Need recommendations for a 35MM SLR camera!

[konichiwa]

Unfortunately, my Canon EOS Rebel of about 10 years broke earlier this week. Will cost more to fix it than to buy a new camera and I figure it's about time for an upgrade anyway. So here I am, looking around, with no real idea of what I want to buy. I know what they say about the three best SLR manufacturers -- Minolta makes the best bodies, Nikon makes the best lenses and Canon is a compromise.

Well I probably have to stick with a Canon because I have a very nice 200mm Tamrom zoom lens that has a Canon mount on it. And unless there is a way to convert(?) that into a different mfr, I'm stuck with Canon.

So which Canon should I go for? I want to make my price limit about $400-$500. I know there are several lines of Canons but their website doesn't really go into detail about the differences between them, and photography review websites are (generally) so lengthly that I am bored by the time I'm halfway through the article.

Any suggestions? I know there are some photographers out there...

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<Nikon makes the best lenses>>

Wrong. The best lens is the Carl Zeiss T* ("tee-star") lens used by Contax. If you are not going to replace the lens, you are pretty much stuck with Canon, but if you really want to upgrade I say ditch it all and get a Contax RX or a Contax ST. Check out Contax's website, and choose "SLR" from the menu. The Aria is the basic Contax, the RX and ST are mid-line, the RTSIII is the flagship and the AX is the only auto-focus Contax that is offered.

ZV

 

Canon Rebel XS or Rebel 2000.

 

[PsychoAndy]

It all depends man, i'd say just get another canon. I'm partial to Nikon, but that's just because my dad has 3 F bodies from the 60's-70's, a 500 mm mirror telephoto, and several other lenses and crap for it. Unless you want to get completely new lenses and everything, just go with Canon.

If you wanted to get a Nikon or something, i think you could change the mount...but i'm not completely sure...

 

[tim0thy]

a couple of questions for you.

how much have you invested in canon equipment (since you had a rebel)? i'm talking flash, lenses, etc.
are you interested in going digital?
what is your maximum price limit?

i own a d30 and it's not imaginable for me to go to another manufacturer because i have invest a fair amount of money into canon glass:

sigma 20/1.8
canon 24-85/3.5-4.5
canon 28-70/2.8 L
canon 70-200/2.8 L

write back with your answers when you have the time.

 

[Lucky]

Any suggestions? I know there are some photographers out there...




<<Nikon makes the best lenses>>

Wrong. The best lens is the Carl Zeiss T* ("tee-star") lens used by Contax


Correct. Although I love my nikons Zeiss lenses are absolutely supurb. I've got three that go on my Hasselblad 500c. Stunning results!



I know what they say about the three best SLR manufacturers -- Minolta makes the best bodies, Nikon makes the best lenses and Canon is a compromise.


Never heard of that.

Minolta Low End-crappy. Cheap, plastic bodies that are apt to break easily, their bottom rung cameras only allow fully automatic shooting (no manual settings). Useless gimmick features and bad ergonomics (IMO)

Minolta Pro- Exceptional. They have leading technology in their high end cameras including the fastest shutter speed in an SLR. There "G" lenses are on par with high end nikon and canon lenses.

Nikon Consumer- Usually pretty damm good bodies. All recent models have a hefty and satisfying feel to them, giving an auro of confidence when shooting. Their recent low end SLRs (n50, 60, etc) have historically been somewhat short on features, but they have had at least the minimum. With all but the n50, i believe, you can use nearly every lense ever made by nikon. Consumer lenses are nice and shrap but nothing that really stands out next to the competition. They do have a few lenses that are unique-no one else has a 24-120 like nikon (IIRC!).

Nikon Pro-Need I say anything? National geographic tested and approved. Has the majority of the market in documentary/journalism shooting, but Canon is catching up. Excellent film and digitial offererings in this class. Pro lenses superb.

Canon Consumer-Never particularly liked the bodies but to each his own. They are certainly cabable, and among the big three canon is pretty damm good at packign good and useful features into a good body at a good price.

