Thread: Which digital SLR for pen photography?

Fred, Fred, Fred,

That's like asking "what's your favourite icecream?".

But, since you asked, and I've recently been through it, here's my take on things.

My first decision was, high end compact, or low end DSLR. I asked on several photo forums, IAP & elsewhere. I did also say I do take other photographs as well, so wanted something good for not just pens as well.

The DSLR owners said get a high end compact, as the best photos are the ones you take when your camera is with you, and with a DSLR it's too big to lug with you all the time, whereas a compact can go with you just about anywhere.

The compact owners said they were universally frustrated with the limitations of their compacts, and a cheap DSLR is infinitely better than a top range compact.

Having said that, both groups agreed that, despite which type of camera you have, you can get good pictures with either.

The camera review magazines now, with their 1,000,000th of a mm resolution tests prove beyond a doubt, that both compacts and cheap DSLRs are crap, and you need to spend $10,000+ to get any decent photos at all.

My conclusion out of all that? I wanted versatility, the clarity and most importantly, the dynamic range, that a DSLR can provide. There is no question that the image sensors on a DSLR can give you better shadows & highlights than a compact, and with our pens being such contrasty images, this is what we need. The caveat on that last statement is, when shrunk to 800x600 medium resolution jpeg web shot, there's very little visible different between a compact image and a DSLR image.

So, having decided on a DSLR, I serached reviews everywhere for the cheapest DSLR comparison. I've always been a Canon fan, and still am, so I'm afraid my opinions are biased in what I actually chose. But, there are several factors to consider.

1. No matter how good the DSLR, a crap lens will give crap pictures. The corollary being, even a cheap DSLR will give great shots with a great lens. So, before deciding ona DSLR, you have to decide how much you're willing to invest in lenses. A good, fast, 50mm/60mm equivalent f1.4 or there abouts DSLR macro lens (which will give you your best shots) will set you back $400 - $2,000. Most DSLRs come with kit lenses, which are good enough, but just be aware, the best quality is only obtained with the best lenses.

2. Do you want in-camera auto-focus and/or image stabilization? Forget Nikon or Canon. Their is in the lens, which makes their lenses more expensive.

3. Do you want the best (consumer/prosumer) camera? Then forget everythying EXCEPT Nikon or Canon. I'm sorry, despite everything you read about Olympus, Pentax etc. They just don't stack up in my opinion. Oh sorry, Sony are good cameras, but because of their proprietry memory sticks, I won't go anywhere near them. If you want a Sony opinion, you'll have to go elsewhere. I beleive they are in the same class as Canon & Nikon, but I want after market products, not locked in to a single supplier with proprietry formats.

So, that leaves me with trying to find the cheapest, but most fully featured (due to having no funds after purchase for later upgrades) camera in my price range. Choices were Canon EOS 1000D & 450D vs Nikon 60, 70, 80,90. Go do some research on all of these, or any new repalcements in the similar line.

As I said, my bias is towards the Canons, but I almost considered getting a D60, except it didn't have live view, plus a few other nice features, but it was cheaper for the base than a, EOS1000D. Favouring the Canon, I research those and found they come in a single or twin lens kit (in several forms). The Image Stablised twin lens kit had quite good lenses, and I finally found the 1000D twin kit was only about $100 less than the EOS450D twin lens kit, and so that's the one I ended up with.

As for live view, no I don't really use it, except in special circumstances. It has a slight lag and a couple of other inadequacies, but I'm still glad it's there for when I do need it. Despite my early reserach showing people really rely on the TTL view, I find myself preferring to compose TTL, and then I just check the back panel before clicking to check the exposure etc. It works well.

So there ya go, if you ant to clarify any points, fire away.

Russell.

Ahhh, grasshopper. This one will be a more religious debate since last time someone asked which brand of chisel to buy...

Depends on budget, but I use the following rule. The order of importance for the components in photography is as follows: 1. photographer, 2. Lens, 3, Film, 4. Body. Obviously for digital 3 & 4 are the same. Going by this rule, a decent photographer with a half-way nice lens will take great photos of wood work on any current DSLR. They're all more than up to the task. Any more than 8-megapixels just allows for more cropping or serious enlargements (bigger than A3).

