Winner - Best Inexpensive DSLR

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by badpickev

true at least you didnt buy a fuji........

I'd love a Fuji. I'd even like one of those Foveon Sigmas. We should always support those trying something different .

[dc2]

Originally Posted by Paul

I'd love a Fuji. I'd even like one of those Foveon Sigmas. We should always support those trying something different .

Me too , wish I could buy and try erm all

[scoundrel1728]

And with the Fuji, you could use your Nikon lenses. One reason I was partial to the Nikon system to begin with was that it seemed less proprietary than the others. Choice of bodies from Nikon or Fuji or, if you really wanted to, even from Kodak. A choice of lenses not just from Nikon but from Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina as well as a few others that I probably wouldn't consider. Third party lenses are also available for Canon lenses but they sometimes have compatibility issues. I wonder if this figured into the decision?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Did Kodak make SLR bodies for both Nikon mount and Canon mount lenses? For some reason I was not aware of that…………….

Jared

Yes, the DSC SLR/c was a Canon mount version of the DSC SLR/n (the Nikon mount).

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Paul

Yes, the DSC SLR/c was a Canon mount version of the DSC SLR/n (the Nikon mount).

Also, Kodak's earlier DSLRs were actually enhancements of actual Nikon and Canon Bodies. Their DCS-6xx and DCS-7xx cameras are basically digital backs built into a Nikon F5 body. Their DCS-5xx series are digital backs built into a Canon EOS-1n body.

The later SLR/n and SLR/c use body subassemblies that were built for them by Sigma.

None of these were ever INEXPENSIVE DSLRS, however. My DCS-760 kit cost me around $1000 when it was 4 years old (when it was new, it was a $6999 camera, but it was also the top of the line, best Pro-DSLR made, excluding medium format digital backs). Nowadays, it's performance is similar to a D70, but it is much more rugged, and bigger and heavier, with more pro-oriented features).

The main issue with digital backs is, they really could only be built into pro-caliber cameras with removable backs, where they could extend outside the back and bottom of the camera. That's why you see them in Medium Format. The reason that Silicon Film failed is that the physical size constraints of the film chamber of a 35mm camera doesn't allow for an adequate power supply and sufficient heat dissipation for the electronics of a high-res sensor and sufficient flash memory. The Kadak Pro DCS bodies in the 5xx, 6xx, and 7xx series have over a pound's worth of added electronics, and a battery pack that contains 6 AA-size cells.

The reason that the Kodak SLR/n and SLR/c weren't successful is that, despite the higher res full frame sensors, they were much slower and less rugged than the preceding DCS-5xx, 6xx, and 7xx cameras. The problem was, they were built into amateur-spec Sigma bodies, rather then the Nikon and Canon Pro caliber bodies of their predecessors. The pros who wanted to use them were interested in the high performance and solid build quality needed for sports and photojournalism and fashion photography, and the newer Kodaks weren't up to it the way the older ones had been. So, the pros who had bought the earlier Kodak cameras simply bought the Nikon and Canon pro-class cameras this time around, because they were better. A Nikon D2x blows away a Kodak SLR/n and a Canon EOS 1Ds blows away a Kodak SLR/c. This was a case of a great sensor, being put into mediocre amateur cameras, whereas the earlier Kodak models had been great sensors put into top of the line Nikon and Canon pro cameras.

FYI, IMHO, the Kodak DCS 7xx, 6xx, and 5xx series cameras are widely sold on ebay at prices that make them very competitive choices today, as they are pro-built DSLR cameras that can be had for prices ranging from around $300 (for the 2 Megapixel versions) to $700-1000 for the 6 megapixel versions) If you want to learn more about them, here's a link to the Kodak website where all of their specs and documentation can be found:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe....22.3.14&lc=en

My personal opinion is that the DCS-760 and DCS-560 (6 MP Nikon and Canon bodies respectively) are still very worthy of serious consideration at prices under $1000 for a good used one. And the 2 megapixel versions still make great cheap backup bodies that share the same batteries, chargers, memory cards, etc, at prices between $200-400.