Canon Pro-Holds a majority of the market in sports shooting. Catching up in documentary and digital, but again quality is supurb. They also have a few unique lenses, among them a 1200mm f5.6 lens that goes for 120K and is special made for you.


answer timothy's questions and we will be able to help more.

 

[tim0thy]

you have hasselblad's? whoaaa... i'm impressed at your tools, can i see some of your pictures?

i'm guessing that you are a nikon person. not sure if you're interested in digital photography, but nikon will be releasing their D100, a 6.3Mpix SLR. i have to admit that film still has it's place because the technology isn't there (not enough pixels to capture for example, of a tree and leaves). i'm sure one day it'll rival film, maybe in another couple of years.

speaking of hasselblod's again. are you interested in purchasing any hasselblad equipment. i can recommend a pro photog that is selling his suff if you are interested.

and canon should be currently leading the digital SLR race because of the d30. i LOVE it! i can't imagine mounting one of those 1200mm lenses on my d30 (it has a multiplication factor of 1.6 so it's effectively 1200*1.6=1920mm :Q) my biggest complaint re: nikon's is that the body is expensive. however, the lenses tend to be a bit less than canon.



<< Correct. Although I love my nikons Zeiss lenses are absolutely supurb. I've got three that go on my Hasselblad 500c. Stunning results!



I know what they say about the three best SLR manufacturers -- Minolta makes the best bodies, Nikon makes the best lenses and Canon is a compromise.


Never heard of that.

Minolta Low End-crappy. Cheap, plastic bodies that are apt to break easily, their bottom rung cameras only allow fully automatic shooting (no manual settings). Useless gimmick features and bad ergonomics (IMO)

Minolta Pro- Exceptional. They have leading technology in their high end cameras including the fastest shutter speed in an SLR. There "G" lenses are on par with high end nikon and canon lenses.

Nikon Consumer- Usually pretty damm good bodies. All recent models have a hefty and satisfying feel to them, giving an auro of confidence when shooting. Their recent low end SLRs (n50, 60, etc) have historically been somewhat short on features, but they have had at least the minimum. With all but the n50, i believe, you can use nearly every lense ever made by nikon. Consumer lenses are nice and shrap but nothing that really stands out next to the competition. They do have a few lenses that are unique-no one else has a 24-120 like nikon (IIRC!).

Nikon Pro-Need I say anything? National geographic tested and approved. Has the majority of the market in documentary/journalism shooting, but Canon is catching up. Excellent film and digitial offererings in this class. Pro lenses superb.

Canon Consumer-Never particularly liked the bodies but to each his own. They are certainly cabable, and among the big three canon is pretty damm good at packign good and useful features into a good body at a good price.

Canon Pro-Holds a majority of the market in sports shooting. Catching up in documentary and digital, but again quality is supurb. They also have a few unique lenses, among them a 1200mm f5.6 lens that goes for 120K and is special made for you.


answer timothy's questions and we will be able to help more. >>

 

[sitka]

Double check the Tamron. Many came with Adaptal mounts. Change the mount if you want to try Nikon.

 

[jjones]

i've got a couple of Canon AE1's that i've had for about 20 years now. Lots of use and abuse and still take great pics. Of course the real money is in the lenses and I've got a real nice assortment for whatever I want to shoot from wide angle to telephoto to macro.

 

[Lucky]

Friday March 01, 2002 4:26 AM (NEW!)



you have hasselblad's? whoaaa... i'm impressed at your tools, can i see some of your pictures?

i'm guessing that you are a nikon person. not sure if you're interested in digital photography, but nikon will be releasing their D100, a 6.3Mpix SLR. i have to admit that film still has it's place because the technology isn't there (not enough pixels to capture for example, of a tree and leaves). i'm sure one day it'll rival film, maybe in another couple of years.

speaking of hasselblod's again. are you interested in purchasing any hasselblad equipment. i can recommend a pro photog that is selling his suff if you are interested.

and canon should be currently leading the digital SLR race because of the d30. i LOVE it! i can't imagine mounting one of those 1200mm lenses on my d30 (it has a multiplication factor of 1.6 so it's effectively 1200*1.6=1920mm ) my biggest complaint re: nikon's is that the body is expensive. however, the lenses tend to be a bit less than canon.







