The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

I've been very happy with my Canon Powershot G6. Give it a looky.

Reply

↓↑report

Maybe you can add this site to your list of research resources:

http://www.dpreview.com

Very in-depth reviews - but I believe you'll get an answer on your question relating to image quality there :)

Reply

↓↑report

Got the Nikon D70 (my first SLR) and love it! If you can spend the extra $$$ and do not already have lenses from a particular brand, I'd go for the Canon D20. However, from what I've read, I'd invest in a better lense than the starter lens that comes with the Canon. If this starts to get too expensive, just get the D70.

Reply

↓↑report

I second the Powershot G6 recommendation. Best camera value out there.

Reply

↓↑report

The Powershot G6, while an excellent camera, isn't a DSLR.

That said, I have been very happy with my Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D) that I got last month. It is my first DSLR and I love it. If you look around, you can find it (without lens) for under $800...

Reply

↓↑report

When you're looking at this kind of equipment, the same rules apply as for traditional photo equipment. You're looking at basically two options: Canon and Nikon. They're both good companies; they both make excellent products. go down to B & H, pick up the Rebel XT and the D-100. See which feels better in your hand. See which has controls that are more intutitve for you. Get a camera you'll like, and like working with. And one that will work with your existing lenses, if you have any.

The truth is right now, it doesn't make much difference under $1000. The sutter speed of digitals is improving, but the startup speed is still slow (the XT advertizes .2 sec.), and the lag time from button press to shutter release is still unacceptable on anything under $10,000, and barely acceptable then. And nothing you're actually going to display your digital pictures on in a home/home office really cares about megapixels after a certain point. The law of diminishing returns sets in about 4; 5 is a perfectly acceptable resolution for sharing and printing 3x5 color glossies; my eye loses sight of any gains at all in terms of both sharpness and color somewhere between 6.1 & 7 unless you're making enlargements.

So what you're paying for in low end "prosumer" cameras is the benefits of SLR: interchangable lenses; the option of manual zoom, focus, shutter; shutter speeds up to 1/1400, a real bulb setting; the ability to sync with an external flash; etc.

If you're not going to lay out for i.e. the EOS-1Ds Mark II, get something that fits your hand and you'll want to use.

Reply

↓↑report

I'll be the first to whole-heartedly recommend the Nikon D70 (now the D70s). Wonderful to hold, excellent photo quality, uses all Nikon lenses dating back 45 years. The D70 outfit is paired up with a high-quality 18-70mm DX lens that is not a cheap throw-in by any means -- it's actually quite a capable and very good quality multi-purpose / walkaround lens, and with the kit you can get quite a deal these days.

Although the sensor is not the 4:3 that everyone is touting these days, and the pixels are crammed a bit tighter on the smaller CCD, it has continuously outperformed most other cameras (check the April issue of the British Journal of Photography for a very, very detailed comparision)

Nikon's flash system is one of the best out there -- you can even use the onboard flash as a commander for a remote flash (SB-800).

As mentioned by Jay, don't get caught up in the megapixels.

Anywho, I'm just an amateur but am blown away by the capabilities of this camera at a very reasonable price.

Reply

↓↑report

I would most heartily recommend a Canon 20d. Its handling of color and light is impressive, while also very easy to use and is compatible with the whole range of Canon lenses (try the image stabilization lens, they are fantastic).

Almost all of the photos on my blog are taken with this camera.

Bryan William Jones
Jonesblog

Reply

↓↑report

I have a D70 and i love it but on your budget i'd say get a D50 insted, cheaper and just as good image quality

Reply

↓↑report

You are comparing a Still SLR camera to an HD digital video camera.

I have both. I would vote for the still camera.

When shooting Still for 4 hours, you could wind up with 400 8+meg RAW images. ... That is a lot of work to edit and present. ...

If you were shooting 4 hours of HD, or even LowDef, video, you would wind up with more data than your hard drive could deal with, once you have it, you need to edit it. ...

It takes much more time to produce an edited video, than it takes to produce edited still photos. I can do both, and I do create both types of media.

Now what do you do with your edited results? ...

