# Still Undecided.... Canon/nikon/or Maybe Prosumer?



## Barryboy

In an earlier post I was torn between the 350D and the D50 twin lens kit. Both go in the Â£500 - Â£550 range through Argos and I can get those using my Company bonus points.

HOWEVER>>>>> the 350D is about to be replaced by the much more expensive 30D. The Nikon D50 is about to be discontinued in favour of the D70 and there are whispers that Nikon will soon be discontinuing that in favour of the D200. To cap it all the local Jessops don't stock it any more anyway, so I can't do a proper 'hands on' comparison. So it's time to open up this whole can of worms again. I have given it a lot of thought and I am wondering if I really need an SLR at all.

I am seriously considering the recently announced Kodak Easyshare P880 prosumer model. Here's a link to a site which gives the lowdown on this one, and it has a pretty impressive spec. (Mods - I assume that as Roy is not a camera dealer then the link will be acceptable???).

http://www.digital-cameras.com/digital_cam...share_p880.html

I like the idea of manual zoom/focus controls, a PC flash socket and a Schneider Kreuznach lens. I also like the idea of 8mp, RAW file support and good close focusing ability. Oh, and did I mention it was only Â£240?

Anyone already using any of the cameras in the Easyshare range? Anyone changed from an SLR to a prosumer? How did you get on? Pleased to hear.

Rob


----------



## makky

Barryboy, I think it depends on which kind of camera you prefer using, and the kind of photography you do.

I've used a variety of 35mm SLR's for years. For my serious landscape work I still use them. (I have a medium format Bronica too, but prefer the handling/weight of my old Nikons)

For the less serious stuff I use a little 3mp ultra compact digicam or a 5mp Olympus prosumer. I love using the lcds to compose on, and 5mp is fine for most of the stuff I do.

Bear in mind that with a DSLR you have to use the optical finder for composition, and that the 350D and D50 have those horrible small penta-mirror viewfinders. Nikon have recently announced the D80 which features a proper pentaprism.

If you want to use an ultra-wide lens or do action photography, an SLR is the way to go, for everything else a prosumer will do.


----------



## Barryboy

makky said:


> Barryboy, I think it depends on which kind of camera you prefer using, and the kind of photography you do.
> 
> I've used a variety of 35mm SLR's for years. For my serious landscape work I still use them. (I have a medium format Bronica too, but prefer the handling/weight of my old Nikons)
> 
> For the less serious stuff I use a little 3mp ultra compact digicam or a 5mp Olympus prosumer. I love using the lcds to compose on, and 5mp is fine for most of the stuff I do.
> 
> Bear in mind that with a DSLR you have to use the optical finder for composition, and that the 350D and D50 have those horrible small penta-mirror viewfinders. Nikon have recently announced the D80 which features a proper pentaprism.
> 
> If you want to use an ultra-wide lens or do action photography, an SLR is the way to go, for everything else a prosumer will do.


Thanks for that. My 'A' level photography days are long, long behind me now so lugging the camera, tripod, flask, sandwiches, camerabag etc. around Cornwall, the Brecon Beacons, Snowdonia etc. is a dim distant memory. I still, about once every year, put a roll of Fuji transparency film throught the Yashica TLR and every time I am astonished by just how good the quality is. But 6x6 projectors are rather pricey so even that, my last link with 'wet' photography, is probably dead now.

I am more interested in close up work, natural history, still life etc. and thought that a prosumer might just do the trick at a far more realistic price than a DSLR.