I got a helluva deal on the hassy. A former MGM photographer (the guy who shot the original lion!) was about to die, and his wife was my stepmothers coworker. He was going to donate it but thought I might want it. I got:

Hassy 500c
50 2.8
80 2.8
150 4.0
(2) A 12 backs
Regular viewer and a prism (forget model number!)
2 boxes of lighting equipment circa 1950 (sadly all baterries were dead and I wasnt able to replace them)
Tripod, backdrops, the works.

All of it for 2 grand. I was very, very excited. Deal of a lifetime! Havent shot very much with it due to hassle of printing/scanning, but I'd like to haul it out more. Perhaps give them a nice restoration. Even if I dont use them they will only appreciate in value in coming years. Not looking for any more MF gear...what I have right now is more than enough.

Am I a nikon fan? Undoubtably. Although Im currently unemployed I am a photojournalist by trade, hoping to make a name of myself via newspapers. Digitals are extremely convienent for this...going back to film on the job really really sucks. In former jobs I've used everything from Kodak AP2000 YUK!) to the D1h. I havent seen the d30 yet-so I cant comment on it but im sure its nice. I have two nikon bodies-N90's-but since every job I will work at in the future will likely supply me with a D1 at the least I dont have a reason to buy something of that caliber for personal use, the N90's and my G2 work just fine.

 

[konichiwa]

<< how much have you invested in canon equipment (since you had a rebel)? i'm talking flash, lenses, etc. >>

Not a lot to be honest -- I've only recently gotten (back) into serious photography and so the only things I have for my Canon are the Tamron 200mm lens and a Sigma 35-80mm lens that I bought with the camera. So I guess I don't have THAT much invested, but I also don't plan on investing a whole lot -- I'm not going to become a photographer or anything, I just love taking pictures. So if it's at all possible I'd like to keep my Tamron (I love it ). And the whole system was owned previously by someone else and so I looked around what I have and I can't find any Adaptal Mounts ... he may not have got them when he bought it or maybe he didn't give them to me.

<< are you interested in going digital? >>

No.

<< what is your maximum price limit? >>

MAX-MAX-MAX -- $500. I'd like, however, to spend (if possible) under $400 but I don't want to buy crappy equipment so I'll probably end up between $400 and $500.

 

[konichiwa]

bump

 

[Lucky]

sorry konichiwa didnt see you posted. I will respond later tonight!

 

[tim0thy]

<< Not a lot to be honest -- I've only recently gotten (back) into serious photography and so the only things I have for my Canon are the Tamron 200mm lens and a Sigma 35-80mm lens that I bought with the camera. So I guess I don't have THAT much invested, but I also don't plan on investing a whole lot -- I'm not going to become a photographer or anything, I just love taking pictures. So if it's at all possible I'd like to keep my Tamron (I love it ). And the whole system was owned previously by someone else and so I looked around what I have and I can't find any Adaptal Mounts ... he may not have got them when he bought it or maybe he didn't give them to me. >>

what exactly do you shoot? you can always get a better deal by purchasing used equipment from someplace reputable such as B&H Photo (www.bhphoto.com). They have some EOS Elan's with Eye Control with is REAL NICE! In case you don't know what it is, Eye-controlled focusing allows the user to control the point of focus by looking at specific parts of the image; an on-board sensor follows the eye movement; and the lens automatically changes focus as they eye moves to points within the frame.

