Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/7/2006 6:23:11 PM EDT
The hospital (which had been telling me that I had to purchase it myself, and they would reimburse me out of my Continuing Education funds) will now shell out up to about $600 for a Digital Camera--I provide order info and they will send a Check. I wouldn't have had the $$ myself to shell out and wait a couple of weeks for reimbursement (Residents don't make that much money).

I got the Canon S100 & S110 (both 2 MP) working with new batteries.

I have been considering a Digital SLR for a while.

I have a Canon Film Camera (Elan 2e & the Wife has a Rebel) and several lenses to match.

That makes me lean towards Canon (just to save getting lenses in the near future).

For the $600 I can get:

Digital Rebel (6.3 Meg. Pix) refurbished with warranty and 18-55 lens (the lens is not as nice quality as the 28-105mm Ultrasonic lens I have for my Elan 2e, so that is a bit lesser importance).

Canon D60 (also 6.3 Meg. Pix).

Canon D10 Refurbished ( 6.3 megapix).

I could also go with Nikon via the D50 or D70 cameras.

I could also skip the SLR and go with a Large Zoom fixed lens (like the Konica/Minolta DiMage Z series).

Any thoughts?

As you will note, the cameras are some of them Refurbished, or if used, I would get them from a reputable place like KEH or B & H.

Just looking for input.

Thanks!!
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 6:35:59 PM EDT
With digital, you're going to want the latest generation as each one is significantly better than its predecessor with noise. Pay a little out of pocket and get a new Rebel XT.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:41:51 PM EDT
Long story, but your two best choices are the Canon Digital Rebel and the Nikon D70. Either one will do a great job.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:50:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:51:40 PM EDT
I love my Rebel XT.

Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:52:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 8:53:49 PM EDT by nightstalker]
Get familiar with using Unsharp Mask in post processing. Digital SLRs do not sharpen as much as the point and shoot cameras due to a filter they use that prevents moire. Many, if not most new SLR shooters will be scratching their heads wondering why their shots are "soft".

Oh, Nikon or Canon if you're really going to go into it.

Canon 20D here and a bunch of stuff.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 8:52:51 PM EDT
Canon: Go with the Rebel XT or its big brother 20D. Both are supurb cameras with the 20D having better feel. With the Rebel XT, I would get a different lense as the kit lense leaves something to be desired.

Nikon: The D50 or D70. Same senor, AF, and essentially the same image quality. IMO better build quality and ergonomic than the Canon cameras. They are also less expensive and it is argued that the D50 is the best value for your money and has better image quality initially out of the box than the Rebel XT.

Whichever you decide, Canon and Nikon are both excellent companies with neither one having a clear advantage over the other. I don't know how serious you are about photography, but spending money on good quality g;ass (which most of the time is fairly expensive). The body is not as important as long as it provides you with the feature set you need.

I have a Nikon D50. Always been a Nikon junky ever since I picked up my dad's Nikon FM. I also have 6 times the value of the camera body in lenses.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 9:13:37 PM EDT
It all depends on how much money you want to spend and how many features you want for that money.

The Digital Rebel offers 8mp for about $800.

The Nikon D50 offers 6.1mp for about $650, and is widely considered to be the best bang for the buck in the low end digital SLR market.

Review of Digital SLRs


There are two types of Digital SLR - Those with 35mm lens factor and those without. 35mm lens factor is a result of the digital image sensors on many Digital SLRs being smaller than a frame of 35mm film. Thus, a 70mm lens isnt really giving you 70mm of enhancement on a digital SLR, but rather a fraction of that based on what size sensor your particular Digital SLR has. This can be frustrating if you already own a large number of lenses for your 35mm camera, as I did. I am a part time photographer for a local newspaper, and I saved up my bucks for what is largely considered the best digital SLR for the "serious amatuer," the Canon 5D. This SLR has NO 35mm lens factor, and possesses many of the more advanced features I require. The Canon 5D did, however, cost me 3,500 dollars for just the body alone.

Let your needs determine your purchase. All sub $3,500 digital SLRs have a 35mm lens factor, requiring you to either eat the loss in enhancement or to buy new, digital specific lenses. If you can get a good deal on a Nikon D70, I would say that it is the best bang for the buck in the field of entry level digital SLRs.