Rob



Barryboy said:


> makky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barryboy, I think it depends on which kind of camera you prefer using, and the kind of photography you do.
> 
> I've used a variety of 35mm SLR's for years. For my serious landscape work I still use them. (I have a medium format Bronica too, but prefer the handling/weight of my old Nikons)
> 
> For the less serious stuff I use a little 3mp ultra compact digicam or a 5mp Olympus prosumer. I love using the lcds to compose on, and 5mp is fine for most of the stuff I do.
> 
> Bear in mind that with a DSLR you have to use the optical finder for composition, and that the 350D and D50 have those horrible small penta-mirror viewfinders. Nikon have recently announced the D80 which features a proper pentaprism.
> 
> If you want to use an ultra-wide lens or do action photography, an SLR is the way to go, for everything else a prosumer will do.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. My 'A' level photography days are long, long behind me now so lugging the camera, tripod, flask, sandwiches, camerabag etc. around Cornwall, the Brecon Beacons, Snowdonia etc. is a dim distant memory. I still, about once every year, put a roll of Fuji transparency film throught the Yashica TLR and every time I am astonished by just how good the quality is. But 6x6 projectors are rather pricey so even that, my last link with 'wet' photography, is probably dead now.
> 
> I am more interested in close up work, natural history, still life etc. and thought that a prosumer might just do the trick at a far more realistic price than a DSLR. Did you look up the camera using the link? What did you think of the spec?
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


----------



## makky

Sounds like a prosumer model should be a better compromise for you.

Had a look at the P880 reviews on DPreview and Imaging Resource. It looks good at that price. Nice wide, sharp lens with mechanical zoom mechanism. Accurate colour and exposure, good handling.

The main criticism seems to be shutter lag, and low light focusing speed. Hopefully those won't matter to you.


----------



## Barryboy

makky said:


> Sounds like a prosumer model should be a better compromise for you.
> 
> Had a look at the P880 reviews on DPreview and Imaging Resource. It looks good at that price. Nice wide, sharp lens with mechanical zoom mechanism. Accurate colour and exposure, good handling.
> 
> The main criticism seems to be shutter lag, and low light focusing speed. Hopefully those won't matter to you.


No, with predominantly still life work, plus the odd 'snapshot' usage shutter lag isn't too much of an issue.

Low light focus issues likewise as there's always manual focus to fall back on.

I'm pretty much sold on the idea of this Kodak prosumer, it's just that there's a really good used Omega speedy available and I CAN'T AFFORD BOTH.....


----------



## chris l

Barryboy said:


> makky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a prosumer model should be a better compromise for you.
> 
> Had a look at the P880 reviews on DPreview and Imaging Resource. It looks good at that price. Nice wide, sharp lens with mechanical zoom mechanism. Accurate colour and exposure, good handling.
> 
> The main criticism seems to be shutter lag, and low light focusing speed. Hopefully those won't matter to you.
> 
> 
> 
> No, with predominantly still life work, plus the odd 'snapshot' usage shutter lag isn't too much of an issue.
> 
> Low light focus issues likewise as there's always manual focus to fall back on.
> 
> I'm pretty much sold on the idea of this Kodak prosumer, it's just that there's a really good used Omega speedy available and I CAN'T AFFORD BOTH.....
Click to expand...

Please consider the new Panasonic...the FZ50 with...

Ten megapixel 1/1.8" CCD

f2.8 12x optical _Leica _ zoom (~35-430mm equivalent) and no dust in the camera!

16:9 movie record mode (848 x 480 pixels)

RAW file format

Venus Engine III image processor

Scene modes

ISO 1600 at full size, ISO 3200 (upsampled)

TTL Flash hot-shoe

Support for SDHC cards (SD greater than 2 GB)

'SilkyPix Developer Studio' for RAW conversion

I've had my FZ20 for a year now and am very impressed. The FZ50 is next on my list rather than a cheap SLR.

12x optical _Leica _ zoom (~35-430mm equivalent) and no dust in the camera!


