Comments on: Poll: Best SLR rivals to Canon and Nikon

Speak out! Who's got the best products today for someone buying a first SLR or for somebody willing to change brands?

[ciphoto]

What about Fuji

Just wondering why they didn't mention Fuji. When I went digital I chose the S2 over Canon and Nikon then and bought a S5 earlier this year.

The ranges and tone are better.

And yes I've shot with both Nikon and Canon, use Canons on a regular basis when I contract out work for one studio.

So shoot print and compare.

I shoot weddings, portraits, art, commercial.

peace
john

[bgulien]

It's a Nikon

The S5 is a Nikon D200 in disguise. Same body and admittedly, better software and sensor

[Shankland]

Fujifilm now an option

We left it out inadvertently, but added it in now. My apologies.

[matheau]

Re: What about Fuji

I agree. I rented an S2 back in the day and I think it gave me some
of the best shots I've had. I'm a happy 5D owner now, but the Fuji
DSLR's are certainly top-quality.

[Girish Joshi]

Nikon beats nikon, no one else does.

first of all, Happy Holidays!. Second, I agree with ciphoto- What
about Fuji? My bro went from his 3rd Nikon SLR to a Fuji, and loves
it. I bought the N40x, around thxgiving after extensive research on
cnet. And I can vouch for my research (i only read what was
published) - the Nikon SLR's and lenses are just phenomenal. FYI,
not a big fan of the electronics.
I am a die hard 35mm film camera guy, and own 2 Canons, 1
Pentax SLR's. My first Digital SLR is this Nikon D40x.

[drywallbmb]

Don't underestimate Pentax

I bought my first SLR last January, and decided on a Nikon D80.
Several friends were also in the market and chose other makes
and models. Sometimes we trade just to learn what life is like "on
the other side."

I have to say, while Pentax doesn't have the lineup to compete
with Canon and Nikon in every segment of the dSLR market, the
K10D and their other offerings are fantastic cameras for the
price. I truly believe what they offer is a step above Sony,
Olympus et al.

If Pentax's market share isn't growing by leaps and bounds, it's
only because of poor marketing, because they've got a good
stable of bodies and a wonderful history of lenses & equipment
supporting them.

I'd definitely say Pentax is the best rival, based on my use.

[jotterson]

Why 4/3 system is my choice

The 4/3 system was designed from the ground up for digital photography. No baggage. This was a bold move on the part of Olympus (as their OM system was not shabby), but ultimately they will be proven right.

4/3 system lenses are near telecentric, which means the light comes out of the lens perpendicular to the sensor, which produces sharper edges, particularly in high-contrast situations. This is a huge advantage with a solid-state sensor. Also, the 1.33 aspect ratio produces less vignetting than a 1.5 aspect ratio.

The Olympus 4/3 lenses that I have used are first-rate. Because the image sensor is smaller, lenses can be smaller, lighter, and brighter. There are over 30 4/3 lenses available today, all designed for digital photography. (http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/oly-e/lenses.html)

I don't have Nikon or Canon envy. I own 2 Olympus 4/3 SLRs, and I am damn happy about it.

[Hernys]

Picture framse

Also, do not discount the importance of digital picture frames. As printing pictures becomes less frequent, digital picture frames will become common. But as they do not physically rotate when viewing rotated pictures, landscape pictures become reduced to fit the frame to about half size in the new formats. 4:3 gives a decent ratio that doesn't create a big problem for displaying portrait pictures in landscape frames.

[SeizeCTRL]

Olympus

While I am in no way a professional photographer or anything close... I just wanted a decent little dSLR to take with me on hiking trips. Something that I could get better pictures than your standard little flat digicam. Last Christmas I found a great deal on the Olympus E-500 with the dual lens kit for $550. I would have been hard pressed to find just the body of a Cannon or Nikon for that price, much less an included lens.

I read up on the E-500 and found some pretty solid reviews. A lot of them mentioned the shortcomings of the camera itself being a lot of noise in low light and a few other things, but nothing that would have made me justify spending twice that on different brand with 2 lens.

I've been very happy with the E-500 so far and if I ever get serious about photography to the point where I would be willing to shell out the big bucks, I would definitely look at Olympus first. I think the E-500 was a great entry level camera for those not sure about digital SLR.

[chrislongley]

Lenses and Accessories Very Important

Many people buy an SLR because they can change the lens. It doesn't make sense to base your buying decision on the body alone. Canon and Nikon have the widest range of lenses and other accessories available, more than Minolta, Pentax, Olympus or anybody else.