If you have good lenses lying around, go with that brand. If you're starting from scratch then I'd pick something that isn't bottom of the line from one of the major brands - Canon/Nikon/Sony/Olympus.

I have the Canon EOS350D, which is a few years old now. We have a $1000 pro-series sigma lens on the front. My wife has won two photography competitions with the camera. So my pick would be the EOS450D, which runs to about $1400 with twin lenses. If you like Nikon, my sister has the D80 and it's a ripper of a camera - better than the canon in my view, though more expensive (probably $1600-ish).

Nikon has a D40x, but common in the 'cheaper' cameras (say sub $1000), is that they use leses that can only be used on that model. The cheapie Nikon ones have some component in the lens that is normally in the body for a nikon (I can't remember off the top of my head which), but it means that in 5 years time when the upgrade call comes you have to junk all of the lenses, which can easily out strip the cost of the camera.

If you don't like Canon or Nikon, the Sony Alphas are pretty good - they're the old Minolta mount camera, and the Olympus ones are always good value.

So in a nut shell, go for a EOS450D if you like a smaller, less intimidating camera, or a Nikon D80 if you want a more solid feeling one. Stay away from the EOS1000/D40/other entry level DSLRs ones unless you really aren't interested in buying extra leses and are prepared to bin them when you upgrade, in which case they will work just fine.

Cheers,
Dave

I went through this selection process myself. I even printed out spec sheets for the Canon 30D and the Nikon D80 and compared them line by line. Both are excellent cameras and will get the job done. I ended up with the Canon in the end because I liked their lenses a little better. Canon makes some wonderful lenses and, if one wishes, you can buy some of their vaunted "L" glass. Less expensive after-market lenses are available as well.

I photograph my pens and boxes with the 30D and a 100mm 2.8 macro lens. I use a Bogen tripod and this light cube http://store.tabletopstudio-store.com/20eztasttwol.html

I shoot using aperature priority set at 20 or 22 and let the camera pick the shutter speed. It seems to work. Here's an example.

Nikon camera's still use the same lens mount since the 50's
they made a great 105mm 1to1 Macro lens f:44 , in manual focus ( still fits modern SLR's) there now quite cheep ,

so its not really the camera, its the lens that will get you good clear shots ,
a stock standard zooms f:4 - F:5.6 arnt the best optics (standard lens )

then the lighting ( tent ) comes into it ??? where do you stop

used to be a photographer before the digi's came out , now i own a crap Finepix that gets abused in my glove box for work (building sites )
a F80 Nikon would be nice ( full manual override ) and the price is coming down to a respectable amount

Originally Posted by ciscokid

I photograph my pens and boxes with the 30D and a 100mm 2.8 macro lens. I use a Bogen tripod and this light cube http://store.tabletopstudio-store.com/20eztasttwol.html

SHOW OFF!!

MONEY BAGS!!!

Can I have your lens?

Russell.

I'd like to use this one
but use a Canon 20D
not sure that cisco is showing off with the 30D given that the latest is the 50D (which I'd also like) (my fallback position if SWMBO doesn't fall for my sales pitch on the new 5D)*
I've been using SLR's for 30 something years and will never get used to live view - I'll always use the viewfinder
the other thing is a tripod is important as is good lighting - I'm about to build a light tent thingy. Camera mounted flash just doesn't work



* looks like I'll be using the 20D for some time yet

If I were showing off, I would have the 5D. Would love to have one, but can't justify the cost difference between the two being only an amateur shutterbug. The 30D was current when I bought it a couple of years ago. Then it was replaced with the 40D and then the 50D. Impossible to stay current with technology these days. I'll still be using my trusty 30D fifteen years from now if it keeps working right. I like to use it to spy on our local flora and fauna. Thank God for digital technology! Now that I am not paying for processing 35mm film, I have more money for timber.

I used to be a real keen photographer, had heaps of cameras (several Olympus 35mm SLRs with umpteen lenses, a full Pentax 6x7 medium format setup and a Linhof Kardan 4x5 camera, as well as a fully equipped colour darkroom).

