Foo - @ Forum Photographers

I am planning on stepping up to a big boy camera and purchase and SLR sometime this summer before vacation to the Grand Canyon. Im looking for an entry level SLR thats at the $1,000.00(US) mark. The first camera I have demoed is the Cannon Rebel XTI and (thankfully I had no money on me at the time or I would have impulse bought it) I like it. However some of you have way more expense than I. Any recommendations?

I got the XTi myself.

While it's but a high consumer model, not a prosumer or professional model, it does very, very well. I got mine body-only from BH Photo (http://bhphotovideo.com). I got two lenses used, and in perfect condition from some users at photography-on-the.net. The lenses I got are the Sigma 17-70 and Sigma 70-300 APO. I really like them both. I also picked up a 50mm 1.8 from a local shop. That's one of my favorite lenses!

Radio Shack has specials on memory every week or so. This week, in my town, it's micro SD cards. Last month, there was a special on compactflash cards and I got a Sandisk Ultra II 2GB for $35 (a steal!). Newegg.com also has good deals on memory.

Personally, I like the Canon line more than the other ones out there, but try 'em all out. Your mileage will certainly vary.

Also, I'd get it soonish and get familiar with it before you go to the Grand Canyon.

Thanks so much for those links http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/60.gif much cheaper then the local Photography shops!

Do you photographers use all those features on the newer SLRs? I have a completely mechanical 1973 Canon that has a shutter speed setting under the film advance lever, and an aperture setting on the lens. Take a hand held light meter and I figure that is all you need.

But I don't take lots of pictures.

We bought our first DSLR about a year ago. I have a bunch of film cameras (even a Bronica medium format setup), and a bunch of half-decent k-mount (fits Pentax) lenses.

We looked at a few different options:

Pentax K100D: Very compact, in-camera image stabilization, ability to use my old film lenses (with reduced features)

Canon Rebel something-or-other: Nice enough, but felt light and "plastic-y" to me; YMMV.

Olympus Evolt (can't remember model number): Nice enough, has a built-in sensor cleaner, nice LCD screen (not so important; in most SLRs you can't compose your image with the LCD like a P&S camera).

Nikon D50: Nice features, intuitive controls, robust, felt beefy, like a 'real' camera.

All the cameras had similar features and prices, but the Nikon just feflt right in my hands. We just have the 18-70 kit lens right now (it's OK, but only OK). Eventually, we'll spring for the Nikon AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G DX VR Zoom Lens, and this'll be a decent do-it-all lens that should last us for a few camera body upgrades.

Head to some camera shops and get your hands on some DSLRs. Most entry-level camera bodies have similar features and price points, so you just need to figure out which one is right for you. $1000 will get you slightly better than entry-level stuff, so I'd suggest an entry-level camera body with an upgraded lens. Cameras are like computers; there will always be something better and cheaper a few months down the road, but a good lens will always be a good lens. Start with a basic camera and a nice lens, then upgrade the camera body sometime down the road when you need more/better features.

I'm actually going for a Nikon D40. Won't be able to purchase it yet... well if I cash more bonds I could. But I found the d40 body for 260.00, of course it comes with nothing. But from what I've read and heard it seems to be a nice entry level slr. Compact, 16 ounces, 6.1 MP.

XTI is a great camera, personally i prefer canon but some prefer Nikon, as long as you go either route you should be grand...don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, etc... all make great systems. It's just a matter of personal preferences and biases. Since I decided, years ago, to go the Canon route, my opinions will be biased in that direction. That being said, I think the Rebel XTi would be a great choice for a starter camera. The XTi is one of Canon's newest cameras and employs some of their newest technologies (i.e. self-cleaning ultrasonic sensor, Digic II processor, and all that other marketing stuff...). More can be found here (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14256).

You can also find a detailed write-up on it at dpreview here (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/). But, remember, this is just one site's review and I'm sure you'll find others' reviews which may or may not agree. I'd recommend checking out some camera/brand specific forums such as those on www.fredmiranda.com (http://www.fredmiranda.com) and www.dpreview.com (http://www.dpreview.com) for some actual comments made by people who use or have used the camera. Again, take some of the comments with a grain of salt and try not to get to swayed in one direction based on just one user's perspective (complaint).