[chrislongley]

Canon beats Nikon

Nikon lost the plot when the world turned digital. Canon capitalized on their existing digital experience with camcorders, printers and scanners. Look at the photographers at any major event. The ones with the white lenses are Canon users, they dominate.

[ewelch]

Nope

Nikon sells more DSLRs than Canon. Right now Canon has the
edge in the pro market, but the Nikon D3 just blew the doors off
the 1D Mark III. Watch, the next Nikon is likely to compete very
nicely with the 1Ds Mark III. (I use the 1Ds Mark II at work.)

Nikon has better profits than Canon on DSLRs due to the
popularity of the D40(x), D80 and D200. So sales, which are
better on low-end cameras such as these, make up for the lack
of a few pro photographers in comparison. This has always been
the way it was from the beginning of SLRs. Nikon and Canon
duking it out, with pro sales giving them bragging rights, but
sales to amateurs giving them market share. Nikon was the
leader for many years, but stumbled at the advent of AF.

Now they're back.

[gjl229]

Pentax for Quality

After a lot of research, I chose a Pentax K10D, a decision that looks even better now than it did then.

Build quality is superb, image quality with the kit lens is amazing for its price, and ease of use is outstanding, whether in full auto mode, full manual mode, or anywhere in between.

And Pentax offers a substantial cost advantage, at entry and for later lens purchases when image stabilization is useful. Which is almost all the time.

If the marketing just kept up with the quality of the camera and its output, it would be a three-horse race with Pentax by a nose for users trying SLR for the first time.

[nextcube]

If I didn't already own Canon...

...I'd have gone the Pentax route. Their low light performance (low sensor noise) plus sensor-based image stabilization are real pluses for available light shooters like me. I wholeheartedly recommend the Pentax line to anyone who's thinking about going to DSLRs and doesn't already have a bag full of lenses and flashes like I did.

[Below Meigh]

But which has best image?

I want a dSLR for more than just the SLR part. I want an SLR for price (under/@ $1000 for body), ease of use, mobility and flexibility (lenses).
But I also want one with a decent sensor so that if a year or two from now, my images can be upped for stock photos.
I can't afford a Hassie or OneBack. But I want a VG dSLR that allows for my best RAWs for use later.
Any ideas? Sigma's idea is nice but not proven enough.

[ciphoto]

Check the Fuji

If you haven't gone to DPreview go and check out there info and then see you local store has one you can rent, or borrow and shoot. The S2 and S3s are cheap now. I haven't priced the S5s since I bought mine, I hate to watch price drops.

If you don't need all the speed of the upper end Nikons and Canon then go for the image, and with the dynamic range, skin tones, and film simulation modes of the Fuji, I don't believe you can go wrong.

Also Nikon glass is very good.
Also don't get hung up in the mega pixel hype print and look at the images, that and your style and subject matter is what should drive the decision.

[kh-usa]

Bigger glass is better

4/3 may be ok if starting from scratch, but just like the image quality on a small point-and-shoot is usually bad because the lens is small, a larger lens area (for the same focal length) means that imperfections within the lens and dirt on the lens will be less visible on the final image.

I'm glad Nikon now has a full-frame digital body, but still too expensive for a hobby.

[mpitogo]

Bigger glass do exist for 4/3

I moved from Canon to Olympus. I'm not a pro but do make an
effort to take good pictures. The bigger glass for 4/3 do exist.
Check out the range lenses from Olympus, Sigma and Leica. You'll
be surprised to see and f1... an f2 or an f2.8 wide angle zoom all
of those require big glass.

[AlexRiedel]

I'd rather stop taking pictures than buying Sony

Who knows what type of rootkit they install with the camera software? They may even claim a copyright on your pictures later and install a DRM so you cannot use your photos elsewhere :-)

Sorry, but Sony is on my "Buy under NO circumstances" list

[rfortson]

Hard to disagree

The specs look nice on the new camera (A700, the original alpha was a yawner). However, given Sony's penchant for making everything proprietary and taking some extreme measures make it so, doesn't give me the warm fuzzy. I'd rather go with a photography company.

[Hernys]

Bah

At most they will transmit the pictures in the background to their central servers and then publish them without your consent (unless you pay, that is).
I agree. Sony makes decent hardware, but their practices are the worst in the market.

[Pompidio]

Buy it now, then...