If it is still images, you can easily email the complete set to some one, sure it would take time if you were using the full res images, but you could do it. You could print to paper, high resolution pictures. In short, you could easily distribute your results in many formats, including DVDs and Video CDs. With good cameras, you could even create high resolution time-lapse videos of things that happen slowly, like a flower opening. From iPhoto you could publish directly to the web, or even a book.

If it is a video, you could produce something for television, create DVDs or Video CDs for family and friends. You could create real-time movies, stop action. ... You could not print high resoloution images.
To distribute over the web, you would need to insure a format for the most of your visitors, although QuickTime is great, your viewers are limited in numbers, the same is true for windows media, or real media.

So, for me, ease of instant creation, time to produce final results, higher quality of distributed results, all lead me to choose a very good still camera first.

Reply

↓↑report

I too vote for the Canon EOD 350D (Rebel in the US I think). Almost perfect and a much better balance when hand holding than the Nikons which I personally found too heavy.

But you said 'Mac' friendly. I installed the complete Canon software package onto my Mac running Tiger and they have been completely unable to actually recognise the camera! Just doesn't see it. But trusty old Image Capture knew exactly what it was an worked perfectly. Oh yes - trying to get support from Canon is worse than trying to get support from Symantec. I other words - a waste of time and dangerous to blood pressure. Great camera though. I almost like it as much as my old Contax...

Reply

↓↑report

as the former owner of a digital rebel (300d), and the current owner of a 10d, I think you would be pleased with either a used 10d, or a 20d (very nice camera).

Reply

↓↑report

I bought a Canon Digital Rebel in February, right before they updated it. I love it. I just have 3 tips:

1) 90% of a picture is the lens.

2) Don't buy features you don't need. I looked long and hard at the Canon 20D. I have no doubt that it is a better camera than the Rebel I bought, but the significant price difference was for Pro-level features I don't need. I spent some of the price difference on better & bigger memory cards & readers and a nice Samsonite "world-proof" camera bag.

3) Don't pay retail, but don't get screwed. Check for deals via froogle and cnet or wherever, and then cross reference with resellerratings.com. I got a great deal on my Rebel (about half of retail price) but I got burned on my first purchase attempt. The second go-round I checked that site and found out that my first vendor had a horrible rating. I picked a vendor with a slightly higher price but a better rating and everything went real slick. (By the way - I used Beach Camera and can't recommend them highly enough.)

Enjoy!

Reply

↓↑report

I've had a D70 since last fall. It's my first SLR and I've had a blast with it. Lots of macros, some astro-photography. The Canon 20D has better low light noise performance from what I've read...at a higher cost of course. If you already have Canon or Nikon lenses (or have friends/relatives you can mooch from) then let that be your guide, both companies make good cameras.

I've written a number of articles for using the D70 for Macro work.
Macros w/diopters:
http://thehowzone.com/how/D70-Macro-Photography

Macros w/reversed lenses (even closer):
http://thehowzone.com/how/Micro-Photos

The articles apply to an equally equipped Canon setup as well.

All that said, you can get pretty good macros without opting for an SLR:
http://thehowzone.com/how/PS-Macros

The Canon A70 (and most likely A80's and others) comes with free capture software (you pay an extra hundred bucks for Nikons) that does a pretty good job of doing remote capture and is ideal for time lapse photos.

Reply

↓↑report

As was already mentioned, dpreview is a great review site. Here are three other good ones

http://dcresource.com/
http://imaging-resource.com/
http://www.steves-digicams.com/

Each have their strong points. I like the comments in dcresource, the "Dave's Picks" in imaging-resource, and the sample photos in steves-digicams.

Reply

↓↑report

I had the Canon Digital Rebel (EOS 300D) for a year and decided to "upgrade" to Canon Digital Rebel XT (EOS 350D). I thought that the Digi Rebel first gen could not be beat. Hah! Little did I know... I am surprised the EOS 350D didn't make the list. Maybe 'cause it's too new?...

Some reviews:
� http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xt-review/index.shtml
� http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/
� http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/review/35/page_1.html

Reply

↓↑report

This is not an easy decision to make at first glance. However, after having worked for quite some time in the Digital Imaging department of a "high-end" Best Buy retail store (and ownder of my own DSLR) I will provide you with as much information as I can.

