I went to zim last month and found out that I need a new camera: I used to own a Nikon FTN with a bunch of lens, but I gave the set to my son when he was in the Navy. now, all I have is a little digital camera. I have thought about a Leica M with a 50mm f1.2 lens and maybe a telephoto, for years, maybe now is the time: but, jesus god, are they expensive. Any suggestions?

The newest Leica M8 is only about $ 5000 !! You could join the 12x stabilized club !Sony H2, Canon S3,Leica V-lux-1, and Panasonic, Olympus , Kodak. The 12x lenses are 35-435 mm equivalent.

Just look at what professional photographers on sports events and such are using. You will notice that most have white-color lenses on their cameras, and that's a hint that their cameras are Canon.

Unless you buy a top of the line Canon digital LSR, a 10MP body will cost around $1,000. The top of the line bodies will cost you around $6,000, but the lenses will cost you even more.

Look at the newest Canon Rebel XT (I believe it's now XTi). This is even a better camera than the one I use. I use a rebel XT.

So, a canon Rebel XTi (or whatever it's called) with the kit lens should cost around $1,000 at B&H. Then further down the line you can buy one of the "L" canon lenses for it. The kit lens will allow you to take pictures like the ones I take with my kit lens on the Rebel.

By the way, if you buy online never buy from certain online shops that are offering this camera for around $500.00. Those are scammers that will take your money. Buy from B&H, or Adorama. There are other reputable dealers some can point you to in this forum. I only have purchased from B&H, and highly recommend them.

It was set at 18 mm when I took this photo:

The "new" standard in SLR digital cameras is 10 megapixels. You should look at the Nikon D80 which has just come out. Coupled with the 18mm-70mm zoom lens it is a good combination within a reasonable budget. Since I really like wide angle lenses I would be looking closely at the 12mm-24mm zoom or the 14mm Nikon lenses. By the way, my Nikon f4 300 mm lens is white so not all white telephoto lenses are Canon.

quote:

Originally posted by Ray:
Just look at what professional photographers on sports events and such are using. You will notice that most have white-color lenses on their cameras, and that's a hint that their cameras are Canon.

Ray-

While you are pretty much correct, in this particular instance, don't count out everybody other than Canon.

Canon gear is reknowned for it's "speed" in capturing action subjects. For that, it's hard to beat.

But, look farther than just sports and you'll find a lot more Nikon shooters than Canon. Photojournalists tend to go with Nikon. The Nikon name is just so solidly established in the pro circles that it is everywhere.

And a good friend of mine who makes a living doing portraiture absolutely swears by his Fuji S3 Pro as the tops in that category. It is known for excellent skin reproduction, etc, but lacks a fast autofocus (not critical in studio work).

So each camera has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Personally I grew up shooting Canon film (A-1 and AE-1 bodies), but have now gone over to Nikon digital (for when I must shoot digital) as well as Nikon film (F5), mainly due to my employment and having a quite nice selection of Nikon lenses and accessories to use at somebody else's expense.

For almost any "amateur" of any level, either Canon or Nikon is going to do more than you could ever want or need. Go with whichever you can find the best deal on, considering the cost of future "upgrades", i.e. lenses, strobes, etc.

With that said, your recommendation of the new Rebel XTi is a solid one. For the money, it is certainly hard to beat, especially for somebody who is building from step one (unlike me, who had my "decision" heavily influenced by my employer...).

Also, on a side note, I've watched as you post some of your images from time to time. Beautiful....

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
Since I really like wide angle lenses I would be looking closely at the 12mm-24mm zoom or the 14mm Nikon lenses.

Wink-

I recently picked up a Sigma 10-20mm to play with. I'm loving it!

If you like the extra wide angle stuff, consider it. Very favorable reviews, and the price is WAY more affordable than the Nikon glass.

Cold Bore, now that's interesting news. If you are using a Nikon digital camera, what does 10mm equate to in 35mm terms?

I have come back to edit this post. I looked around and it seems like it equates to 15-30mm. Sounds ideal for trophy and around the camp pictures. How about posting some pictures?

Wink-

Yep, 15-30 on the 1.5 factor digitals. Rather wide, especially on the "short" end...

I don't have the ability to post pictures, but send me a note with an address & I'll send you some.

It really does take nice stuff. And inside a building or room, it really shows off.

quote:

Originally posted by Wink:
The "new" standard in SLR digital cameras is 10 megapixels. You should look at the Nikon D80 which has just come out. Coupled with the 18mm-70mm zoom lens it is a good combination within a reasonable budget. Since I really like wide angle lenses I would be looking closely at the 12mm-24mm zoom or the 14mm Nikon lenses. By the way, my Nikon f4 300 mm lens is white so not all white telephoto lenses are Canon.