You're essentially buying Konica-Minolta now when you buy the Sony A100 (et al). Get it now before the assimilation is complete. :-) I really like mine; I can use all of my old Konica-Minolta lenses as well (dang, I miss that company -- started out with a Minolta Maxxum years ago).

[rfortson]

I chose Pentax

Pentax's decision to maintain compatibility with all their existing K-mount lenses (and even older with the use of an adapter) meant that it was easier and cheaper to build a system starting out. I'm on my third Pentax body and think they've got a good niche carved out.

All the dSLRs are nice, and have their plusses and minusses. However, I feel like Pentax represents the best overall value.

[MrStuckless]

Hear Hear! - I second that

Pentax has some wonderful glass - especially now with the DA*
lenses. Even their 16-45 mm lens is extremely sharp. I have a 77
mm f1.8 that is perfect for portrait head shots. The weather sealed
body and the interchangeable focus screens also add a lot of value
to them.

So a Vote for Pentax from me!

[sdshooter]

Olympus E510

after a lot of research and "hands on" of SoCaPeNik, the easy choice for me was the Olympus E-510: Features, "Olympus color", and the 2 outstanding kit lenses (14-42, 40-150mm) at the current prices of around $650-700 makes it a steal. check out the various "users forums" and see for yourself who are the happy users.
Get yourself an E-510...and then start saving for up for the E-3. Worried about what the photopros will think when you wheel up with your Oly? Don't. Let them play keep-up-with-the-joneses. You'll be taking great pictures...Oh yeah, and in the rain, if you have the E-3.

[AlexRiedel]

Agreed

Yup, just got that kit myself. A bit biased since I am an Olympus user from the 35mm days.
Most bang for the buck, case big enough to handle and the enduring Olympus ruggedness makes it a camera you can have for a while.

Oh yeah, and it takes awsome pictures. :-)

[t8]

Can digital compete with film?

I am still using 35mm slide film.

What are the specs needed for a digital camera that can produce a raw image that is better and bigger than a good scan from a 35mm slide?

I want to jump to digital, but I don't want a downgrade in the 100 meg, 7000x5000px, 600dpi that I currently get from scanning 35mm slides.

[t_holtz]

No man just keep shooting film.

Keep shooting film and if you think there is a better digital camera than film upgrade to medium format, if you think that is better start shooting 5x7. But don't stop shooting film!!

[ghaff]

digital equivalent to film

Scanning 35mm film at high resolution (presumably to make large prints) just means that you're doing your best not to lose details that are in the original slide. It doesn't necessarily mean that the detail was there to start with. The general opinion (e.g. you can see a lot of data over at Clarkvision.com)is that digital is roughly equivalent to slow film in the 15 megapixel range or thereabouts. So we're basically there with full-frame digital SLRs. The comparison is imprecise because what's "bad" about film when you try to blow it up too large is different from what's "bad" about digital. And there are other considerations such as dynamic range, noise of various types, etc. But the prevailing opinion--which I would echo from personal experience is that 35mm digital is as good or better than 35mm film at this point for most purposes.

[SimParadox]

Confusing information?

You mention that you are shooting 35mm slide. If that is the case, then how do you get a 7:5 (7000 x 5000) aspect ration instead of 3:2 (36mm x 24mm)?

If you are scanning 35mm film and presuming you are scanning at 2700dpi (there is no point at scanning at a higher density because of the granuality of the film), then you should end up with a picture size of roughly 3800 x 2500 = 9.5Mp. For a 24bit image this will generate a file size of roughly 28.5 MB and if the colour depth is higher (up to 48bit) then the file size will be roughly 57MB.

If you truly are getting 7000 x 5000 (35Mp) then a 24bit image will indeed be 105MB. But this means that you are scanning at a density of approximately 5000dpi which seems to be an awful amount of overkill for 35mm to me.

So... if you are truly using 5000dpi scanning density then no digital camera other than some large format scanbacks could possibly come near it. However, if you normally use a 2700dpi scanner then there are cameras a few SLR-type digicams that are capable of higher resolution.

However, obviously resolution on its own isn't enough and to a certain extent the type of subject that you are shooting will determine whether slide or digital is most appropriate.

[Shankland]

It's a multidimensional problem

I'd say if you're happy with your current set-up, there's no great need to switch. I can confidently predict that digital will steadily improve, so if you can wait, do.

As you point out, there are issues including resolution and dynamic range to consider. But there are also other factors that I find compelling about digital: the image is right there, with no need for scanning, which I find to be a dismally tedious process even with a small number of frames. I can check the histogram on the screen to better evaluate exposure on the spot. And all the R&D and therefore all the shiny new camera features are on the digital side.

