I've got the research for My First DSLR down to two contenders: the Nikon D40, and the Pentax K100D. I'd like to hear some opinions from people who have either one of these bodies (and, probably, the kit lens as well.) I've read quite a bit already but not much from people comparing these two.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Thanks to fellow local flickrite Paul, I was able to take a test drive of his Nikon D50 setup starting today. So I did what I usually do on Sundays: I went into the city to snap photos. (There are some now up on the flickr device.) Here are my first-day thoughts:

• It's conspicuous. Something I'd grown accustomed to with the A80 and the S2 IS (even though it's relatively bulky) was being able to take shots without really being noticed. That's simply not possible with the D50, because like any DSLR it's big.
• High speed ISO is no problem. Hallelujah! 400, 800, 1600 no sweat. I even inadvertently took a few shots out in daylight at 1600... came out fine (grainy, of course.)
• DSLR photography is way different than regular ol' digital photography. I know that the end results can be similar if not identical, but it's a very different and more formal feeling I had out and about today. I thought more about composition, and of course shutter and aperture, before shooting.
• I miss the long zoom. I had a rough time getting accustomed to the D50's lens, which is the kit lens: 18-55mm. It's a fine lens don't get me wrong, but when you're used to 12x zoom... my oh my. I guess I'll feel the same about the A80's lens. Definitely would need to get a long zoom lens, or something that can handle something in the ballpark of the S2's 36-432mm (equivalent - good golly!)
• The photos were beautiful. Out of the 200+ I shot today, lots were just blown out and crappy. But the depth of field, oh my. I've really missed taking shots like this.
• Controls are a little awkward, but not bad. I found adjusting the aperture to be a little more difficult than it ought to be, but then it's no match for cameras where it's buried in menus - that just blows.
• My eye hurt. After a while I had a hard time keeping one eye closed whilst using the viewfinder. I sometimes shoot with both eyes open, but not normally.

All in all, I'm feeling spoiled right now. Going back to a non-DSLR for what might be a little while (lenses cost money) is going to be a trade off, but, not the worst thing ever.

One fun thing happened today while I was shooting near the Wrigley Building. I was composing a shot when two girls, probably 15 or so, walked by.

"Hey, are you a photographer?!"
"Yes," I said, still looking through the viewfinder.
"Do you do that for a living?"
"Not yet!"
"Keep at it, you'll get there!"

I thought that was sweet.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

So I'm starting to percolate here, thinking about what my next camera will be. As some of you may know, I currently only have one: a Canon PowerShot A80 that has generally kicked butt for me for the past few years. I actually sold off my two film cameras (one automatic, one manual) in order to get it. I don't regret that decision but, a part of me kind of wishes I'd kept at least the ME Super.

A80, 2004-?

In any case, the next camera is on my mind. I've already put together a list of the pros and cons of the A80 and, surprisingly, the cons list is not long but the cons are kinda big.

The Cons

By far the biggest complaint I have about it is the lack of zoom; it does 3x optical and I won't use digital zoom, which means that it kinda isn't that great at zooming. Bulk is another issue but it's one I'm starting to accept. When I bought it, Jeani was surprised at how big it was. After my ol' Olympus 1.3 megapixel (my first "modern era" digicam - check that big thing out below) she expected me to go with something much smaller. The A80 is still smaller than the olde camera, but not by a lot.

Olympus D-450, 2001-2004

Little cameras are interesting to me, and most digital cameras - point and shoots - are either really damn small or fairly bulky. The A80's successors are a bit smaller than the A80 but not by large amounts. I'm also now fairly comfortable with its size. It's not like toting around a DSLR; I can throw it in my bag but not my pocket and that's mostly okay. So while the A80 is bulky compared to a teeny tiny PowerShot, it's not bad.

The A80's cons continue: it's not great in low light, but I'm finding that a lot of little digicams are this way. I strongly prefer not to use a flash unless absolutely necessary - it's a snobby habit of mine - and sometimes this means I lose a shot because of a lack of light. The image sensor is small like in every other point-and-shoot, which means that in order to get some "classic" depth of field I'd need to edit digitally. Not a fan of that. Finally, 4MP is good but not great. I know that I don't need a 10MP monster unless I'm doing a DSLR, and would be fine with 5-7MP.