What I always like to do is see some "real" photos taken from the actual camera/lens. Pbase has a really good database for this. Sample photos taken by the XTi can be found here (http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/eos_digital_rebel_xti).

As far as getting a hand-held light meter goes, I'd refrain from that until you start getting really serious about your photography. The built-in light meter should be more than sufficient.

Hopefully, you'll be able to wade through all the info in the above links. Btw, you should be able to navigate those sites to check out other camera systems as well. Once you figure out what kind of photography, other than just for your upcoming trip, you'd be interested in, you can start deciding what kinds of accessories (i.e. lenses, flashes, tripods, etc...) will suit your needs and still be within your budget. Be careful though, photography can be like cycling... so many things to buy!!!

Some of the reputable sites I've purchased photo equipment include www.bhphoto.com (http://www.bhphoto.com), www.adorama.com (http://www.adorama.com), www.keh.com (http://www.keh.com), www.normancamera.com (http://www.normancamera.com), www.keh.com (http://www.keh.com), www.onecall.com (http://www.onecall.com), and a bunch more. Some will have prices lower than others but, hopefully, you'll be able to find some combination of no sales tax, shipping charge, and low product price which you'll find satisfactory.

Hope this is enough for you to go on...

Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, etc... all make great systems.

Again, i respectfully disagree. The only two companies with a lens lineup worth a hoot is Canon and Nikon

I've been using Nikon equipment for over 30 years, so please keep that in mind. My current choices for others are:
Pro/sumer: D80 Nikonians D80 Group (http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID236&conf=DCConfID3)
and
Semi/Pro or Pro: D200 Nikonians D200 Group (http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID202&conf=DCConfID3)

That said, my recommendation for cameras will not start at the camera! Why? With DSLR imager densities at the current level, the limiting factor of quality moves first to the lens you can afford, then the DSLR body, assuming the DSLR class yields an imager size/density of over 6MP. Some lower-end bodies greatly restrict your lens choices, making the choice even easier. If you want to take amazing images, start with lens reviews, pick the lens you will be carrying mostly, and then see what the highest affordable MP body there is.

There are many ways of judging lenses; so first start out with MTF curves. Here are some samples:

AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED (5.0x) (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af-s_vr_zoom24-120mmf_35-56g_if/index.htm) Compact Super Range Zoom

AF Zoom-Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF (3.5x) (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom24-85mmf_28-4d_if/index.htm) Semi-wide Zoom

AF Zoom-Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED (1.9x) (http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af_zoom18-35mmf_35-45d_if/index.htm) Ultra Wide Zoom

BTW, one of those would also be my initial purchase lens recommendations.

Good luck!

The only two companies with a lens lineup worth a hoot is Canon and Nikon

Regarding lens lineups, yes, I'd have to agree with this statement as well...

Yep, if you plan on buying plenty of lenses, go Nikon or Canon. Particularly if you want long glass (200+ mm).

I'm a Pentax user. I love my Pentax gear, and in my opinion, Pentax has great solutions in many cases. The problem is the lens availability. Finding good used lenses is tough. Finding good new lenses is almost impossible! :D

In the future, if I ever get enough money left over after my bike addiction is satisfied, I'll jump ship and move to Nikon. Canon has better sensors, but their cameras are ugly and non-intuitive and their lenses are so damn ugly that you kinda wonder if they left the exterior design to the local janitor... Nikon, on the other hand, makes beautiful cameras and lenses. Sigma uses the same look and finish for their newer lenses, and I've got three of them (10-20, 17-70, 70-200).

I'm a Canon man myself.

Another retailer to be aware of is Calumet (http://www.calumetphoto.com/). They have always been extremely helpful and easy to deal with, more so than most all other stores I've traded with.

Buy a 50mm prime lens. The cheepo ~$70 version takes razor sharp images. The more expensive models come with quieter motors, slightly faster lenses, but the cheepo is a great knock around lens.

I've lost track of the current lineup of DSLRs, Canon or otherwise, my current cameras are servicing me well and I haven't been paying attention for about a year.