[JKSeidel]

Originally Posted by bauerman

And I still completely disagree with the widely held notion that expensive glass is the ONLY glass that can provide high quality results. That sounds like manufacturer-speak to me and I don’t buy it. (no pun intended….)

<**gasp**> I agree with Jared 100% and there are quite a few lens tests out there that confirm this, at least as far as lenses compatible with the Canon EOS system goes. Canon is noted primarily for the quality of their longer lenses. When it comes down to the wider angles, there are several lenses made by alternative manufacturers that surpass Canon's similar offerings in optical quality and performance. As Jared points out, even what is considered a 'cheapo' Canon lens can have excellent performance if used under the right circumstances. Pixel-peepers and edge-to-edge fanatics will always find fault, but many lens tests show very little performance differences in some cases.

BTW, thank you all for all the interesting information about Olys. As I stated earlier in this thread, I only recently started noticing the some of the excellent output quality of shots that Oly users have posted on here. I hope Oly makes some smart combined marketing and engineering decisions in the upcoming year. It's always nice to have a third major player in the game to keep Canon and Nikon honest and on their toes.

[Paul Shields]

I know this is veering away from the inexpensive DSLR thread (well, we've already meandered a bit anyway ), but I find the history lesson about the Kodak stuff interesting (thanks Doug). What about the current DCS Pro 14n? They use a 14megapixels FF sensor? Don't really hear of many people shooting with these, but they seem relatively cheap (based on ebay selling prices) for a camera with that performance.

[dc2]

Originally Posted by Paul

I know this is veering away from the inexpensive DSLR thread (well, we've already meandered a bit anyway ), but I find the history lesson about the Kodak stuff interesting (thanks Doug). What about the current DCS Pro 14n? They use a 14megapixels FF sensor? Don't really hear of many people shooting with these, but they seem relatively cheap (based on ebay selling prices) for a camera with that performance.

I saw a review on this when it came out . It was quite badly criticized .
If that was deserved, I don't know because as you say there dose not seem to be many people shooting these .
I can say some of the pics I saw that were taken with this seemed excellent.
I guess a couple of bad reviews can put a lot of people off :-\

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by dc2

I saw a review on this when it came out . It was quite badly criticized .
If that was deserved, I don't know because as you say there dose not seem to be many people shooting these .
I can say some of the pics I saw that were taken with this seemed excellent.
I guess a couple of bad reviews can put a lot of people off :-\

The Pro 14/n is NOT a current camera. It was the predecessor to the SLR/n and SLR/c. It was a very bad camera that had serious performance problems in the autofocus and also in the sensor electronics itself. Most of these were either fixed or largely mitigated in the SLR/n and SLR/c. The fact that Kodak introduced a high end pro camera like the 14/n that was not at all ready for prime time, and the SLR/n and SLR/c are, at least spec-wise and appearance-wise not too different from the 14/n, helped to kill Kodak's market position in professional digital SLRs. Kodak had to offer a system upgrade to their 14/n customers where they swapped out the sensors. It is possible to get used Pro 14/n bodies that have had the sensor electronics swapped out so that they are basically SLR/n cameras, albeit with slow autofocus. But, there is no external way to tell that this is the case, so, in general, the 14/n is to be avoided in the used market. That's why they seem to be cheap - They're dogs - particularly if they have not had the sensor upgrade from Kodak. On the other hand, if the camera HAS had the sensor upgrade, it's a decent but slow 14 megapixel full frame camera with a Nikon lensmount, that can be picked up used for under $2000.