HOWEVER

Fixed lens zoom cameras are notorious for offering a tremendous value on the dollar. The only real drawback to fixed lens zoom cameras is that you cannot change the lens, which may not be that big of a deal if you are always using the camera to take pictures at the same range, as you might be in a hospital. These cameras will come with all the features of a more advanced Digital SLR, but without the high price tag. If you do not need a general, do all SLR, a fixed zoom lens camera will save you a lot of money and provide excellent pictures while costing several hundred dollars less than even the low end Digital SLRs.

Here is a review of Fixed Zoom Cameras:
LINKY
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 9:20:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 20rdMag:
I love my Rebel XT.




I have the 300D, Canon is the way to go
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 9:25:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 9:27:43 PM EDT by leelaw]
I've tried oth the Canon Digitan Rebel (300) and the Rebel XT. They're both very nice.

I ended up getting the Rebel XT. Best camera I've ever owned.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 9:59:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 10:07:53 PM EDT by beavo451]

Originally Posted By GrahamD:
It all depends on how much money you want to spend and how many features you want for that money.

The Digital Rebel offers 8mp for about $800.

The Nikon D50 offers 6.1mp for about $650, and is widely considered to be the best bang for the buck in the low end digital SLR market.

Review of Digital SLRs


There are two types of Digital SLR - Those with 35mm lens factor and those without. 35mm lens factor is a result of the digital image sensors on many Digital SLRs being smaller than a frame of 35mm film. Thus, a 70mm lens isnt really giving you 70mm of enhancement on a digital SLR, but rather a fraction of that based on what size sensor your particular Digital SLR has. This can be frustrating if you already own a large number of lenses for your 35mm camera, as I did. I am a part time photographer for a local newspaper, and I saved up my bucks for what is largely considered the best digital SLR for the "serious amatuer," the Canon 5D. This SLR has NO 35mm lens factor, and possesses many of the more advanced features I require. The Canon 5D did, however, cost me 3,500 dollars for just the body alone.

Let your needs determine your purchase. All sub $3,500 digital SLRs have a 35mm lens factor, requiring you to either eat the loss in enhancement or to buy new, digital specific lenses. If you can get a good deal on a Nikon D70, I would say that it is the best bang for the buck in the field of entry level digital SLRs.




The difference in megapixel count between 6 and 8 is negligble.

What is "lens factor" and "lens enhancement"???

I think you are refering to the "crop factor" and I think you have it backwards. The lowest priced camera with a "Full Frame" (Same size as a 35mm film frame) is the Canon 5D. Nikon does not offer a full frame sensor. The smaller senors will multiply the effective focal length by about 1.5x. So a 200mm lense on a full frame senosr camera or film body will give and equivalent 300mm length. With the smaller digital senors, you are NOT required to buy digital lenses. The only real advantage to the difital lenses are smaller size and weight. You would still need to apply the 1.5x factor to the focal length. It is recommended that you get regular lenses so that you can sqitch between film and digital. Also a HUGE plus for the digital is that the senor is capturing the image created by the center of the lense, usually where the best image quality is. So, you have less image quality degradation from the center to edge as well as better edge to edge sharpness.

The link you provided with the brief synopsis of various cameras leaves something to be desired. It is generally considered that the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II has better high ISO noise control, contrary to the article. Heck even the Nikon D2HS has better low light perfromance than the D2X. Also under the Rebel XT: "But the XT isn't really a challenger to the EOS 20D." Why would Canon want to compete against itself?
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 10:02:06 PM EDT
Im a canon fan.. so naturally im biased.

i started with a70 then moved to digital rebel(300d) now im on the 20d and LOVE IT!!!!

the rebel xt's ive played with were very nice and I would not have any issues with owning one of those.


but that said.. you cant go wrong with the d70 imho... they also have the new d200 coming out.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 10:03:20 PM EDT
.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 10:25:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/7/2006 10:26:24 PM EDT by SimonPhoto]
In either system, the glass is the most expensive part. You have Canon lenses, get Canon glass. It wasn't listed, but I'd get a 10d or 20d if I could, followed by the older pro cameras, refurbished. Personally, I'd stay away from the Rebel series, but that's mainly because of the build quality and the horrible silver finish the majority of them have. Image-wise, you honestly won't be able to tell the difference between Nikon and Canon after processing.

This was taken with my D70, 50mm f/1.8, and a reversing ring -- No editting or post-processing, straigth from camera, just did a Photoshop conversion from RAW to JPEG - did not adjust color or contrast, that makes it a MUCH better image:



You can see the full resolution version HERE
The specs on it are dirt on my sensor, I hadn't yet learned to clean in when I took that shot - its not hard to do at all.
Link Posted: 2/7/2006 10:25:46 PM EDT
I love my Canon 20D. I got a Tamron 28-100mm F/3.8 lense on it. Budget lense, but very high quality. A few shots from it.