Personally, if you can afford it, I'd recommend a Nikon D80. the D40 is okay, but your are really limiting yourself with available lenses due to the AF of the body.

Check out www.nikonians.org for more info.

Full disclosure: I've been a member there for 7 years and have moderated for probably the last five (user ID there is avm247).

I've been biting my bias tounge...but

Canon Sensors > Nikon Sensors which obviously > any other affordable DSLR solution

^^^^
+1

My brother swears up and down that Fuji sensors are the best. I don't know, I like my canon. Canon's lens selection is better IMO, and I really like their glass, so there is my vote.

Oh, and when you get over the zoom lust phase, (it can take years but sooner or later you'll realize the power of the prime) look at getting a tilt/shift lens. It'll open up a whole new world in what you can do with a camera.

+1 on bhphotovideo.com. If you don't have any lenses at this time go either Canon or Nikon (I have a lot of nikon lenses from the film days so I got a d70s which allows AF on some of the older ones). I'm much more familiar with the Nikon line so this is what I would look at on the Nikon side (Nothing against the Canon's, I just have little knowledge of the lens line).

Check out the D40 w/18-200mm vr lens (if you can find one, the lens is almost always backordered). It will cover most situations pretty well. This set up is pretty good too (the vr long lenses give you greater ability to hand hold vs. use a tripod (the rule of thumb is your shutter speed needs to be the same as the length of the lens you are using i.e.: you can handhold a 50mm lens at 1/50th second shutter speed, much slower with vr (or I think it's "IS" on the Canon lenses) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/486468-REG/Nikon_9422_D40x_Digital_Camera_Kit.html

For the Grand Canyon you might want to concentrate on wider lenses for the big landscapes. If you are familiar with film cameras one thing to look out for is many (not all) digital cameras have a smaller sensor than a frame of 35mm film so the lens length gets multiplied by about 1.5. This helps get more reach on the long end (300mm lenses are equivalent to about 450). This hurts on the wide angle end because the wide lenses from the film days are no longer "wide".

Get what you end up with before you trip and go out and use it a lot so you are used to it (and bring the manual with you!). I'd also consider a tripod. If you can spend a little more the 50mm 1.8 prime lens is great at low light (but won't auto-focus on the d40 (it requires AFS lenses that have built in motors (older AF nikon bodies have the af motor in the body). I hope I didn't confuse things...

Mike

My brother swears up and down that Fuji sensors are the best.

lol...yeah, that's why all the pro's are using them ;)

If you are familiar with film cameras one thing to look out for is many (not all) digital cameras have a smaller sensor than a frame of 35mm film so the lens length gets multiplied by about 1.5. This helps get more reach on the long end (300mm lenses are equivalent to about 450). This hurts on the wide angle end because the wide lenses from the film days are no longer "wide".

Not necessarily. While many DSLRs have a 1.6 (some have a 1.3, I think) crop, there are some lenses which accommodate for this. The Sigma 17-70 I have for my XTi is one of these lenses.


In the future, if I ever get enough money left over after my bike addiction is satisfied, I'll jump ship and move to Nikon. Canon has better sensors, but their cameras are ugly and non-intuitive and their lenses are so damn ugly that you kinda wonder if they left the exterior design to the local janitor... Nikon, on the other hand, makes beautiful cameras and lenses. Sigma uses the same look and finish for their newer lenses, and I've got three of them (10-20, 17-70, 70-200).

Which is why you need to hold as many cameras as you can. I've been using Canons for so long that their menus are second nature to me. Also, my camera fits perfectly into my small hands and is nice and relatively lightweight. After a long day of massage, I don't want to rassle with an overweight camera!

Check out Sigma4Less.com (http://www.sigma4less.com) for some killer deals on lenses!

Wow thanks for all the replies! Im going to read up on the listed brands from above.

Not necessarily. While many DSLRs have a 1.6 (some have a 1.3, I think) crop, there are some lenses which accommodate for this. The Sigma 17-70 I have for my XTi is one of these lenses.

This is a fairly common misconception. Your 17-70 is still a 17mm lens and covers the same area in the frame as any other 17mm lens. The difference is that, because the sensor itself is smaller and therefore captures less of the view than a "normal lens" would, they are able to use less glass to get the same picture. It's not a matter of making 17mm wider, 17mm is 17mm and is always 17mm. It's merely a matter of weight and money savings.