I'm really curious what kind of photography you do though. 35-80mm and 200mm is quite a range, so I'm taking a guess that you do normal pictures with the 35-80 and sports with the 200mm. Either sports or peeping into windows. j/p



<< MAX-MAX-MAX -- $500. I'd like, however, to spend (if possible) under $400 but I don't want to buy crappy equipment so I'll probably end up between $400 and $500. >>

The Elan's that have Eye Control (not sure if you want that feature) are around low 300s on B&H. You can try your luck on eBay if you want though. BTW, I played with an Elan 7 and that thing auto focuses so fast it makes my D30 look like a turtle.

bump for a photog lover

 

[Lucky]

Here's what I'd recommend:

Buy this Canon rebel 2000 kit for $249. . Its used, but has a 90 day warranty, its from B&H (highly reputable) and this particular model has a 10/10 "new condition" description. At $150 off its orginal selling price (i think it still does sell for 399), this is a pretty good deal. It includes a canon 28-80 lens, so I'd keep that one and sell your sigma 35-80. Canon quality will likely be a bit higher plus you get those critial extra 7mm on the wide side. Im a wideangle fanatic, but I think most people really dont know what they are missing until they see 28mm or wider. So total cost will be around $210 after selling of your old lens. If you go for this, I would spend any extra money on:

-50 prime lens (like a f/1.8, for low light)
-A flash, if you dont have one. The rebel 2000 of course has one built in but suffers terribly, like all other body-mounted flashes, from redeye.
-Got a tripod? If not, buy one!

If you dont want to go this route, then post so and I'll look a bit more but it really sounds like you dont need more than the rebel 2000 offers. Plus this is a pretty good deal from the best photo company in the business, bar none.

 

[tim0thy]

about 1/2 the price of that kit goes to the lens. i do agree that canon lenses have higher quality. if you want to check the sharpness for lenses, you can go to www.photodo.com and see the ratings. i'm not a big fan of 3rd party lenses, but there are times that they do produce one that is almost on par with the original manufacturer and at a price that can't be beat!

a little more on the suggestions.
the canon 50/1.8 is DAMN SHARP. the only thing sharper than that is the 50/1.4. imho, 50/1.8 is the BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK and I wished i bought either this one or the 1.4 counterpart instead of the 24-85/3.5-4.5. the 1.4 is 3x the price of the 1.8 and has a sturdier feel because it's made out of metal instead of plastic. don't be fooled though, the 1.8 is very very good.

built in flashes is suck, period. i'm working on getting myself a 550EX speedlight hopefully soon.

tripod is the essence of good photography. esp if you do night photography, you're going to need long shutter times. which brings back the question, what do you photograph anyways.

i was taking pictures of the statue of liberty a couple of days ago and using my friend's 35mm, i had to lie down on the floor, scrunch myself up to the gate and point up to get her and the entire statue (and barely got it). i put on my sigma 20/1.8 (effectively 32mm because of the dslr multiplication factor) and it was easy shooting on my feet. even 3mm makes a BIG difference!!!



<< Here's what I'd recommend:

Buy this Canon rebel 2000 kit for $249. Its used, but has a 90 day warranty, its from B&H (highly reputable) and this particular model has a 10/10 "new condition" description. At $150 off its orginal selling price (i think it still does sell for 399), this is a pretty good deal. It includes a canon 28-80 lens, so I'd keep that one and sell your sigma 35-80. Canon quality will likely be a bit higher plus you get those critial extra 7mm on the wide side. Im a wideangle fanatic, but I think most people really dont know what they are missing until they see 28mm or wider. So total cost will be around $210 after selling of your old lens. If you go for this, I would spend any extra money on:

-50 prime lens (like a f/1.8, for low light)
-A flash, if you dont have one. The rebel 2000 of course has one built in but suffers terribly, like all other body-mounted flashes, from redeye.
-Got a tripod? If not, buy one!