----------



## Barryboy

chris l said:


> Barryboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> makky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like a prosumer model should be a better compromise for you.
> 
> Had a look at the P880 reviews on DPreview and Imaging Resource. It looks good at that price. Nice wide, sharp lens with mechanical zoom mechanism. Accurate colour and exposure, good handling.
> 
> The main criticism seems to be shutter lag, and low light focusing speed. Hopefully those won't matter to you.
> 
> 
> 
> No, with predominantly still life work, plus the odd 'snapshot' usage shutter lag isn't too much of an issue.
> 
> Low light focus issues likewise as there's always manual focus to fall back on.
> 
> I'm pretty much sold on the idea of this Kodak prosumer, it's just that there's a really good used Omega speedy available and I CAN'T AFFORD BOTH.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please consider the new Panasonic...the FZ50 with...
> 
> Ten megapixel 1/1.8" CCD
> 
> f2.8 12x optical _Leica _ zoom (~35-430mm equivalent) and no dust in the camera!
> 
> 16:9 movie record mode (848 x 480 pixels)
> 
> RAW file format
> 
> Venus Engine III image processor
> 
> Scene modes
> 
> ISO 1600 at full size, ISO 3200 (upsampled)
> 
> TTL Flash hot-shoe
> 
> Support for SDHC cards (SD greater than 2 GB)
> 
> 'SilkyPix Developer Studio' for RAW conversion
> 
> I've had my FZ20 for a year now and am very impressed. The FZ50 is next on my list rather than a cheap SLR.
> 
> 12x optical _Leica _ zoom (~35-430mm equivalent) and no dust in the camera!
Click to expand...

Chris, have never really considered Panasonic before. Had a look at this one. There is some doubt over the lens, I hear. Apparently Panasonic are licensed to manufacture them and use the Leica name and the lenses on the cameras are not necessarily genuine Leica....

The spec is similar to the Kodak, but there are menus to traverse whereas the Kodak has basically 'a button for everything'.. There is a hot shoe but no sync socket for external flash (which is ofc a very useful item) and the Panasonic seems to come in at about Â£100 more than the Kodak. The Kodak does slightly better at the W/A end of the zoom but the Panasonic has a longer max focal length.

All in all I still favour the Kodak, I think....


----------



## in_denial

Barryboy said:


> ....
> 
> I've had my FZ20 for a year now and am very impressed. The FZ50 is next on my list rather than a cheap SLR.
> 
> 12x optical _Leica _ zoom (~35-430mm equivalent) and no dust in the camera!


Chris, have never really considered Panasonic before. Had a look at this one. There is some doubt over the lens, I hear. Apparently Panasonic are licensed to manufacture them and use the Leica name and the lenses on the cameras are not necessarily genuine Leica....

The spec is similar to the Kodak, but there are menus to traverse whereas the Kodak has basically 'a button for everything'.. There is a hot shoe but no sync socket for external flash (which is ofc a very useful item) and the Panasonic seems to come in at about Â£100 more than the Kodak. The Kodak does slightly better at the W/A end of the zoom but the Panasonic has a longer max focal length.

All in all I still favour the Kodak, I think....


----------



## James

I take a lot of outdoor and portraits. Use a Canon digi and a Mamiya with the 120 back. I am very happy with the Canon full sized prints. Don't forget to check out Steve's Digicam and Dpreview, take many looks at the pictures pay attention to fringing, that is the purple and red fringing in highlighted areas around dark objects. Most cameras are pretty good now vs. some of a few years ago. You don't want one though that does a lot of in camera processing, remember all digi's require post processing and you don't want the camera to do too much limiting your efforts after. One new one that impresses me is the new Canon G7, check the specs out. As I have learned over the years, the glass can make or break a camera, that is it will affect saturation, contrast and detail etc, pay close attention to, if you go with SLR, which glass you stick on the front. take the lens, fully extended see if it wobbles side to side, wobble equals loss of sharpness, why fixed focal length have always been superior, too long a zoom range also mean comprimising some detail, actually a shorter zoom range will usually yield better results.


----------



## murph

I was considering a d-slr as well but buying lenses can get quite expensive and knowing me I'd end up buying just for the sake of it.