If this still doesn't make sense, here is some food for thought. If you were to modify that lens of yours to fit on your film camera, or even my 1D (1.3 crop), the edges of the frame would have serious vignetting...

CdCf, if you are concerned with the way your camera looks then maybe you want to rethink investing thousands of dollars on camera equipment :rolleyes:

This is a fairly common misconception. Your 17-70 is still a 17mm lens and covers the same area in the frame as any other 17mm lens. The difference is that, because the sensor itself is smaller and therefore captures less of the view than a "normal lens" would, they are able to use less glass to get the same picture. It's not a matter of making 17mm wider, 17mm is 17mm and is always 17mm. It's merely a matter of weight and money savings.

If this still doesn't make sense, here is some food for thought. If you were to modify that lens of yours to fit on your film camera, or even my 1D (1.3 crop), the edges of the frame would have serious vignetting...

CdCf, if you are concerned with the way your camera looks then maybe you want to rethink investing thousands of dollars on camera equipment :rolleyes:
Right, the image circle is just smaller on the "DSLR" lenses. If you put one on a regular film body you get an image with vignetting like below.

http://homepage.mac.com/awcg/.Pictures/Bike/Uffizi.jpg

If this still doesn't make sense, here is some food for thought. If you were to modify that lens of yours to fit on your film camera, or even my 1D (1.3 crop), the edges of the frame would have serious vignetting...

Exactly.

A 50mm lens on a 1.6 cropped sensor has a focus length of 80 on a 1.6 crop, as far as I know. My Sigma 17-70 is designed to provide 17-70 on a 1.6 cropped sensor. Were it designed for a full-frame sensor, it would provide 27-112 on my 1.6 crop.

Exactly.

A 50mm lens on a 1.6 cropped sensor has a focus length of 80 on a 1.6 crop, as far as I know. My Sigma 17-70 is designed to provide 17-70 on a 1.6 cropped sensor. Were it designed for a full-frame sensor, it would provide 27-112 on my 1.6 crop.

No, you still aren't getting it.

a 50mm lens on a 1.6 cropped sensor does indeed give the perceived 80mm image, but it's still 50mm and it is 50mm on no matter what camera its on. Your 17mm lens is 17mm on your 1.6 crop with an effective 27mm field of view compared to a 35mm film camera. You can't change the focal length of the lens. The only purpose of those 1.6 crop lenses is to save weight and money...that's it. You aren't getting any more "wide angle" out of your lens. Don't over think it ;)

Exactly.

A 50mm lens on a 1.6 cropped sensor has a focus length of 80 on a 1.6 crop, as far as I know. My Sigma 17-70 is designed to provide 17-70 on a 1.6 cropped sensor. Were it designed for a full-frame sensor, it would provide 27-112 on my 1.6 crop.
A CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35mm slide. Yes, you are getting an increased focal length when you place a 35mm image circle lens on your digital camera. A 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop body will produce an effective 80mm image. Or in other words, the same image a 35mm film camera would produce with an 80mm lens.
The lenses designed for DLSR's use a smaller image circle, so if they are placed on a film body one does not gain width but gets vignetting.

Again, i respectfully disagree. The only two companies with a lens lineup worth a hoot is Canon and Nikon


And.. Leica, and Carl Zeiss? Compared to the lenses that are made for Leica, Hasselblad and Rollei - Canon and Nikon lenses are rather like Huffy's.

A CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35mm slide. Yes, you are getting an increased focal length when you place a 35mm image circle lens on your digital camera. A 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop body will produce an effective 80mm image. Or in other words, the same image a 35mm film camera would produce with an 80mm lens.
The lenses designed for DLSR's use a smaller image circle, so if they are placed on a film body one does not gain width but gets vignetting.

Let us not confuse with improper explanations :). Again, focal length does not change across mediums, only field of view which is a ratio of focal length and sensor/film size.

And.. Leica, and Carl Zeiss.. compared to the lenses that are made for Leica, Hasselblad and Rollei - Canon and Nikon lenses are rather like Huffy's.