If image quality is paramount and you're willing to put a lot of money into photography, digital medium-format cameras (e.g. Hasselblad or Hasselblad + Phase One digital back) offer some pretty nice 39-megapixel photos.

[ewelch]

Numbers mumbo jumbo

Digital blows away film right now. I've been a professional for 22
years. And right now the work I do is extremely color critical.
Digital gives me much better color quality than film ever could.
Absolute consistency and perfect white balance. Film can never
match that.

Second, just look at the sky with film and then with digital (with
a pro-level DSLR). You'll see clumps of grain/dye in the sky with
film, even down to Kodachrome Professional 25, let alone Velvia.
Black and white is even more pronounced.

Sharpness? Digital beats film. The top digital SLRs are so good
you won't believe it. I shoot with a 1Ds Mark II at work, and word
out is the 1Ds Mark III is even better. At 125 megs, the 1Ds Mark
III beats anything but large format film. Not even medium format
film beats it consistently.

Digital gives you more control. If you shoot RAW and know what
you're doing. There is simply no competition. Film is for
hobbyists and specialists. For most photographers, digital is
already better.

And I was a film bigot until I started using a 6.3 megapixel
Canon. Once I had to use it on a job, I never looked back.

[drywallbmb]

It depends

If your lone criterion for comparing digital to film is pixels, and
you want 7000x5000 pixel images, then stick with film.

But in my opinion that's a poor way of measuring how digital
"cometes" with film. More important in my opinion:
1. Immediate feedback. I can see the picture I've just taken and
know if something unexpected is amiss (happens less and less
as my technique improves, but always helpful).
2. Better performance at higher speeds. A dSLR image taken at
ISO 1600 is going to have more detail than any film at 1600.
3. White balance correction. No more "I'd take this shot but I
have tungsten film in my camera right now" problems.

If none of those things matter to you, then stick with film. With a
good setup film can be great ? if you require incredible
resolution, would rather spend your money on film than on
equipment (film bodies can be had for nothing nowadays), and
don't need to flexibility that shooting digital offers, by all means
keep doing what you're doing the "old fashioned" way.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But make sure you're looking beyond
# of pixels...

[pmacseattle]

yes it can

there are a variety of tests running around on this very issue but in general...

1. Its a waste of time scanning at over 4000 dpi, film doesnt have anymore detail than that.

2. The equivalent digital resolution you'll need is highly dependent upon the film you use. For ISO 50 Velvia you'll need around 20mp. This drops really fast with increasing speed. For iso 100 you need just over 10MP.

So depending on what you shot you could need as much as a $7000 canon or around $1300 for a sony A700 or canon 40D.

[Pooua]

Film Propaganda

I've heard the arguments for years. A drum scanner can extract virtually infinite detail from a 35 mm spec of film that is impossible to match in the digital world. But, this claim overlooks several important points.

1) Most people will never get close to using a drum scanner.

2) Ordinary film scanners already pull out all the detail possible in film, right down to the grain; you aren't getting any more detail past the grain.

3) The resolution of slide film is worse than for negative film.

4) Side-by-side comparisons show that digital already surpasses the resolution of 35 mm film.

5) All the talk on resolution ignores the other important technical qualities of a photo medium, such as dynamic range. The dynamic range of electronic sensors has easily beat that of film virtually from the beginning.

I would pit a Canon 1Ds Mark II (or III) against your 35 mm film camera any day.

[Penguinisto]

Wish it was still Minolta, but...

...because I already have a rather large bucket-load of Minolta glass, I'm pretty much stuck with buying new bodies from Sony when my current Maxxums die off.

and so it goes...

/P

[Travis Ernst]

Either Canon or Nikon

It goes to WHAT you will be using the camera for. Nikon wins
with Shutter speed; something like 1/24,000. Canon is slower
at 1/3200. So that is one aspect to look at. Will you need the
shutter speed to be as amazingly fast as the Nikon?

Burst shots.. Number of shots you can take without letting up.
RAW files are huge. That will slow you down compared to using
the JPEG, but it gives you a lot of manipulation and control when
you need to edit. So shots taken at the game will be crisp rather
than the blur the "consumer end" $199 camera would have
produced.

One of the best points is what you are familiar with. If you are
adapted to using the Nikon stick with it. Same if you are a
Canon person. Both have HUGE lens selections.