Now I'm considering some cheaper models. I've been thinking about the Canon 640 or the like - the 58mm attachment would be handy as I might attach it to other optical devices now and then. I believe it also has a computer interface so no vibration due to touching the camera when it's fixed to any scope.

I might consider the Kodak now.


----------



## lordridley

Hello,

Do check out the Ricoh GR Digital. It's 8.13 megapixels, 35mm equivalent lense, can do text in HC b&w which is amazing.

Extras - lens hood, adapter, case, strap etc all a bit pricey, an optical viewfinder is optional about Â£90.

It's a very good camera. Many blogs and forums about this camera abound; there is a section in www.flikr.com which shows other punters pics using this kit. ttfn pip pip


----------



## Barryboy

Thanks all - I still haven't decided, although I am still leaning very much towards the Kodak.

The Canon G7 looks impressive, but not only is it brand new, it's in short supply and it's also priced at Â£360 with Amazon.

The Ricoh GR digital is also around that price and has a fixed length wideange lens so that's no good to me.

I have to get a camera within the next two weeks and am still inclined toward the Kodak. It does pretty much everything I need and can be got for about Â£240 - the price difference between these cameras would add a couple of nice watches to the collection......

Rob


----------



## James

yea Barryboy. thats actually at the top end of the range on Amazon for the G7, Â£360, here at Henry's & Vistek, 2 of our high end & pro shops as well as other retailers in the Toronto area they are about Â£327 in your funny money! so I am sure you can find a deal. I am hearing good reports with the new Digic 3 processor, stores are just getting delivery now.

still like the Canon A series too, had an A60, A85 and currently an A620 but it stops there. they extended the zoom capabilities on the A series after that and much more fringing and focal length issues, down hill.

honestly for sharpness and color, flash range etc if you could find yourself an A620, about 1.5yrs old, you would be extremly pleased, could send you some shots. in 8x10 prints I can tell no difference over my Mamiya 645, after post processing. larger poster yes, digi won't blow up to poster.

take your time and do lots of comparison at Steve's digicam and dpreview, good place to start.


----------



## lordridley

Re Ricoh GR Digital - 35mm is wide angle. It isn't fixed focus, you can adjust with manual focus and combine that with the aperture which can go down from f2.4 to f9.

Am I wrong in presuming that the majority of compact digital cameras all have wide angle lenses albeit zoom ones too?

The website I mentioned before is www.flickr.com. The one posted earlier is spelled differently and doesn't do what I said it does.

good luck..


----------



## seiko6139

Stick with film.

You get quality and printing is far less costly.

It can take ages to get a decent print of a single digital image, all that fannying about with Photoshop only to find that the printed image has a colour cast etc....

The lens with the D50 is *****,it'll fall to bits if you don't really look after it. Also the filter ring is held on with sellotape









Modern digital SLRs won't last as long as something like a Nikkormat or a Nikon F2.

I have an F2 which is battered and in really rough condition but it still takes lovelly accurately exposed transparencies.

To me, digital cameras are just toys....(I repair them for a living) which are fine for your holiday snaps etc.

The bottom line;

Don't spend more than Â£200 on a digital camera.

I am biased but I've seen the plastic lens mounts break, poorly designed shutters which lock up, motors with nylon gears which operate the mirror etc, with teeth missing.

I even sold my EOS 600 in favour of an older manual focus Nikon F2 which is all metal and mechanical.

To my mind,the future is very bleak indeed.

Sorry to rant on but I feel very strongly about this topic.

Cheers,

Ian


----------



## Silver Hawk

seiko6139 said:


> Stick with film.










you must be mad .... IMHO.


----------



## seiko6139

Silver Hawk said:


> seiko6139 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stick with film.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you must be mad .... IMHO.
Click to expand...

Why Paul?

Film has a wider dynamic range, higher resolution and will always be available.