Yeah that Hasselblad DSLR is fantastic :rolleyes:

Yeah that Hasselblad DSLR is fantastic :rolleyes:



what.. you mean this one?


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0609/hasselbladh3d.jpg





hey btw, what's with the rollei-eyes? :D -?

hey btw, what's with the rollei-eyes? :D -?

Dude, seriously, what are you trying to prove here? How does a $4,000 camera with $4,000 lenses fit into this discussion at all?

I love my 'Blad, but it's the negative size and not the sharpness of the lens that makes its images so rich and full. Four times the negative size is four times the information.
Its lenses are nice, don't get me wrong. They are heavy and well balanced, all the parts slide silky smooth, they are well made precision instruments. But they are not necessarily any sharper than my 35mm lenses. It's the same difference as between a 6 MP camera and a 24 MP camera. If you want to make an 8x10 you will see little difference. If you want to crop a small portion of negative and make that into an 8x10 is where the larger negative (digi or film) comes into play.

Dude, seriously, what are you trying to prove here? How does a $4,000 camera with $4,000 lenses fit into this discussion at all?



You said, (and I quote); ''Again, i respectfully disagree. The only two companies with a lens lineup worth a hoot is Canon and Nikon'' - a statement which is patently false. Leica and Carl Zeiss both make lenses that are undisputebly superior to any and every canon or nikkor lense on the market. For that matter all of the big name camera manufacturers make very nice quality lenses now-a-days which leave very little to be desired as far as image quality unless you happen to be a discerning professional who demands the absolute best in colour purity and detail from his or her photos.

Timmy, focal length does change across formats.
http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm

As far as getting a hand-held light meter goes, I'd refrain from that until you start getting really serious about your photography. The built-in light meter should be more than sufficient.


I understand. But that's not really my point. My question is are all the features of a modern camera really used? Like all the crazy modes, confusing menus, etc? When you take a picture, it really just boils down to:

1) Focus on subject.
2) Gather light reading.
3) Set aperture and shutter speed based on light reading (and film type, or sensor gain on digital cameras).

I find this procedure rather simple. I find all the modes confusing. So my question is: are all the features of modern SLRs useful? Which ones are really useful?

I almost always shoot aperture priority or full manual, and never really use any of the other settings.
Rear curtain flash synch is one I like that I don't have on any of my manual cameras.

No, you still aren't getting it.

a 50mm lens on a 1.6 cropped sensor does indeed give the perceived 80mm image, but it's still 50mm and it is 50mm on no matter what camera its on. Your 17mm lens is 17mm on your 1.6 crop with an effective 27mm field of view compared to a 35mm film camera. You can't change the focal length of the lens. The only purpose of those 1.6 crop lenses is to save weight and money...that's it. You aren't getting any more "wide angle" out of your lens. Don't over think it ;)

timmyquest, I understand what you're saying but I'd suggest referring him to http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml which has a good write-up on the subject.

Anyone own a Leica? When I get rich I will own one.. -or two. I knew this one guy who I worked with that found a black M6 (with the lense) in the back seat of a cab. I wish stuff like that could happen to me. :P

A CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35mm slide. Yes, you are getting an increased focal length when you place a 35mm image circle lens on your digital camera. A 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop body will produce an effective 80mm image. Or in other words, the same image a 35mm film camera would produce with an 80mm lens.
The lenses designed for DLSR's use a smaller image circle, so if they are placed on a film body one does not gain width but gets vignetting.

And my Sigma 17-70 is designed to give a true 17-70 on the 1.6 crop. Hence the vignetting on full frames.

I understand. But that's not really my point. My question is are all the features of a modern camera really used? Like all the crazy modes, confusing menus, etc? When you take a picture, it really just boils down to:

1) Focus on subject.
2) Gather light reading.
3) Set aperture and shutter speed based on light reading (and film type, or sensor gain on digital cameras).

I find this procedure rather simple. I find all the modes confusing. So my question is: are all the features of modern SLRs useful? Which ones are really useful?

Gotcha,
I find on the "consumer" or "prosumer" level cameras, there are a lot of the "special modes" such as portrait, sport, landscape, etc... But these are all just presets. For the most part, like you stated in your list, it's a really simple process which can get convoluted with the many "features" provided.