My roommate fighting himself in the apartment. (Yes the AK has no mag, they were all loaded at the time and I didn't feel like sliding all the ammo out.)



If your lense can get close up shots, the 20D will back you up. Some of these are semi-high res, so I will just link them to keep the tables nice.

Old bottle on the edge of a dam.

Ouch, this sucker cut my leg up through my pants.

A leaf.

Dart train in downtown Dallas

My friends car. I took this as full 100mm zoom, still came out pretty darn sharp.

Planters in my apartment hallway.

Apparently you can't take pictures of train tracks or underpasses without a permit...

Got this one before he saw us


I got more, but I'll stop now. I got my 20D for around $1050, not sure if that fits your budget, but it is a very nice camera. If you will be using the camera a lot, the 20D is rugged enough to handle a decent pounding. Hard frame and feels solid.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 3:18:45 AM EDT
I think your best bet is to put some extra $ of your own with their $600 and get a Rebel XT. If you think you might get into photography heavily as a hobby, fork over the extra dough and buy a 20D, but if not the XT is a very nice camera.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 3:49:17 AM EDT

And you need to take pictures for medical reasons why again?


Document wounds.

Surgical cases--possible articles with the Patient's permission (one of my attendings is after me to write up several cases that were somewhat unique).

And, finally--the Money is there for continuing ed. If I don't take it, I lose it when I finish in 3 months.

AFARR
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 3:55:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 20rdMag:
I love my Rebel XT.




+1
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 4:05:22 AM EDT
With judicious shopping you can probably find an excellent used Digital Rebel XT (350D) for ~ $600. Try the Fred Miranda Forums Buy/Sell section here I think you need to register to browse that forum.

The 350D was my first digital SLR; I had a large investment in Pentax glass, but wasn't inmpressed with the Pentax dSLR equipment, so I eventually made the move to Canon.

Current camera kit:

Canon EOS 5D w/BG-E4
Canon EOS 20D w/BG-E2
Canon EF 17-40 F4L USM
Canon EF 24-70 F2.8L USM
Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM
Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM
Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF 135mm F2.8 Softfocus
Canon EF 300mm F4L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm F5.6L USM
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG/HSM
Speedlite 580EX (2x)
Speedlite ST-E2
Sigma 1.4x & 2x EX APO Teleconverters

Bought the girlfriend a 300D with the Tamron 18-200 zoom. Then she asked for a P&S so I got her an SD550 (7.1 MP) . I'd sell the 300D (original 6.3 MP Digital Rebel) & lens for $600 if you're interested.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 4:08:27 AM EDT
While I perfer Nikon myself, if you have Canon lenses that you can use with the new body, I would go that route...

They are both good and capable of taking great shots.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 4:36:06 AM EDT
Look at the Nikon D70. Great camera.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 5:05:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2006 5:09:46 AM EDT by pv74]
I have:
20D
EF-S 10-22 F3.5-4.5
EF 24-70 L F2.8
EF 70-200L F4

The 20D is very well built, exceptional value for the price. The battery lasts forever, has a very fast shutter...a work of art...had mine for a year...I am in love

The 18-55 kit lense is not spectacular but will do fine until you can afford better glass.
Also, your old EF mount lenses will work with this camera just fine, but you have to remember, it is a 1.6 crop camera (multiply 35mm focal lenght x1.6 to get 35mm equivelant focal length).


Link Posted: 2/8/2006 5:08:07 AM EDT
REBEL XT. I bought to shot surgery specimens and its awesome. Easy to use.

If you get the right combo of coupons from Dell, you can get it real cheap. Around $700
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 5:17:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By beavo451:

Originally Posted By GrahamD:
It all depends on how much money you want to spend and how many features you want for that money.

The Digital Rebel offers 8mp for about $800.

The Nikon D50 offers 6.1mp for about $650, and is widely considered to be the best bang for the buck in the low end digital SLR market.