You can buy a totally mechanical 1970s SLR camera for peanuts and it will out perform a digital SLR provided the user understands exposure and how to take accurate exposure measurements using centre weighted metering.

We rely too much on microprocessors in modern life.

Most DSLRs are so poorly made that they will be dustbin fodder in 5 years time.

Fuji are still improving their film materials and digital is always trying to play "catchup".

Digital is OK as a point and shoot camera or for press work where speed is of the essence, but for the enthusiast, it plays second fiddle to the quality that a modest film SLR can produce.

Even my Praktica M42 gear will produce better results than digital!

Moving up from 35mm to medium format or larger will produce even better results.

A Â£20 Zeiss Nettar loaded with Fuji Velvia or Reala will yield far more detailed pictures than a 22Mp Mamiya digital camera costing several thousand pounds.

I feel that most consumers are lead by what the retailers want them to think.

Look at Jessops, they get more and more like Dixons every day. They'd have you beleive that film will not exist this time next year! Utter twaddle. They stock mainly digital because most people already have decent film cameras.

Digital is fine for those people who just want to take photos of their family etc or for the internet.

If you want a serious picture taking tool.........stick with film.


----------



## James

I do tend to agree stick with film to a point. Digi's have set us back years in some ways, we hold these things out in front of our bodies and expect a sharp clear image, when using a viewfinder we use ourselves as a bi-pod giving us sharper images. On the other hand in an 8x10 print to the eye one can hardly tell the difference between my properly exposed, stabalized digi pic vs my 120/220 film on a fixed focal length Mamiya 645. The difference shows when you go larger. Digi pics straight out of the camera need post processing and does not matter if you use a 14K piece of equipment or not. Film does have more tonal range etc, but you really are in the hands of the lab and most poor results are a testament to that. Take a few trancparencies and then see what the lab does wrong with prints.

In short there is a place for both formats, IMO

And do agree on the new SLR's' plastic mounts, lens that wobble side to side. Zoom lenses are still my main issue, you simply cannot make a zoom lens as sharp or contasty as a fixed focal length.

All these photo modes not needed.


----------



## seiko6139

James said:


> I do tend to agree stick with film to a point. Digi's have set us back years in some ways, we hold these things out in front of our bodies and expect a sharp clear image, when using a viewfinder we use ourselves as a bi-pod giving us sharper images. On the other hand in an 8x10 print to the eye one can hardly tell the difference between my properly exposed, stabalized digi pic vs my 120/220 film on a fixed focal length Mamiya 645. The difference shows when you go larger. Digi pics straight out of the camera need post processing and does not matter if you use a 14K piece of equipment or not. Film does have more tonal range etc, but you really are in the hands of the lab and most poor results are a testament to that. Take a few trancparencies and then see what the lab does wrong with prints.
> 
> In short there is a place for both formats, IMO
> 
> And do agree on the new SLR's' plastic mounts, lens that wobble side to side. Zoom lenses are still my main issue, you simply cannot make a zoom lens as sharp or contasty as a fixed focal length.
> 
> All these photo modes not needed.


Hi James,

I totally agree about the excessive number of modes. If you spend Â£600 on a DSLR you should know that you need a large aperture to take a decent portrait etc...

I do not posess any zoom lenses for the reason that you have just mentioned in your post.

IMHO the most useful advance over the past 20 years has been autofocus. It's got faster and faster and it even works well in low light these days.

I rarely use print film as I enjoy projecting my transparencies on my 4' screen. I used to process and mount my own but it's cheaper to have a lab do them these days.

I have many Kodachromes shot, not by me, in the 1950s and 1960s and they still look as though they were shot only yesterday. It's a pity that Kodachrome lost its popularity when Velvia appeared as I don't know whether it has the same superb archival properties.

Anyway, we are all entitled to our own opinions and I do not wish to disrespect or to disregard other people's opinions. We are all different.

I'm a Luddite


----------

