Switching to digital SLR

Yes it will.

Go to a nice shop and hopefuly they will explain with demonstrations.

/naim attitude

Nigel

I moved to a Canon DLSR. The EOS USM lenses will all work well.

The big thing to check is what the size of the Image sensor is. Mine on my 300D is smaller than 35mm which results in the image field of view from the lens being cropped. This reduced field of view has the effect of apparently shifting the focal length range of the optical body lenses to higher values by a factor of 1.6X. For example the fields of view with my 28 to 128 mm are equivalent to 44mm to 200mm effectively.

Canon introduced a 18mm-55mm lens specifically for this effect which calulates to provide the same field view as a 28mm lens would on 35mm film. This is not a high quality lens though.

Its been a while so I expect some of the Canon DSLR's now have full 35mm fields at a reasonable price.

regards
geoff

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff P:
I moved to a Canon DLSR. The EOS USM lenses will all work well.

The big thing to check is what the size of the Image sensor is. Mine on my 300D is smaller than 35mm which results in the image field of view from the lens being cropped. This reduced field of view has the effect of apparently shifting the focal length range of the optical body lenses to higher values by a factor of 1.6X. For example the fields of view with my 28 to 128 mm are equivalent to 44mm to 200mm effectively.

Canon introduced a 18mm-55mm lens specifically for this effect which calulates to provide the same field view as a 28mm lens would on 35mm film. This is not a high quality lens though.

Its been a while so I expect some of the Canon DSLR's now have full 35mm fields at a reasonable price.

regards
geoff

I think the OP would get on fine with the Canon's full frame 5D. There's also the recently launched 5D mk2 now too, so he should be able to get the original one for a decent price if money's an issue.

Well I'm thinking of asking Mrs Santa for a 450D body. Will that fit the bill?

I'm on the point of changing my old Canon EOS 300D to something a bit more modern, and like Jamie I've got some old "Full Frame" Canon lenses from my 35mm days.

Looking at the 5D, it's perhaps a bit much (£2K for body only!)for what I need. There's also the issues of Image Stabilisation which as I understand it requires me to buy new lenses with this feature built in.

I'm also considering whether it might be worthwhile changing to Nikon. Having seen Chris Kelly's rather nice Nikon (I know not which one he's got) I was very taken with its construction and the way it handled. The D700 seems to be pretty good, but then it appears to only have the smaller sensor?

There are so many different options here and the technology all seems to change so rapidly.

One factor has remained constant and probably will for a long time: full frame DSLRs are much more expensive than the smaller sensor cameras.

For me, the days of it being worthwhile buying a top spec camera have gone. Unless I become a pro, the initial expense of a pro-body and speed of it being superceded makes purchasing 2 or 3 top lenses even more sensible. I can change my 'semi-pro' body every 2 or 3 years and keep the same lenses.Every 2 or 3 years the newer body will be far better and, 3 months after launch, cheaper. My latest lens will sell on Ebay for what I paid for it new!



Tony

So, Tony...do you think the 450D will do me OK?

I'd say that unless you have any particularly demanding requirements, yes, it'll do nicely. A handling test in a shop is your best bet. After that test, all the specs and online discussions won't matter one bit.

Tony

quote:

I'm also considering whether it might be worthwhile changing to Nikon. Having seen Chris Kelly's rather nice Nikon (I know not which one he's got) I was very taken with its construction and the way it handled. The D700 seems to be pretty good, but then it appears to only have the smaller sensor?

Tonym...Check out the weight and feel of holding the Nikon. A buddy of mine has Nikon and it was really heavy, hard to hold still, compared to my Canon. The 28-128mm Canon USM lens I have has image stabilization coupled with a nice large apeture and the two together work great for long exposure low light shots and macro use.

Worth maybe buying one of those rather than switching to Nikon now.

regards
Geoff

I went down the same path a couple of years ago, and went with the 300D, which ultimately I swapped for a 350D, as I found the former a bit large (it's worth doing as Tony says and trying one in your hand for size). But you will find the operation and menus consistent with the film cameras (I changed from an old EOS 620).
Like you, I have quite a lot of Canon EF glass so it was a no-brainer to stay in the fold, even though the focal lengths do change because of the sensor. I've ended up buying another EF-S USM lens to cover my wide-angle needs, as my old 28mm ended up a bit useless.
Unless you desperately need it, it's best to avoid the 'kit' 18-55 lens and buy the body only.
I think the 350D is a good camera, and it's probably smarter than my photographic abilities anyway, so I'm sure the 450D will be excellent.
The only other thing I've had to add is more hard drive space - lots of millions of pixels is not necessarily a good thing!
Cheers
John

Hmmm. The 450 is a very good camera Jamie and the Canon EF-S lenses offer some decent levels of performance too. Moving to full-frame, either Canon or Nikon (or even Sony) demands better and more expensive glass. For similar money Jamie I would not rule out the Olympus E520. Excellent images albeit from a 4/3 system sensor whichis a tad smaller than APS-C. The real benefit of Olympus is the small size and weight and the fact that image stabilisation is built into the camera body. You need to handle them, and see which fits your hands best. The Nikon D90 is getting reat reveiws and offers a movie capture mode, though this is a bit limited. A first in a DSLR though, and now also in the Canon 5Dmk2 full frame body.


Geoff, I have e D3 and a D300. The D3 is a big beast but I actually find the weight helpful in keeping the camera steady. Canon and Nikon offer forms on in-lens image stabilisation which also helps. I carted the D3 arounf New York for 6 days on honeymoon in late Sep/early Oct, and didn't find it a chore. Rachel used the d300 with 18-200 VR lens and got some excellent pics.