Review of Digital SLRs


There are two types of Digital SLR - Those with 35mm lens factor and those without. 35mm lens factor is a result of the digital image sensors on many Digital SLRs being smaller than a frame of 35mm film. Thus, a 70mm lens isnt really giving you 70mm of enhancement on a digital SLR, but rather a fraction of that based on what size sensor your particular Digital SLR has. This can be frustrating if you already own a large number of lenses for your 35mm camera, as I did. I am a part time photographer for a local newspaper, and I saved up my bucks for what is largely considered the best digital SLR for the "serious amatuer," the Canon 5D. This SLR has NO 35mm lens factor, and possesses many of the more advanced features I require. The Canon 5D did, however, cost me 3,500 dollars for just the body alone.

Let your needs determine your purchase. All sub $3,500 digital SLRs have a 35mm lens factor, requiring you to either eat the loss in enhancement or to buy new, digital specific lenses. If you can get a good deal on a Nikon D70, I would say that it is the best bang for the buck in the field of entry level digital SLRs.




The difference in megapixel count between 6 and 8 is negligble.

What is "lens factor" and "lens enhancement"???

I think you are refering to the "crop factor" and I think you have it backwards. The lowest priced camera with a "Full Frame" (Same size as a 35mm film frame) is the Canon 5D. Nikon does not offer a full frame sensor. The smaller senors will multiply the effective focal length by about 1.5x. So a 200mm lense on a full frame senosr camera or film body will give and equivalent 300mm length. With the smaller digital senors, you are NOT required to buy digital lenses. The only real advantage to the difital lenses are smaller size and weight. You would still need to apply the 1.5x factor to the focal length. It is recommended that you get regular lenses so that you can sqitch between film and digital. Also a HUGE plus for the digital is that the senor is capturing the image created by the center of the lense, usually where the best image quality is. So, you have less image quality degradation from the center to edge as well as better edge to edge sharpness.

The link you provided with the brief synopsis of various cameras leaves something to be desired. It is generally considered that the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II has better high ISO noise control, contrary to the article. Heck even the Nikon D2HS has better low light perfromance than the D2X. Also under the Rebel XT: "But the XT isn't really a challenger to the EOS 20D." Why would Canon want to compete against itself?



You are correct in the statements above. People bastardize terminology with cameras as much as with guns. However the crop factor (also called focal length multiplier) is 1.6 for the digital Rebels.

Yep, I have a 1Ds MkII and compared the noise to a D2x and found my Canon to be cleaner contrary to what some tests have indicated.


Also, if you're gonna be photographing wounds, a macro ring light would be a good idea.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 5:25:07 AM EDT
Nikon D70 or D70s..... a great review of it here http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70s.htm
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 5:31:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2006 5:34:29 AM EDT by leonUK]
I used a digital rebel before I got my hands on a 350D and thought its a pretty nice camera
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 5:34:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kamikazi:
I love my Canon 20D. I got a Tamron 28-100mm F/3.8 lense on it. Budget lense, but very high quality. A few shots from it.

My roommate fighting himself in the apartment. (Yes the AK has no mag, they were all loaded at the time and I didn't feel like sliding all the ammo out.)

www.w00th4x0r.com/photos/auberry/Mike_Fight.jpg

If your lense can get close up shots, the 20D will back you up. Some of these are semi-high res, so I will just link them to keep the tables nice.

Old bottle on the edge of a dam.

Ouch, this sucker cut my leg up through my pants.

A leaf.

Dart train in downtown Dallas

My friends car. I took this as full 100mm zoom, still came out pretty darn sharp.

Planters in my apartment hallway.

Apparently you can't take pictures of train tracks or underpasses without a permit...

Got this one before he saw us


I got more, but I'll stop now. I got my 20D for around $1050, not sure if that fits your budget, but it is a very nice camera. If you will be using the camera a lot, the 20D is rugged enough to handle a decent pounding. Hard frame and feels solid.



ooh, they are about $1400 body only here! Maybe I should buy from the states
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 5:47:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By spikentyke:
Nikon D70 or D70s..... a great review of it here http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70s.htm



Ken Rockwell is the butt of all jokes in the photography world. I would not take his writings for anything more than delusional rants. That's not to say the D70 isn't a good camera.

Regardless, everytime there's camera advice asked here, there's a lot of advice given that is nothing more than preference by ownership. The truth is, there is not that much difference between entry level DSLRs, if you already have Canon lenses, there is no good reason to go to Nikon. To the contrary, Canon's system is the best there is and one I'd recommend you invest into because there's more you can grow into (full frame DSLRs to upgrade to, more AF lenses, more lenses is image stabilization, etc..). There's a reason why 90% of pros use Canon. 15 years ago, 90% of the pros used Nikon. Dropping their huge investments and moving over to Canon isn't done without some compelling reasons.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 6:00:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By spikentyke:
Nikon D70 or D70s..... a great review of it here http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70s.htm



Ken Rockwell is the butt of all jokes in the photography world. I would not take his writings for anything more than delusional rants. That's not to say the D70 isn't a good camera.