Wink: There is no standard relating to sensor MP. Canon has had 16MP sensors on some of their cameras for several years now. Also, there are "specialty" cameras not made by Nikon and Canon (Paul Harvey was talking about one recently) that cost around $34,000). I have heard of one that has a 39MP sensor. Kodak already has a 39MP sensor, but i don't think it's being used on cameras at the moment.

Thanks Cold Bore.

The Rebel XT has been the best selling camera ever (for Canon)since last year. That's the reason for the upgrade to the Rebel XTi after introducing the XT to the market a year ago.

Coldbore, "standard" was a poor choice of words on my part. You are certainly correct about higher end cameras existing. I should have qualified it as "standard entry level SLR". Even if there are some D50s and D70s left on the shelves, not too many are going to be sold with the arrival of the 10 megapixel D80. If money were no object I'd invest in a Nikon D2Xs.

A preliminary comparison for the Nikon D80 and the Canon Rebel XTi:
www.popphoto.com/cameras/3157/nikon-d80-competitive-set.html
This one is on the new Rebel XTi:
www.popphoto.com/camera_review/canon-eos_digital_rebel_xti.html

quote:

Originally posted by mete:
The newest Leica M8 is only about $ 5000 !!

I have a D1X (6MEG) with D ED lenses and it does superb. However, I want that M8 so bad I can taste it!

Why? Well, it kind of reminds me of a gold ROLEX with Diamonds. But that is a negative. Never will buy a watch that everybody knows the price of.

Hasselblad CM??? was a real winner at shows because it drove the Japanese builders wild, and 60mm slides were spectacular, but heavy.

Today, 6 MEG digitals with power point presentations are really over kill, but the lenses like the 17-35 D EDs with the D1X do a more than satisfactory job.

Even in the 35mm days, the M series Leica's tripped my trigger, but the company was always light on the digital side. Now they are there, and the acquisition of an M-8 with wide angle would do my job without the weight and intrusiveness of the D1X et al.

I will have one, as soon as I get all the rifles I need.





Industrial Photography with D1X, 17-35 Zoom D ED lens, corrected using M/S Photo program. In this case depth of field suffers because of lowlight condition.

I was interested in the M8 and wondered of it was a continuation of the M series , it is ! The interest was that I started out in photography with a M3 when I was still in elementary school !!! Talk about being spoiled ! Anyway a photo of a $ 10,000 + rifle or shotgun can only properly done with a $ 5,000 camera !

Don't get to caught up in the megapixel wars. My income comes from selling framed art work that I photograph and frame myself.
I have seen photos taken with 3 meg camera's that look better in terms of color, noise, sharpness, etc than some taken with 8's. Dont lose sight of the fact that your lens determines what the sensor can capture. Good glass is VERY expensive.
It used to be there were only two names to consider if you wanted to do photography on a professional level (Canon and Nikon). With digital taking over there are new players stepping up and delivering. The reason pro's stay with the top two is because of the accessories and lenses avaliable for each. One interesting thought to consider is that the company who prints for me told me in there experience there is a point of diminishing returns using the sensors found on SLR digitals once 16 megaixels is reached. Interesting observation from them but I have no way to prove its validity.

The sensor can make a big difference .They are typically CCDs like my Sony H-1 but compare that to the much larger CMOS sensor of the Sony R-1 !!!

quote:

Originally posted by Snowwolfe:
Don't get to caught up in the mega pixel wars. My income comes from selling framed art work that I photograph and frame myself.

I think you are bang on as the Brits say. However, where resolution gets really interesting is on the output side.

Some of the new high res large format 36" plus wide require a ton of pixels to get the beautiful outputs they are capable of. Most of us can live within a nominal 2k x 3k sort of environment for prints up to 24" (630mm) which is my particular favorite. However my old designjet is only a 600 dpi printer.

Now going to 2400 dpi on a 54" printer is a totally different animal.

The only people who judge the techincal aspects of a photograph are other photograhers. In the 12 years I been doing this I have learned one rule that has never changed.
" There are great photographs and there are photographs that sell. Photographs that sell well do not have to be great photographs."

I think the origional poster was more intrested in a film camera. I bought an Hasselblad X-Pan a few years ago and it is awsome. I don't use it a lot but when I want panoramics, it's great. Got it because I couldn't afford the Fugi 617. The X-Pan does panoramic and 35mm. Really really nice camera.

I agree with Snowwolfe, there are great photo's, then there are photo's that sell.