For starters someone mentioned earlier that 90% of the picture is the lens. This is true in that the lens plays a large portion of image quality (as well as the type of image you will be composing) and so to that end you need to look at what you already have. Canon's Rebel XT (350D) and 20D both offer backwards compatibility with *most* Canon lenses. Nikon's pro-sumer DSLR cameras (D50, D70, D70s, and D100) have a body that is built completely around the Nikon "F" lens mount. In other words Nikon's DSLR cameras are 100% backwards compatible.
Take-home point #1 - Go with the brand for which you already have lenses; this will save you money in the long run.

While the 20D is a nice camera, its *main* feature is its speed of shooting in burst mode. Based on what you wrote this does not seem to be an important factor for you. The type of photography you mentioned (primarily macro) will be more based around shot composition, not the speed of firing the shot off (as in action photography).
Take-home point #2 - Don't buy more camera than you need, i.e. the D70/D70s and D50 or the Rebel XT (350D) are plenty.

Those two being said, if you still don't know where to go, there is some more information to take into consideration. If you do not have *any* lenses whatsoever, then you should consider buying the kit for whichever camera you get. The D70/D70s kit comes with an amazing Nikkor lens. It is a DX 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S lens. That lens sells from B&H for about $350 at the time of my last check. It has a wonderful range and the AF-S features make focusing an amazingly simple/quick/silent task. If the body and lens were purchased separately it would set you back around $1,400. The Rebel XT (350D) / 20D come with the same Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Autofocus lens. On B&H this lens sells for around $100; if you purchased the body and lens separately it would not save you any money.
Take-home point #3 - If you have no lenses, the D70/D70s is an obvious winner because of the money you will save by purchasing the kit.

There are some other differences you could take into consideration and I suggest the same thing as someone did above and that is to visit www.dpreview.com; it has the most in-depth and accrate reviews I have ever read.

Also, if you decide to go with the D70/D70s, I recommend getting the D70 from Best Buy and purchasing their four year service plan. The D70 and D70s have almost no differences in the hardware whatsoever (excepting .2" difference on the LCD screen). There are some software differences that make the D70s outperform the D70, but Nikon has already announced that the D70 will receive a firmware upgrade to make it perform *exactly* as the D70s.
There are two take-home points for this one.
4. The D70 has been out for almost 1.5 years and in that time the only issue that needed improving upon (besides a few *minor* software bugs in the beginning) was the size of the screen. That means the D70 is doing very well and is an excellent camera.
5. Because Nikon is releasing a firmware upgrade for the D70, it is obvious to you that Nikon is still taking care of it's customers even after releasing another product iteration 1.5 years later. (nothing of the sort from Canon for improving the Rebel (300D).

I want to take some time now to point out some inaccuracies in the comments. First of all writer "Jay" wrote that the DSLRs max shutter speed is something like 1/1400s. That is completely wrong. The Rebel XT (350D) tops out at 1/4000s while the D70/D70s and 20D both go up to 1/8000s.

Secondly, the sensor in the 20D / Rebel XT (350D) has a dimension of 22.5mm X 15.0mm and the D70/D70s has a dimension of 23.7mm X 15.5mm, this does not seem important, but it if you look a the individual sensors it is a *noticeable* difference in size. Writer Rums stated that the D70 has smaller pixels crammed onto the sensor. This is not true, it has a larger physical size than the Rebel XT (350D) / 20D and it also has fewer pixels on the sensor itself. This means that the D70 has significantly less crowding than the two models from Canon. Finally the D70/D70s and the Rebel XT (350D) / 20D *both* have a sensor with a 3:2 aspect ratio, so there is no difference there.