[dc2]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

The Pro 14/n is NOT a current camera. It was the predecessor to the SLR/n and SLR/c. It was a very bad camera that had serious performance problems in the autofocus and also in the sensor electronics itself. Most of these were either fixed or largely mitigated in the SLR/n and SLR/c. The fact that Kodak introduced a high end pro camera like the 14/n that was not at all ready for prime time, and the SLR/n and SLR/c are, at least spec-wise and appearance-wise not too different from the 14/n, helped to kill Kodak's market position in professional digital SLRs. Kodak had to offer a system upgrade to their 14/n customers where they swapped out the sensors. It is possible to get used Pro 14/n bodies that have had the sensor electronics swapped out so that they are basically SLR/n cameras, albeit with slow autofocus. But, there is no external way to tell that this is the case, so, in general, the 14/n is to be avoided in the used market. That's why they seem to be cheap - They're dogs - particularly if they have not had the sensor upgrade from Kodak. On the other hand, if the camera HAS had the sensor upgrade, it's a decent but slow 14 megapixel full frame camera with a Nikon lensmount, that can be picked up used for under $2000.

Thanks for that imfo.
I am a little surprised Kodak did not get it right really.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by bauerman

Full frame - 14 MP - Nikon mount for under $2000 does not sound bad at all! Can you tell from the menus or the firmware that the sensor upgrade has taken place?

More good info Doug....

Jared

I honestly don't know. But I'd sure be wary of buying a 14/n on ebay, that I couldn't test before committing to buy it. Incidentally, the 14/n and SLR/n support Nikon lenses, but they won't meter with manual focus Nikon lenses, because they are based on a low-end amateur body. The earlier DCS-6xx and DCS-7xx series cameras DO mount and meter and provide focus confirmation with AI and AIS manual focus lenses, because they are based on the F5 body.

[badpickev]

the kodaks and my fuji are based on the nikon F80/N80 body. the big gripe on the kodak is the rumored noise above 100 or 200 iso. buy on the plus side, its ff, 13mp, and can shoot at iso 6. thy are going for about $1800-2500 on ebay


i should add that i really do love my fuji, just getting tied of waiting on a decent replacement.

[llpoolej]

Unless you are a wide angle junkie, what is the big desire to be full frame?? One of my favorite things about Olympus is that it gives me twice the reach. A plus for me. I can buy a super wide angle alot cheaper than a long telephoto. The full frame just seem to make you have to have larger, heavier lenses for the same reach

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by llpoolej

Unless you are a wide angle junkie, what is the big desire to be full frame?? One of my favorite things about Olympus is that it gives me twice the reach. A plus for me. I can buy a super wide angle alot cheaper than a long telephoto. The full frame just seem to make you have to have larger, heavier lenses for the same reach

Plenty of us are wide angle junkies. That's more than sufficient reason to want full frame. I certainly have alot more use for lenses wider than 28mm than I do for lenses longer than 200mm. Other than shooting wildlife and sports, there is really very little use for lenses over 200mm. And many, if not most of the digital superwides for smaller sensors seem to be inferior to the best full frame wide angle lenses on the very important criteria of speed and distortion - which is rather surprising, since they should be easier to make.

What I find interesting is how many folks who have been raised on digital, actually have no clue as to how much creative work can be enabled by wide angle and very wide angle lenses - and actually cannot be done with less than a very wide perspective.

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

What I find interesting is how many folks who have been raised on digital, actually have no clue as to how much creative work can be enabled by wide angle and very wide angle lenses - and actually cannot be done with less than a very wide perspective.

Interesting and provocative Doug . What research is around that shows that these digital neophytes are so clueless when it comes to wide-angle creativity? I certainly see plenty of examples of this usage both in the galleries here and elsewhere.

[ellette]

Me personally, I love my 20D and feel that it is the camera I had to get, I did so much research and thought long and hard before getting my camera that I have no second thoughts. Still, I have been trying to get my best friend to move into the digital world and I'm suggesting she get an Oly. She doesn't want to spend what I did on a camera, and isn't as interested in the technical aspect of photography but doesn't want a p&s camera (she has a fantastic eye, and would lik