Regardless, everytime there's camera advice asked here, there's a lot of advice given that is nothing more than preference by ownership. The truth is, there is not that much difference between entry level DSLRs, if you already have Canon lenses, there is no good reason to go to Nikon. To the contrary, Canon's system is the best there is and one I'd recommend you invest into because there's more you can grow into (full frame DSLRs to upgrade to, more AF lenses, more lenses is image stabilization, etc..). There's a reason why 90% of pros use Canon. 15 years ago, 90% of the pros used Nikon. Dropping their huge investments and moving over to Canon isn't done without some compelling reasons.



With Nikon's recent releases such as the D2X (relatively recent) and the D200, it seems that the market is slowly shifting back to Nikon. Hopefully the trend will continue and it will balance out to 50/50 so we won't have such bitterness and bickering between photographers over something so trivial as "my camera is better (bigger) than yours".

Canon: Low-light performance, speed, larger selection of lenses, better image qaulity and resolution.

Nikon: Better flash control system, more rugged bodies, optically better lenses, and generally more ergonomic.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 6:07:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By beavo451:

Originally Posted By DukeSnookems:

Originally Posted By spikentyke:
Nikon D70 or D70s..... a great review of it here http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70s.htm



Ken Rockwell is the butt of all jokes in the photography world. I would not take his writings for anything more than delusional rants. That's not to say the D70 isn't a good camera.

Regardless, everytime there's camera advice asked here, there's a lot of advice given that is nothing more than preference by ownership. The truth is, there is not that much difference between entry level DSLRs, if you already have Canon lenses, there is no good reason to go to Nikon. To the contrary, Canon's system is the best there is and one I'd recommend you invest into because there's more you can grow into (full frame DSLRs to upgrade to, more AF lenses, more lenses is image stabilization, etc..). There's a reason why 90% of pros use Canon. 15 years ago, 90% of the pros used Nikon. Dropping their huge investments and moving over to Canon isn't done without some compelling reasons.



With Nikon's recent releases such as the D2X (relatively recent) and the D200, it seems that the market is slowly shifting back to Nikon. Hopefully the trend will continue and it will balance out to 50/50 so we won't have such bitterness and bickering between photographers over something so trivial as "my camera is better (bigger) than yours".

Canon: Low-light performance, speed, larger selection of lenses, better image qaulity and resolution.

Nikon: Better flash control system, more rugged bodies, optically better lenses, and generally more ergonomic.



I agree, I'd like to see more competition. I wouldn't rank Nikon's bodies to be more rugged than Canon's 1 series though (and PJs in Iraq have said the same) but Canon's ergonomics and user interface is crap.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 8:49:09 AM EDT
The Canon 1 series is a class of its own, the EOS1D is a $7,000 full frame CMOS camera, body only.
The 5D (full frame) and the D2X and D2H (DX format CMOS)are in the $4,000 range, the "pro" camera.
The D200 and the 20D is at around $1600 to $2000 range, consider to be high prosummer, entry level professional camera., body only.
Then there is the D70S and Rebel, the entry prosummer DSLR, at around $700, body only

All the above are priced out of the initial poster's range, which is around $600

The D50 is what Nikon called an entry DSLR, at around $700 for a kit, which includes a Nikkor Zoom lens (18-70mm). It uses SD card instead of the the standard SF card the other DSLR uses. Another good value that most Nikon and Canon users misses are the Olympus E series DSLR, they are currently #3, compared to Canon (#1) and Nikon (#2). Olympus have quite a few features standard, whereas they are either options or only exist in the more expensive models of both Nikon and Canon, like switches instead of menu, and a sensor dust wiper.

I think if the initial posters starts out with either one (Nikon, Canon, or Olympus), he will not go wrong. Stay away from the Konica/Minota DSLR, they just announced they are shutting down their camera division. The main thing about DSLR is to learn the camera system, and use it to the camera's potential. It will be interesting to see in a year or so when Sony enters the DSLR market, how far the price of the low end DSLR will drop.