However, remember, the body will be about 1/3 of your costs.
You will need lenses, a case or two, tripod and or monopod,
heads (what goes on top of the tripod) possibly a good flash. It
all adds up fast. If you travel, buy a carry-on that can support
your camera gear (maybe not the tripod) in the overhead
compartments. NEVER trust them putting it in the belly. I just
purchased a hard-shell case for my camera body and maybe
one lens to fit inside my carry-on. Overkill never hurts in
protecting your gear.

[chief6309]

Nikon/Canon, Canon/Nikon

Well as a somewhat advanced amature I have lusted after Nikon's since the Nikon F. Early on I bought for myself on my 16th birthday,and I will be dating myself, a Miranda D. I bought that camera as it had all the stuff of a Nikon F at about 1/4 the price. Much later after I joined the U.S. Navy Ibought an Olympus OM-2n, because it had the only camera with an off the film metering system, that was fast enough to calculate the correct exposure and set it while the shutter was open, even at 1/1000 sec. Again much later I was finally in a very good paying position and could afford most any 35mm camera going. I bought a Nikon F5 (HOORAY) then a f70 body. I then bought several lenses including a Medical Nikkor f4 plus all of the flash powerpaks.
Then Canon came out with IS(DAMM). I than got a Canon AE2, follow by an Elan2e, followed by one of the best lenses made by Canon 100-400mmf3.5-f4.5 HSM IS ETC.,ETC. This lens at least mine is tack sharp at all focal lenghts. It has very little abarations, it is just a wonderful lens, and I was sold on Canon.
Several years later, I am now retired and the Digital age has arrived and mere mortals can actually aford a digital camera with more than 1megapixal. Being near the end of my fiscal rope I bought a Canon rebel XTi wirh 10.? megapixels. Great images. I really do love these new digital cameras. I was going through some of my stuff in the back of the closet and found 5 or 6 nikkor lenses and my f5 himmmm. I really like digital photography, it would be a shame to waste these lenses, I guess I will buy a Nikon D40 at Walmart.
Guess what the D40 will not autofocus any of my lenses. the D40 and the D40x will work in autofocus only with newer AF-S lenses. Also discovered my old Medical Nikkor, ,looked it up mand so far as far as I can find out it will not work at all with the D40 series. Did some homework. Discovered the D80 camera body has the internal focus motor and will work with just about any nikkor that is AI or newer. All autofocus works, any lens built after 1980 at least, or any Nikkor with contacts will workas designed. HOORAY, my Medical Nikkor also works as suprise suprise the built ringlight flash, which I find strange as on other pre-digital flash will work, except the sb28 in manual. So I like both, have a large invesment in both and am stuck with using both systems forever. BTW have you seen how much film camera bodies have lost value? My Nikon F5 which cost me near $3000.00 is now worth in mint condition only around $500-$600.00. That is tragic.

[rfortson]

lens compatibility

Lens compatibility is one area where Pentax shines. They still use the K mount and can use any k mount lens made (I think this dates back to the early '70's). Plus with an adapter, you can use screwmount lenses from even earlier. For people that have Pentax lenses laying around, this is very nice. And it's also a fairly cheap way to fill some holes in the current Pentax lens lineup.

Nikon (IMHO) made a strategic mistake in crippling the D40(x). Why give up that compatibility, especially when their other cameras maintained some compatibility? I guess it goes back to what type of regard a company holds for their existing customers.

[chunsum]

Foveon works

"In theory that could mean images with finer detail and fewer pesky artifacts, but in practice it's hard to overlook the conspicuous absence so far of Foveon chips elsewhere in the industry."

In theory and in practice the Foveon imager(sensor) works by providing pixel level detail and sharpness. Many company does not use them because they already develop their own not because it does not work.

[newsshooter]

Pentax for several reasons

First of all, the image stabilization is built in. I had a Minolta with the IS built in, but Sony abandoned me when it broke, so I abandoned them.

Second, all of the old Pentax lenses work-my favorite portrait lens is a 135/2.8mf that I got at an auction for 20 bucks!

Third, nobody can touch the K10 for the value, especially when you consider the weather sealing.

Pentax, as a corporation has the right attitude, I've never had an email they did not answer.

[bigK67]

Pentax will be #1 - Soon.

Pentax has the Pedigree, History and (now with the Hoya merger)the resources and technology to be number 1.
If Canon & Nikon think they can win back the market with FF, just imagine what an affordable Pentax Medium Format camera will do. We may just see one, someday.

Till then Pentax still offers the best value quality built DSLR.