Upgrading To Digital

[Jtsgal829]

10 years? heavy use? washed out dull looking photos?

Replace the light seals.

Good DLSRs are many!

Olympus E3
Pentax K20D
Nikon D90, D700, D3
Canon EOS 1DsMIII, 1DMIII, 5DMII
Sony A900
Panasonic Lumx G1 <--- Me likes!
etc. etc.

thank you .. someone else suggested the light seals.. !!!!!!!!!!!!!
and great suggestions on the cameras!! much appreciated!

 

[Jtsgal829]

Sarcasm?

I didn't mean any mal-intent in my message. The questions were genuine.

Lots of film photographers do (and always have) gotten STUNNING results with film, so it's not like film is fundamentally incapable of doing this. I also know that there are differences in the two mediums that you need to be aware of, but amazing results can be had in both, so... logically, based upon your criteria, the move to film isn't necessarily what you need...

...unless you have previously un-commented on criteria.

I've never really thought this through, but the criteria for digital would likely be along the lines of...

- I want more immediate control over my processing (though a negative scanner would alleviate this)
- I want to see instant results.
- I rarely print, and more frequently do the on-line thing.
- I wanna take nudie pics of my girlfriend and don't want the development lab to see them.



You sounded like you were saying this:

1. "I've been taking great pictures for years!"
2. "Hm, suddenly my pictures are less great..."
3. "I know, I need to switch to digital!"




No, you came to the right place, except that IMO you're being deeply oversensitive. If you're getting offended by me you're in for some real surprises when a certain few other personalities get wound up. I was genuinely trying to help.

I was merely questioning your diagnostic process.

Sounds like you may have had some criteria you weren't mentioning, which is fine.

sorry if there was a misunderstanding there. I would have included more in my first post but i felt like i was already going on too much as it is..

 

[Jtsgal829]

just curious.. what is it that everyone exactly dislikes about the Rebel series??? I know ive had nothing but good experiences with my film Rebel...is the digital that terrible? or is it the entire series as a whole both film and digital?? I've heard good reviews from others, but maybe i'm missing something?
thnx for all the opinions..
i wish i had more money to invest into a better quality camera..but it's probably not going to happen anytime soon..

 

[Bifurcator]

That was just me being a butthead. I STRONGLY believe that there should be no such thing as an "entry level model" and think it's a bunch of marketing hooey designed only to sell more cameras. I could understand different form factors like: LF, MF, Pro dSLR, Consumer dSLR, Bridge, and Point&Shoot pocket camera - but when Nikon and Canon (only they do this!) split the line into 5 or 6 different models with various levels of stripped out features it's pretty weak!

We either want a dSLR or we don't. And if so we either need a rugged "Pro" body or we don't. Stripping out features and cheapening up the body materials and parts to the point of lameness is nothing more than a rip-off.

That's my opinion anyway and I'm not asking anyone to agree with me... It's just me. But I get to base my suggestions at least partially, on that thinking. That's all. So I hate hate the D50 (maybe the D60) and Canon's "entry level" rip-off offering.

IMHO the D3 should sell for about $1K and the D700 should be about $800 and they shouldn't even have other dSLR models unless that want to offer a D3/D700 camera with a smaller sensor for the specific intended purpose of taking advantage of crop factors or something.

The "We'll sell you a camera at normal prices with no AF motor and a stripped down feature set just so we can charge more for the complete deal" thing sucks massive nuggets IMHO.

How stripped the new Rebel is I don't actually know yet. I'm basing it on the D50/D60 from Nikon and assuming that Canon is pulling the same BS.

 

[tsaraleksi]

The Rebel is of course not as much in the performance department as the 1 series cameras (or the 50D) but if you aren't a professional shooter, you really will not go wrong with a Rebel. They are not hobbled like the D40/60 (the D50 is not focus-gimped).

 

[manaheim]

I generally agree with you, Bi, but I actually do like the D80/D90 level. The idea of "ok, some people need and want a transitional camera, and they probably want it a LITTLE less expensive as well" makes sense to me. Getting below that level I think they start cutting WAY too deep... no focus motor, 3 focus points, etc. Stupid.

I, again, don't begrudge anyone the choice of a D40 or D60 if they really want the camera and feel its simply all they can afford, but if people have the option to save a little longer or just spend a bit more, I personally think it's crazy to get such a hobbled camera.

 

[ruaslacker2]

Says you. nya nya! Where's your images? Show us your stuff bro? Nothing posted so far? Here's another saying I guess you know it: Money talks and BS walks...

Oh, but I have posted pic's here :greenpbl: , and I know a lot of saying's. Money talks and BS walks... you having to spend alot of money on shoes

 

[Jtsgal829]

Thank you for all the opinions. i don't shoot professionally... it's just for my own enjoyment..
alot of the time friends and family ask me to shoot parties or events for them...but then again.. they don't really notice any faults in my shots the way i do and i don't get paid..lol. But that doesn't mean i want less quality just because it's not something i do for a living. I truly enjoy photography.

i think everyone's opinion has def. help point me in the right direction!!!!