Lost interest, sold it all and moved on. That's why I had the little Konica Minolta Z1, it is one of the few compact cameras that has TTL viewing as well as live view. I actually like live view for still photography and it is good for composition etc. For "happy snaps" I only use the TTL function, can't get used to this holding the camera 2 feet in front of me and look at a little screen to take a picture.

Having said all that, when (if) I buy a DSLR, I would like live view for that reason, it is much easier for "studio" photography. As for wanting to spend upwards of $10,000 on a DSLR outfit, no thank you, I am too old to become a camera snob, or any sort of snob. Too old and too cynical.

I was always impressed with my Olympus 35mm SLRs, and have the competition trophys' to show for it. Looking at the Olympus DSLR's, they are nice and compact, as were their 35mm predecessors, and reasonably priced.

Have also looked at the Sony DSLRs, but having been a Sony fan for some years, and after paying top dollar for most of their stuff, have found that their gear doesn't last any longer than run of the mill gear. For instance I bought a very expensive 6 head Sony video recorder, well in excess of $1300 in the early 90's. After having it repaired several times, it fiinally gave up the ghost completely and went to landfill. Same story with a very expensive Sony video camera. So a bit reluctant there, even though I do like the features of some of the Sony DSLRs.

Have nothing against Canon or Pentax, but feel that Pentax never eally caught the digital wave and Canon's entry DSLR is a bit expensive at somewhere around $1500. The EOS1000D doesn't really have live view and gets mixed reviews.

What I am after is a DSLR that will allow me to photograph my pens and have full control over focusing, exposure and composition.

I was really after what people were using for photographing their pens, hence I put the question in the pen turning forum, not the Photography forum.

I think alot of times it is not the camera that users have problems with but a good photo editing place. That can make a difference when showing photos on the net. I just store mine in photobucket and use whatever editing stuff they have. I am happy for now.

I use a Cannon Rebel EOS 1000D.
You have seen the results...I have the 18-55mm lens that came with it and a 200mm zoom. all for right at $1000.00 American...you can do just about anything you want, from studio to sports shots wth it.

The wife has the Nikon, D90. it's the ducks nuts!
heaps better then any point and shoot digital, we've had before.

Good luck.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Have nothing against Canon or Pentax, but feel that Pentax never eally caught the digital wave and Canon's entry DSLR is a bit expensive at somewhere around $1500. The EOS1000D doesn't really have live view and gets mixed reviews.

Err - what? Not sure where you are shopping, but the 1000D with the 18-55IS kit lens, which is one of the better kit lenses can be had for under $850 ($782 if you're not fussy on warranty source.. The twin kit jumps to about $1050, which is stupid when the 450D twin is around $1200. And it does have live view.

The Nikon D60 is the closest equivalent to the 1000D and with their equivalent VR single lens is around $750, but it definitely has no live view.

Russell

Originally Posted by BoomerangInfo

Err - what? Not sure where you are shopping, but the 1000D with the 18-55IS kit lens, which is one of the better kit lenses can be had for under $850 ($782 if you're not fussy on warranty source.. The twin kit jumps to about $1050, which is stupid when the 450D twin is around $1200. And it does have live view.

The Nikon D60 is the closest equivalent to the 1000D and with their equivalent VR single lens is around $750, but it definitely has no live view.

Russell

I didn't express myself very clearly there, I meant that the Canon entry camera with a usable live view, ie the 450D, was close to $1500 ($1450 here to be exact). The EOS1000D ($999 twin lens) makes you jump through hoops to go to live view., not a bad little camera though, as is the Nikon D60. The D60 can be had here for $870, twin VR lens kit..

Originally Posted by edblysard

I use a Cannon Rebel EOS 1000D.
You have seen the results...I have the 18-55mm lens that came with it and a 200mm zoom. all for right at $1000.00 American...you can do just about anything you want, from studio to sports shots wth it.

Thanks Ed, certainly nothing wrong with your photos. Isn't the 1000D called a Rebel XTsi in the US. Why Canon have different names for their DSLRs in the US to the rest of the world escapes me, and such a silly name at that. Why would you call a camera Rebel?