Finally, a word about megapixels. As you know all images have a horizontal pixel count and a vertical pixel count. That being said, if you want to double the *physical* resolution (size) of a printed picture, you have to QUADRUPLE the megapixel count (i.e. the total number of pixels). What this means to you is that the difference between the 6mp sensor in the Nikons and the 8mp sensors in the Canons will only increase your *physical* resolution (size) by about 33%. In other words, if you print a 6mp picture at 4"x6", you could expect the same quality from an 8mp sensor on a ~5"x7". If that is a big difference to you, than by all means get an 8mp sensor (Rebel XT (350D) / 20D); if it is not however, then go with the 6mp sensor (D70/D70s). Keep in mind, also, that the sensor photo detectors are more crowded (and therefore smaller) on the 8mp sensor, which is by itself physically smaller than the 6mp sensor.

I really don't know if I just made the situation way more complicated than it needed to be; but this is what I try to get customers to understand when they purchase their own pro-sumer camera. What it all boils down to, though, is preference. Anybody or any website can throw numbers and statistics or facts all around but what needs to happen is you just need to pick up and hold the cameras. See how they feel to you, see how the controls work. Play with the settings, does one camera's controls seem more or less intuitive to you. Also how does the camera itself feel in your hands; try it with different lenses, get comfortable holding the camera and/or wearing it around your neck.

Longest post I have ever written....
-Aron

PS, I hope this helped, feel free to e-mail me if you have other questions or whatever. I'd also love to know which camera you end up getting and why.

PPS, Check out www.pbase.org for a lot of photo sites. You can do a search by camera model and see a lot of examples of shots by a specific camera. This is very useful as you cannot take a camera from its shop and take pictures of whatever. You will probably find some macro shots with each camera/lens and that will be good to see examples!

Final note, whatever you do, have fun!

Reply

↓↑report

If you are serious about macro photography, there's nothing that can compare to a dedicated macro lens. They have the flat field and sharpness that a diopter or extension tube setup just can't match. You can save some money mounting a Canon 500D or Nikon 6T diopter, but you're only going to exaggerate the inherent failings of your chosen lens.

I have a Canon 350D (Rebel XT) and a Canon 100/2.8 macro. $800 for the body, $450 for the lens. This is just about the cheapest setup you can get, except maybe a 300D for a little cheaper. Going with Nikon will be a little more pricey due to the premium you pay for the D70, unless you wait for the D50.

Both Canon and Nikon are great systems. Canon has better telephoto offerings and arguably lower ISO noise. Nikon has backward compatibility with their old MF lenses, and better ergonomics, some say. They also have a better reputation for macro, but honestly all of the lenses (including Tamron's 90/2.8) are so good that nobody will be able to tell the difference.

As everyone else says, ingore megapixels. 4+ is good enough.

I highly recommend my setup for cheap macro photography. You can even skip a macro flash for a while, as the 350D's flash doesn't get shaded by the long-barreled 100/2.8. You WILL need flash for macro, especially stop-motion.

If you're really serious, you'll need a MR-14EX or MT-24EX as well. Tack on another $450-$650 in that case.

You can save a little cash going with a Sigma 105/2.8 macro lens instead of the Canon, but it doesn't have the nice autofocus motor of the Canon, which makes it less useful as a non-macro lens (and the 100/2.8 is a NICE lens for non-macro shooting).

As for Mac software support, just ignore the bundled software unless you want to shoot RAW. Use Photoshop. Both Nikon Capture and Canon DPP pale in comparison to Photoshop for post-processesing.

Suck it up, cause if your heart is set on a SLR it's not going to be cheap. My setup is $1250 if you can get the body for $800 (check Dell, but be prepared to be jerked around). You could knock $100 more off that going with the Sigma 105/2.8, or $200 more going with the 50/2.8 macro (with a shorter working distance). You could even buy a Vivitar 100/3.5 for $150 for cheap macro, but it has poor AF, and needs a diopter to get to 1:1 macro.

Budget $1500. And don't be surprised if you get Lens Fever. I'm out about $1600 so far just for my glass collection. :)

Reply

↓↑report

The Canon and Nikon dSLRs are undoubtedly good cameras and have the advantage that (I would guess) 90% of the prosumer review-reading crowd is using--or wants to use--one or the other. But if you're attracted to the road less taken, check out the Pentax *ist D. Here's an overview:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax-istd.shtml

I'm a totally unbiased source, since I've never used any of these cameras.

Reply

↓↑report

Any users of the Sony DSC-F828?

Reply

↓↑report