Focal length does not change when you go to a different image size*. A 50 mm lens is a 50 mm lens whether it's used together with a 120x100 mm image or a 6x4 mm image. The 50 mm would be a serious wide-angle lens in the first case, and a pretty long telephoto lens in the second.

The two lenses would have to be constructed in different ways to match the imaging circles to the respective image sizes, but the focal length would never change, and depth of field wouldn't either. For a given focal length, at a given aperture, the depth of field is always the same. The different image sizes make the apparent depth of field seem greater for the smaller image.

* "Image size" should be taken to mean the size of the negative or sensor.

You said, (and I quote); ''Again, i respectfully disagree. The only two companies with a lens lineup worth a hoot is Canon and Nikon''

And you know damn well what i meant, get over yourself bud.


Timmy, focal length does change across formats.
http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm

...that's not focal length, that is field of view. The internet is not always right.


timmyquest, I understand what you're saying but I'd suggest referring him to http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml which has a good write-up on the subject.

You clearly need to reread it a little slower.


And my Sigma 17-70 is designed to give a true 17-70 on the 1.6 crop. Hence the vignetting on full frames.

It's still 17mm and you have the same field of view as any other 17mm lens

I think my thread was Hijacked =P

Again, i respectfully disagree. The only two companies with a lens lineup worth a hoot is Canon and Nikon

Pentax glass is way under rated. Fantastic lenses and a very complete line up. I have a Nikon D80 but if I were to buy again today I'd probably get the K10D. Big advantages are the in camera image stabilization (so it works with ALL lenses) and it is weather sealed.

I bought my D80 from Cameta Camera and they were awesome to buy from. I got a "salesmans sample" which is a refurbished camera, but the thing was so clean it looked like it had never been touched. I got the body and two Nikon lenses for about $1024. Smoking deal.

Since almost all photographers in the real world shake a bit when they shot, and generally don't spend a lot of time photographing test charts, I suggest you find a camera that has controls that make sense to YOU and not worry about the "test quality" of the lens. It just doesn't matter.
That said, if you get a digital SLR and are serious at all, set a bunch of time aside for reading the manual, then, because most manuals are very poorly written, get a third party book.
Don't forget to have fun and shoot lots.
Here's my some free advice:
1. Get closer, then get closer again
2. Don't giggle, brace the camera whenever you can
3. Spend some time looking through the viewfinder at the photo you are making, not the subject you are seeing.

You clearly need to reread it a little slower.

There's nothing mystical about the "crop factor". Just different fields of view with different sensors. I thought I was helping you get your point across.

Anyway, Brate, sorry. Your thread does seem to have been hijacked.

And you know damn well what i meant, get over yourself bud.


It's not about me getting over myself (we both know that's never going to happen..) - it's about 'me' being right and 'you' making grotesquely wreckless and incorrect assumptions.


okay.. to recap;


Me = right.

You = Grotesquely misinformed.



:) :beer:

oh geeze guys - give it a rest will ya? The OP was asking for opinions on ~$1k DSLR's if I recall correctly.

My suggestion would be to buy a used Dslr from someone on ebay or photography-on-the.net or fredmiranda.com

Spend MOST of your money on nice lenses. That's what will make the biggest difference.
Again - get either Canon or Nikon. Don't bother with anything else.
As to which of the two - it's up to you. It's the same as the old Shimano v. Campy debate. It comes down to personal preference.
Me - I'm a Canon guy.

Here's some of my work: http://chanwahyaoh.smugmug.com
PM me if you have any more questions.

I can't be bothered with digital until someone produces a full-frame sensor in a camera that doesn't cost as much as what I paid for my car. It might just be me being little more than a cranky miser, but I can't really get around the idea that a non-pro paying more than $2000 for a body is like the guy who buys the $6000 Orbea, but only rides it on the weekends.

Also, I don't really understand why these companies go +12 megapixels while maintaining their 1.X crop factor rather than going full-frame with a lower pixel count. Lower pixel density, from what I've seen at least, can give richer images with less noise. Is it marketting bull****, or would a larger sensor w/ lower pixel count be prohibitively expensive?