For me, I am a Nikon man, I have a F3 (Film), D70, and a D200 on order. I is what they call a semi pro, where paid work and personnel photography is 50/50.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 9:24:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidC:
With judicious shopping you can probably find an excellent used Digital Rebel XT (350D) for ~ $600. Try the Fred Miranda Forums Buy/Sell section here I think you need to register to browse that forum.

The 350D was my first digital SLR; I had a large investment in Pentax glass, but wasn't inmpressed with the Pentax dSLR equipment, so I eventually made the move to Canon.

Current camera kit:

Canon EOS 5D w/BG-E4
Canon EOS 20D w/BG-E2
Canon EF 17-40 F4L USM
Canon EF 24-70 F2.8L USM
Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM
Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM
Canon EF 100mm F2.8 Macro USM
Canon EF 135mm F2.8 Softfocus
Canon EF 300mm F4L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm F5.6L USM
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG/HSM
Speedlite 580EX (2x)
Speedlite ST-E2
Sigma 1.4x & 2x EX APO Teleconverters

Bought the girlfriend a 300D with the Tamron 18-200 zoom. Then she asked for a P&S so I got her an SD550 (7.1 MP) . I'd sell the 300D (original 6.3 MP Digital Rebel) & lens for $600 if you're interested.



How do you like the 17-40L?
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 10:09:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Penguin_101:

How do you like the 17-40L?



I like it quite a bit. I actually traded my 10-22 EFS for it when I got the 5D body. I find that the color saturation seems better with the 17-40 than the 10-22, but of course I'm comapring the 5D sensor to the 350D (I traded the 350D in on the 20D so I never used the 20D with the EFS wide angle).

Take a look at the larger version of this image, found here (it's 7 MB) and note the edge to edge sharpness of detail. It was shot with the 17-40 on the 5D body, handheld, with a 1/4 second exposure wide open (F4 17mm), ISO 400

Link Posted: 2/8/2006 10:46:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DavidC:

Originally Posted By Penguin_101:

How do you like the 17-40L?



I like it quite a bit. I actually traded my 10-22 EFS for it when I got the 5D body. I find that the color saturation seems better with the 17-40 than the 10-22, but of course I'm comapring the 5D sensor to the 350D (I traded the 350D in on the 20D so I never used the 20D with the EFS wide angle).

Take a look at the larger version of this image, found here (it's 7 MB) and note the edge to edge sharpness of detail. It was shot with the 17-40 on the 5D body, handheld, with a 1/4 second exposure wide open (F4 17mm), ISO 400

www.supercharger.net/pictures/cockpit_small.jpg



Wow - I now have to get one.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 11:17:27 AM EDT
Canon.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 11:30:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Penguin_101:
How do you like the 17-40L?



I love mine. No vignetting or distortion with my 5D.

Link Posted: 2/8/2006 11:40:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/8/2006 11:41:55 AM EDT by beavo451]
Originally Posted By leungken:

The D50 is what Nikon called an entry DSLR, at around $700 for a kit, which includes a Nikkor Zoom lens (18-70mm).

It will be interesting to see in a year or so when Sony enters the DSLR market, how far the price of the low end DSLR will drop.


The D50 kit lense is the 18-55mm. The 18-70 is the kit lense for the D70, D70s, and D200. I doubt Sony's entrance into the entry DSLR market is going to drop the price significantly. Sony really isn't known to be cheap and probably be priced a little higher than the D50.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 7:28:07 PM EDT
Should add another possible:

Canon Powershot Pro 1.

Falls into the price range.

Cannot change lenses, but looks to be a high quality setup (28-200mm equivalent).

Any thoughts?
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 7:43:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By AFARR:
Should add another possible:

Canon Powershot Pro 1.

Falls into the price range.

Cannot change lenses, but looks to be a high quality setup (28-200mm equivalent).

Any thoughts?



The Pro 1 is a dog, sold mine. Slow AF, PowerZoom was a nightmare. The latest Sony EVF digicam is a nice one though.
Link Posted: 2/8/2006 7:50:39 PM EDT


Here's a link to medical cameras,etc; check out their reviews.

Haven't looked at their stuff since residency. Their flashes used to be the best for close up medical work. Now? Who knows.

Link to Dine


Link Posted: 2/8/2006 8:35:47 PM EDT
I have a Canon Rebel XT... great camera. If you plan on doing any close up work, you might consider a ring light too. But I would imagine you'd have some decent like in a hospital setting to begin with, so it might not be needed. I used my XT for my forensics photography class and it worked out great for that.

-d
Link Posted: 2/21/2006 7:45:20 AM EDT
tag
Top Top