Ultimately is the photographer who makes the picture!

This might seem odd, but do you need a d-SLR?

How often do you / would you print from your digital images rather than view from monitor? What size would you print?

Compact cameras like the Panasonic LX-3 and Canon G10 are getting very good reviews. Could a compact digital camera be a better solution for you?

I know that I can print very nice A3 images from my Ricoh GRD-II. Not necessarily as much detail as from my principal system, but very nice images all the same and we are comparing a couple of hundred quid with several thousand.

Huw

I find DSLRs much easier to use in manual or priority mode, and they're not much more to buy, especially when the OP already has glassware. Most compacts still hide too many features too far down in menu-land.

Tony

Having swapped from a quality compact to D-SLR this year (an Olympus E520) I'd say the biggest advantage is handling. Traditional shape camera, a proper viewfinder, decent shutter release etc. All serve to increase the pleasure of use and reduce camera shake-one of the big issues with small lightweight digital cameras held at arms length!

Better choice of optics is a huge plus, such as a quality dedicated macro lens etc. Low light sensitivity is another clear bonus.

Bruce

Bruce,

I don't disagree, but using the LX-3 as an example - an external viewfinder is an option, it has a fairly fast (f2) Leica lens, close focus for macro and iirc a snap-shot and manual focus mode and image stabilisation.

I don't know about the low light sensitivity, but IS and f2 are bound to help.

With regard optics, it comes back to how you will be viewing the images and at what scale.

Jamie, another idea is also to go to a photo sharing website, like flickr, and do a a search of images by camera and lens.

Huw

Unless the nonDSLR cameras have speeded up the reaction to pressing the shutter button you will get severe delays between pressing the button and the image is taken.

That is the over whelming reason for a DSLR, apart from image quality flexibility lens interchange etc etc.

I also support the suggestions that you take a serious look at the Olympus E320 and the new E30.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:
Well I'm thinking of asking Mrs Santa for a 450D body. Will that fit the bill?

Yeah, so long as you don't mind all your current lenses being magnified by 1.6x due to the smaller sensor (crop factor) of the 450D.

Best thing will be to get down to a shop and try them out and see what you think.

I just think a 5D (either version) would be a great long term investment.

But would, for most people, a 5D produce better prints, especially without L series glass? If the choice has to be made, I'd rather have a second hand 20D with a 70-200mm L and a 10-22mm EFS than a 5D with say, 70-300mm f5.6 and 17-85mm... no comparison at all. And the 20D can be had for under £250. An extreme example, but glass every time.
It's an investment, whereas the body just loses money without making better pictures. Unless, of course, you really need the full size sensor.
Tony

quote:

Geoff, I have e D3 and a D300. The D3 is a big beast but I actually find the weight helpful in keeping the camera steady

Chris thinking about it I recall my friend typically had the large battery pack attached to his Nikon which adds weight of course.

quote:

Yeah, so long as you don't mind all your current lenses being magnified by 1.6x due to the smaller sensor (crop factor) of the 450D.

Rackkit I agree with Tony about the economics. It is only for closeup shots at 28mms that it is a bit limiting not having the full field, but generally there is enough room to step back a bit to solve that problem. Other than that the best place to spend money is on the glass since the performance parameters of the sensors will get you an excellent result.

regards
geoff

Spend most of your money on good quality glass. Remember, "source first"! The camera bodies come and go. Steer clear of the packaged one-size-fits-all all-purpose zooms.

Try to buy only quality full-frame lenses, even if you decide to buy a small-sensor body (for now). This keeps all the upgrade options open.

I am a Nikon user and happy to be so, but Canon also make excellent products. I like the solid feel of the Nikons better.

Yeah, as at the start of my post, I want to keep my lens and change the body...so sticking with Canon and I'll see how I get on...OK so 28mm becomes 43, we'll see if that's a bug, if so I've got a functional WA lens too somewhere which went into the loft when I got this one as I just didn't use it.

All Canon DSLRs will be compatible with all standard Canon EF lenses.

Unless you are a pro, or expecting to regularly print at much bigger than A3, then the 450D would be more than good enough for your requirements. Also, I would say the newer Canons have built in sensor cleaning, which seems to drastically reduce need to manually clean the sensor.

If you already have lenses, and enjoy manual camera functions, then the 450D will be perfect. It'll also offer more megapixels than a second hand 20D, meaning you have more scope to make bigger prints.

The only thing to consider is that the 450D is very small and lightweight, compared for example to the 40D. If you have large hands, or like the feel of a sturdy camera, try them out in a good camera shop.

So, definitely go for a DSLR, but handle them in a shop first.

Thanks Neil.

I have the hands of a lady.

Well in that case the 450D will be perfect. I hope you enjoy using it.

The next thing to think about is Photoshop Elements or CS4 to get the most out of your photos... if that floats your boat. I would recommend Scott Kelby's books and Kelbytraining.com as great resources for getting into tweaking/editing your photos.

Ah, don't get me wrong I am thoroughly used to digital photography having had three compacts over the last 7 or 8 years for snaps/holidays/daily use etc. and have tried a number of pieces of software as well as an SLR for about twenty (I had an AE-1 before the EOS)

I actually prefer Microsoft Digital Image over Adobe - I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft usually but the user interface is very easy, intuitive and logical and gives decent results. and something the scale of lightroom is just OTT!