 telephoto

Could you not just supplement these on the S2 for starters?

18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D $499.95
24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S $359.95
50mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens $109.95 (for low light)

I know the advantage with the 2.8, but for starters, this might be good..... No?

I started my collection with the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S.

--
David

My galleries:
http://www.imagestation.com/member/?name=r00t&c=201

 

[TJJ]

One of the reasons I went with the S2 was that it can be set up to be used simply and easily like my F707. There are many events where I provide the equipment and either one of my kids or someone else has to take the pictures. With the F707 they would just put it in auto mode and shoot. You can use the S2 in the same way. With true TTL flash, fast autofocus, etc., you can put on a good lens like the Tamron 24-135 and they can get all of the action. It also allows much more creativity because the lens can be changed to fit the condtions. It is very nice to have JPGs out of the camera as good as a film SLR when you have several hundred pictures to print. When not just doing snapshots, it is nice to have the raw mode to get the most from the camera.

The F707 was a great camera that got me interested in photography as a hobby. The S2 lets me do a little more if I am willing to carry more weight and spend a little more money. You will be very pleased with the picture quality with any of the DSLR's. You can also spend as much money as you want chasing quality and your particular shooting requirements. Even a duffer with more money than talent like me can enjoy making snapshots with these superb cameras. I don't regret moving to a DSLR and I kept the F707 because it is still a very good camera.

 

[Joel32]

I hate to disagree at all with Mr. Stacey, I don't want my @$$ kicked, but...

You won't miss 2.0 when you have 1.8, 1.4 and others available.

Telephoto's aren't the only way to go. Depending on what you're shooting, switching lenses is not a big deal. I'm a newbie to digital and by no means a pro with 35mm, but I live for every opportunity I get to shoot with my brother's F4.

Of course I will agree, once you start down the SLR road, you will spend money, and more money, and still more money.

Keep that in mind Tim. If you want to get into it now, and budget is not limitless, resign yourself to using the DSLR and 1 or 2 very nice lenses to start. That will probably limit your use of it to 1 or 2 select areas of your photographic interests. Not the whole range you're currently using the Sony for.

As I said, I can't recommend a DSLR (got no experience), but everyone who has told you that the lense system is the key, is dead on. You may upgrade the camera in the future, but you are very unlikely to ever switch lense systems once you've invested in a few nice pieces of glass. For that reason, I second the votes for Nikon lenses. They'll never change the mount, everyone else has and will.

Have fun, good luck, and keep showing us great photos,
Joel

Tim,

I don't think you will like the conversion to DSLR.

I use a Fuji S2 Pro and I suffer from camera shake but then the
Fuji people say that the S2 is more prone to camera shake.

I was looking at my Canon D60 archives, and said, "D@MN! Why'd I
dump this and go with Fuji?"

I continued and then saw why. Even though the D60 rocked outdoors
and had good matrix metering, it suffered indoors---couldn't lock
focusing, lots of hunting.

The things that you're gonna miss are F2.0, the zoom, wide angle,
DOF, and electronic shutter (less prone to camera shake).

The things that you do gain are:

Custom White Balance
More flash options
Speed
Less noise

Lenses are gonna be killer. Might even cost as much as 3/4 your DSLR.

You'll probably want start out with a wide-angle telephoto.

Here's Nikon's best:

17-35mm F2.8, wide angle
28-70mm F2.8, wide angle telephoto
80-200mm, F2.8 telephoto

I think they're all $1500 EACH! There are cheaper lenses but the
maximum aperture are smaller. I use a Tamron 24-135mm F3.5-5.6.
My next lense is gonna be a wide angle.

--
[email protected]

 

[BANNED Mr. Stacey]

I hate to disagree at all with Mr. Stacey, I don't want my @$$
kicked, but...

You won't miss 2.0 when you have 1.8, 1.4 and others available.

Many 1.8's and 1.4's are unusable at those apertures. My 50mm 1.8 had to stopped down to F4 with my Canon D60.

Telephoto's aren't the only way to go.

....just expamples of what you need to purchase to be equivelant to the F717 lense range. Just like r00t recommended, a 24-85.

--
[email protected]

 

[Herschel]

My biggest reason for the DSLR would be a noise
free image in lower light without being restricted to a tripod.

I have both a 717 and D1x. If bulk and cost are not an option, then a DSLR is the way to go for this particular application.

For example, if taking handheld photos of museum pictures with available light (e.g., 1/30'th at f1.4, ISO 200-400) and you want the results significantly better than the 717, that means a $1500-$1700 lens (e.g., Nikon 28mm f/1.4) on top of a $4k body - so you're at $6k.

All depends on how badly do you want/need to take photos under these conditions, I guess.

 

[Jane B.]

I don't have a DSLR or any experience with one. But, if you come from the film SLR world wouldn't you be able to make at least some use of existing lenes if you stay with the same brand?
Jane