If you dont want to go this route, then post so and I'll look a bit more but it really sounds like you dont need more than the rebel 2000 offers. Plus this is a pretty good deal from the best photo company in the business, bar none. >>

 

[ElFenix]

<< canon 28-70/2.8 L
canon 70-200/2.8 L >>

those are some pretty expensive lenses. really sorta wonder how they get zoom lenses with constant maximum aperature ratio like that, or why they don't make it really fast on the wide end. ah well.

the elan 7 is a pretty nice piece of hardware, sorta like a rebel 2000 on crack. the r2k is very lightweight, which is really nice for traveling since you don't have to lug it.

nikon has slightly better coatings on the lens than canon has. but its a minor difference and if you set both cameras with equivalent lenses and that right next to each other and took some shots that way you'd have to be pretty damn good to pick out the nikon.

nikon makes about twice as many lenses as canon does. granted, a lot of these are pretty close to each other in specs, but its nice to have the option.

canon has image stabilization, which is nice for long lenses.

canon has USM, which is simply the best lens motor ever made.

nikon is the choice of more professionals, but a lot of that has to do with them inventing the SLR.


nikon bodies are all theoretically backward compatible with all their lenses. from what i've heard it doesn't always work in practice.



<< little more on the suggestions.
the canon 50/1.8 is DAMN SHARP. the only thing sharper than that is the 50/1.4. imho, 50/1.8 is the BEST BANG FOR THE BUCK and I wished i bought either this one or the 1.4 counterpart instead of the 24-85/3.5-4.5. the 1.4 is 3x the price of the 1.8 and has a sturdier feel because it's made out of metal instead of plastic. don't be fooled though, the 1.8 is very very good. >>

i totally agree. the $100 50/1.8 is, optically, one of the best lenses you can buy, canon, nikon, or minolta. reason being is that is the lens that used to come with every SLR back before people starting using SLRs like expensive point n' shoots. the lens is also very simple. that 1.8 is the best $100 bucks i've spend on photo equip so far. that plus the r2k is lightweight and can shoot in just about any light conditions.

 

[tim0thy]

<< those are some pretty expensive lenses. really sorta wonder how they get zoom lenses with constant maximum aperature ratio like that, or why they don't make it really fast on the wide end. ah well. >>

thanks! yeah, they were pretty expensive, but i got them both used. the 70-200 looks almost new (the pro took care of it) and the 28-70 was sorta beat up a little (B&H 8+ quality). it really kicks some crazy ass, both of them.



<< canon has image stabilization, which is nice for long lenses.
canon has USM, which is simply the best lens motor ever made. >>

in all fairness to nikon, they have VRX (i think that's what they call it, which is their implementation of Image Stabilization. USM owns.

*edit: nikon has VR (vibration reduction) system for Image Stabilization and SWM for USM.



<< nikon is the choice of more professionals, but a lot of that has to do with them inventing the SLR.
nikon bodies are all theoretically backward compatible with all their lenses. from what i've heard it doesn't always work in practice. >>

nikon has a reputation for making EVERYTHING backwards compatible. i think i read somewhere you can convert the old manual lenses for use in the newer cameras. not sure why anyone would want to do that though.

 

[Lucky]

<<

<< canon 28-70/2.8 L
canon 70-200/2.8 L >>

those are some pretty expensive lenses. really sorta wonder how they get zoom lenses with constant maximum aperature ratio like that, or why they don't make it really fast on the wide end. ah well.

the elan 7 is a pretty nice piece of hardware, sorta like a rebel 2000 on crack. the r2k is very lightweight, which is really nice for traveling since you don't have to lug it.

nikon has slightly better coatings on the lens than canon has. but its a minor difference and if you set both cameras with equivalent lenses and that right next to each other and took some shots that way you'd have to be pretty damn good to pick out the nikon.

nikon makes about twice as many lenses as canon does. granted, a lot of these are pretty close to each other in specs, but its nice to have the option.

canon has image stabilization, which is nice for long lenses.

canon has USM, which is simply the best lens motor ever made.

nikon is the choice of more professionals, but a lot of that has to do with them inventing the SLR.

nikon bodies are all theoretically backward compatible with all their lenses. from what i've heard it doesn't always work in practice. >>




they dont make anything like a 20 f/f 1.4 for a couple reasons:

1. There isnt a helluva lot of demand, especially considering how exhorbitant the price would be
2. Wider the focal length, the slower the shutter you can get away with. With my 20 2.8 I can easily use 1/15 shutter speed, and if I hold my breath and lean against something, I can do 1/8. The only reason you really need such a fast aperture is when you either need a fast shutter speed in low light or for limited depth of field. (sports, wildlife)

I agree with the comments on the 2000. It is very lightweight but from what i've heard from owners who frequented my store it was still durable as wel. The canon vs. nikon debate is tiresome really and not worth it. Each are very capable manufactures. The comment above about nikon having more lenses is a bit incorrect. Its possible that nikon has more overall lenses, but in terms of current AF lenses Canon actually makes more than nikon, about 65 to nikons 50.

Agree with what timothy said too...thanks for the photodo site, havent been there in probably 2 years. Forgot about it! Oh, my 70-200 2.8 is a sigma. "EX" line. Got it for half the nikon was when I starting college, and to boot, its got 98% of the performance of the nikon, which is noticeably sharper wide-open. Good lens.

 

[konichiwa]

What kind of photography do I do ... all kinds. I have those two odd lenses because ... i bought the 50 with the camera, just to have as a "normal" lens. Then I got real interested in close-up photography and bought that zoom lense (did that over a macro lense just because i don't always want to have to be 2" away from the subject, I do a bit of sports photog. too)

Isn't the Rebel 2000 the lower end of the Canon series? The price on that used kit from B&H is definately nice, however, like I said I don't want to buy cheap stuff. I didn't see a used Elan7 on B&H -- is there one that I missed? Is the price difference worth jumping up to the Elan7?

 

[lowtech1]

<< Minolta makes the best bodies, Nikon makes the best lenses and Canon is a compromise >>


Canon's marketing strategy, which seems to demand that every L lens out-spec the closest Nikon.

They all make great bodies & lenses. Canon is no slought when it come to AF, their fast & smooth autofocus motors, and IS/USM are great.

The true with Zeiss zoom lenses.

Don't be fool into buying Hype: Leica lenses are some of old Sigma built, and some are old Minolta built lenses. Zeiss zoom lenses are not even close on par as Canon/Minolta/Nikon/Pentax/Sigma/Tamron.

 

[Lucky]

<< What kind of photography do I do ... all kinds. I have those two odd lenses because ... i bought the 50 with the camera, just to have as a "normal" lens. Then I got real interested in close-up photography and bought that zoom lense (did that over a macro lense just because i don't always want to have to be 2" away from the subject, I do a bit of sports photog. too)

Isn't the Rebel 2000 the lower end of the Canon series? The price on that used kit from B&H is definately nice, however, like I said I don't want to buy cheap stuff. I didn't see a used Elan7 on B&H -- is there one that I missed? Is the price difference worth jumping up to the Elan7? >>




Ah, you already have a 50. Great! Not many people see the value in it but I see it as a very important lens to have in your bag.

anwyays, the elan7 is here for $399. Seems like a decent price.


Canon Elan 7 & Rebel 2000 Comparison chart . Seems the main differences are:

1.elan 7 has eye controlled focusing
2.slightly more powerful flash, can autofocus on faster moving targets (slightly).
3.has an adustable diopter

i really dont see much of a difference beyond that but I havent used the Elan 7 so I cant say for sure. Its possible the elan 7 is built a little sturdier than the rebel 2000. Yes, as you asked, the rebel 2000 is, IIRC, the cheapest and lowest-ranked canon body in production. However, its still a very capable camera. I would only get the elan 7 if:

1. you really want the eye controlled focusing (I like it)
2. if it has a much sturdier and more confident "feel" to it. Go to your local ritz camera or whatever shop is nearby and see how they feel in your hands.






<< << Minolta makes the best bodies, Nikon makes the best lenses and Canon is a compromise >>


Canon's marketing strategy, which seems to demand that every L lens out-spec the closest Nikon.

They all make great bodies & lenses. Canon is no slought when it come to AF, their fast & smooth autofocus motors, and IS/USM are great.

The true with Zeiss zoom lenses.

Don't be fool into buying Hype: Leica lenses are some of old Sigma built, and some are old Minolta built lenses. Zeiss zoom lenses are not even close on par as Canon/Minolta/Nikon/Pentax/Sigma/Tamron >>





Not sure what you are trying to prove, that thread even lists some tests contradicting what you are saying. There are various revisions of leica lenses, and in that thread, if you had read it, it says that the later ones tested higher than any other. In any regard, no one said anything about leica zoom lenses. Most folks who are shooting leica/contax dont use zoom lenses anyways, as primes are leica's/Zeiss's specialty.

 

[lowtech1]

Zeiss make some great prime lenses, but most people that talk about it don't own them. And, most people including pro uses a 28~80 zoom as their primary lens, while they boast how great the Contact, Leica & Blad prime lenses are.

I was once a craze photo enthusiast that spend every dollar I have buying into the hype from my friends & colleagues. I have own 2 Blads C bodies in the past and currently own 2 medium Mamiya bodies & 5 lens, a large format Linhof & 5 lenses. And, for 35mm I currently have a Contact, one Pentax, 5 Canon bodies, and 18 lenses.

I have not try every single camera & lenses combo, but I found most modern lenses & camera produce great pictures. Most of the poor picture is from camera handling/shake due too handholding instead of using tripod. Films & lenses today are superb when compare to film & lenses of the 60/70s where the camera can make a big diff in one photography experience. Most lens test comparisons are shot with a tripods to produce the best picture as possible instead of how the lens & body feel in the user hand. Over half of my contest wining & money shots are from my lowly Canon AV1 & the 50mm f:1.8 lens, because it is light & comfortable to hold. The large format, medium format are a pain to use & carry. The F1, EOS1 & L lenses aren't too bad to carry around, but it gave me back pain when they add an extra 30 lbs to my pack on my 2 week trek in the rain forest of Thailand.

The moral of the story is to buy what you can afford & get a light camera that is comfortable for your hand.

See here for lens test that shown some inexpensive lens can out do the higher price name brand.

 

[Lucky]

no you are absolutely right that the camera is not the magic in my blad (or any camera), nor is it the zeiss lenses, although it can help! What I find so much more remarkable about 2 1/4 is that it forces me to slow down and focus more on composition, looking at the light, metering, etc.

 

[ElFenix]

<< nikon has a reputation for making EVERYTHING backwards compatible. i think i read somewhere you can convert the old manual lenses for use in the newer cameras. not sure why anyone would want to do that though. >>

the old lenses do fit on the newest camera, as the mount has not changed physically, but the camera won't have much of a clue. and the new electronic everything lens doesn't work on the old cameras, or so i've read over at photo.net, as its the camera thats backwards compatible, not the lens. which is okay because the lens is the expensive part.




<< he comment above about nikon having more lenses is a bit incorrect. Its possible that nikon has more overall lenses, but in terms of current AF lenses Canon actually makes more than nikon, about 65 to nikons 50. >>

something like that. its that the old nikon and nikkor lenses will work on the new nikon body, but canon switched from FD to EF mounts while nikon keeps retrofitting their mount with electro-whizbang stuff. or something. <--- not the biggest nikon guy


oh, from personal experience i find that the R2K requires a little bit of training in the art of pushing the shutter button halfway down with you middle finger, pushing another button on the back of the camera with your thumb, and moving a little wheel right next to the shutter button without pressing the shutter all the way down, all at the same time. the elan 7 is easier to use with the dual wheels and the programmable buttons.