The Pros

There are a lot of things I still like about the A80. It pretty much does what I want it to do, and that's great. When I shared my published photos with my boss, he said "So you've got a high-end setup to take those, right?" and I don't. I've received comments that my flickr photos are above and beyond what people expect out of an A80, and that's something I'm really pleased to hear. The camera also runs on AA batteries which is really nice, as I'd rather not have to get a proprietary battery. (This pretty much knocks tiny digicams out of the running.)

The Visitor

The swivel LCD is pretty much a "can't live without it" feature. It's killer. I always use it, love it, and would hope that my next camera would have it as well. The ability to add 52mm lenses/filters is great as well and was one of the selling points for me. I use the macro lenses EJ gave me to get awesome results. The built-in macro mode is acceptable but I'm a big macro geek and love this stuff. Note that I could purchase a 2x teleconverter lens, and effectively get 6x optical zoom with my current setup. I'm just not sure if that'd be enough for what I want to do.

So, The Contenders

I've been locked into "MUST GET DSLR" mode since a year or so ago and, as a result, I'll have fits and spurts where I end up taking no photographs because I feel so internally torn over using my current kit. (This is a flaw of mine, and I'm currently in a dry spell with photographs but I can pin that on moving instead.) DSLRs are really nice, of course, and you already know why.

If I go the DSLR route the choices are numerous. The Digital Rebel XT is the pseudo-default choice but, really, I'd be considering the Pentax *ist line as well. My dad had a Pentax film camera, I had two Pentax cameras, and I generally like them. And I can't rule out a look at the Nikon D50, since I'm not truly bonded to one brand - although I certainly like Canon.

PowerShot S2 IS

The interesting twist is that I'm seriously considering a non DSLR - in particular, the Canon PowerShot S2 IS. Yes, it's actually bigger than the A80 - that isn't lost on me. But it's got a 12x zoom, a great movie mode (something I have used about thrice on the A80 but enjoyed), and the swivel LCD I enjoy. The S3 IS is something under consideration too but, the new features aren't worth the extra money to me. If they were priced exactly the same, I'd go for the S3 of course.

The S2 isn't great in low light, though - perhaps better than the A80 and probably not as good as a DSLR. The big advantage that the S2 has over a DSLR kit is, naturally, price. I'm still very much mulling over how "worth it" all of this is to me.

In other words, do I want to wait longer and plunk down $600+ on a starter DSLR kit, wait just a matter of weeks and get an S2 IS, or say "screw it all!" and get a film SLR?

This is where I'm at now. I'm leaning strongest towards the S2 IS at this moment, but a nice *ist isn't lost on me - and the cost difference isn't that great.

Tomorrow, Can I Still Read a JPEG?

I'm a little concerned about the future though; film still has more permanence than digital. All 12000+ photos I've shot with my last two cameras have the potential to be junk if the JPEG format is rendered obsolete in 25, 50, 75 years. That is a big tradeoff! I mean, if we have kids someday, I'd like them to be able to see what I've done.

With film, getting in to a body and lens is a lot cheaper particularly if I go for used - which I would. I can pick up an ME Super again or even a K1000 (my first real camera, passed down from my dad) for less than an S2 IS. The downsides with film are, of course, that I'd have to pay for each roll, and then get the results on the computer via a scanner (probably). So with digital, I essentially pay a "one-time" fee for the camera, memory card and battery; with film, I pay per use.

The thoughts of Ken Rockwell aren't lost on me; digital and film do have different applications. And a lot of his arguments will fall by the wayside (aside from the semi-permanence angle) in a few years when point and shoots will have 15-20MP and DSLRs will be above 30MP. Which is better for me, then? A mild digital upgrade, a big digital upgrade, or changing over to film? I'd keep the A80 in probably any case and just let it be my little beater camera.

I'd like to hear your thoughts, particularly if you struggled with the same dilemmas. Film, "prosumer" digital, DSLR... fun stuff, this.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend