Version: 2008
Advanced Search
advertisement
advertisement

Forum display:

Community Newsletter: Q&A: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras

by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator - 5/25/07 11:15 AM
advertisement
Post 121 of 148

Prices at dSLR entry level

by easytimes455 - 5/12/07 9:24 AM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

I started with the first digital SLR ever made for consumer use, the Olympus C2500L. Nice little camera, but only 2.5 megapixels and a fixed lens, but a true SLR. It does great macro work, on the positive side. I went with point and shoot for a while, and recently purchased a new digital SLR... the real thing with changeable lenses, this time.

I have been very impressed with this camera and with it's instructional GUI, even my wife seems to use it very easily. It has the same APS-C image sensor as the Nikon, and in my opinion, you can only make so many fleas stand on the head of a pin. The maximum reasonable number of megapixels falls somewhere between 6 and 8 for the APS-C image sensors, so you don't sacrifice very much by not getting the wowzer 8 or 10 megapixel super camera... unless you wish to make poster sized blowups of your output. I wanted to go with Olympus, as both of my previous cameras were of that make. The xD memory cards seem to have a speed problem, and the 4x3 image sensor is somewhat smaller than the one on the camera I chose. This is one place where bigger is better, but the offerings right now aren't as big as I would like, so I settled for one of the bigger in the lot.

There is little to remember about shooting with my new purchase, as this camera explains most of the choices you can make, either when you access the various shooting modes, or run through the expanded modes. Neat stuff if you are trying to learn a little about the camera, on your first few shots. I'm not quite as instinctive with it as my old Minolta X700, but I'll get there, soon.

My main issues were batteries... I wanted to use AA lithium cells for convenience of access,when batteries go dead and I can't use a charger. Then there's not having to buy high priced replacement rechargeables when I burn down the originals. I also wanted a decent kit lens, which this camera has. It's not a bad piece of glass, and it actually has a metal mount, which some of the entry level dSLRs don't. I mostly wanted to use Secure Digital memory cards, as they seem to have a speed advantage on many of the other cards, and they can be gotten for fairly reasonable prices. Less of a requirement was wanting a camera with a body-centric anti-shake system, to give better results, more easily, in more conditions, with any lens, and without the use of a tripod. The other side of that is not having to buy those super high priced image stabilizer lenses... not being a pro shooter, I just can't justify that cost.

All that said, after many choices made and changed during the shopping process, over the past year or two, I finally settled on the Pentax K100D. I was able to get it for $520 with the kit lens, and there is a fifty dollar rebate through Pentax on the camera body, right now, until late July. Any of the high level near-SLR digitals on the market cost very close to this price or higher. Most of the real entry level dSLRs are considerably higher.

I have used JPGs as my main shooting format with previous cameras, even though I had TIFFs available, but since purchasing this Pentax, I shoot in RAW only mode. The free downloadable photo utility Irfanview will view, edit, and print them, as well as the fairly good Pentax software that comes with the camera. It's like having the shot back again to adjust the camera, and you can salvage some bad shooting choices in many instances.

It's a good camera to handle, takes great images, and doesn't cost so much I can't afford to buy memory cards and batteries after buying it. To hold it is nice, too... it has a little heft, but feels nicely substantial, rather than flimsy, like some of the entry level dSLRs.

This is less an advertisement for my Pentax camera as an illustration of the process I went through and what I discovered after the purchase. I wish you well on your buying quest, and hope you are as satisfied as I am with the final purchase.

Post 122 of 148

Uh, what about Pentax?

by noirx - 5/12/07 10:12 AM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

It's interesting, but not surprising, that so many of these recommendations are meant to steer you toward the purchase of either a Canon or Nikon DSLR, even if that recommendation would put you out of your stated price range. There have been few mentions of Pentax, and one of those was from a poster who somehow views Pentax's aborted merger with a lens filter manufacturer as a reason to avoid their products.

The fact is that Pentax provides a model which is specifically targeted for those of us in the market for an entry level DSLR: the 6 Megapixel K100D/K110D. I opted for the K110D which is identical to the K100D save the absence of the Petnax Shake Reduction technology. Price with the 15-55mm f4-5.6 kit lens was $400.00; $350.00 after Pentax rebate which has been extended to May 31. Buy another of Pentax's current model lenses and get another $50.00 rebate.

Why no one else has made this recommendation is a puzzle, but I suspect that most people just default to Canon and Nikon, or perhaps have a pointed anti-Pentax bias. Is the K100D any good? I'd say so, but don't take my word for it:

http://reviews.cnet.com/Pentax_K100D_body_with_18mm_55mm_lens_kit/4505-6501_7-31941974.html?tag=prod.txt.1

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/k100d.html

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk100d/

Also, I recommend that you actually physically handle and evaluate it with specific attention to the build quality; something I suspect most buyers don't do. Compare the K100D to the already recommended, and considerably more expensive models from Nikon and Canon. You might be surprised by that comparison.

Good Luck.

O. Hunter

Post 123 of 148

I have the Panasonic Lumix

by Nuckin Futz - 5/12/07 11:11 AM In reply to: Uh, what about Pentax? by noirx

Stefan, I too investigated dSLR when I was ready to move up from my Canon digi SureShot. I've used a 35mm SLR for years and wanted the versatility of an SLR in a digital format. I've had Canons almost exclusively, but their dSLR's simply didn't "feel" right in my hand. I checked out others too. One of the main drawbacks was not only the price of the camera, but getting all new lenses too! That gets expensive, frankly.

I discovered the Lumix quite by accident. But it incorporated one of the most important aspects (for me) of an SLR--longrange photography; and once I bought the camera, I had little else to buy. The built-in "anti-shake" works well--and yes I do use a tripod also. The 12x zoom on the Lumix is very sharp. Like any digital, it has an assortment of pre-determined shooting modes, or you can go totally manual if you want, including a lot of exposure compensation settings. It doesn't stop down as far as my SLR lenses, but depth of field is still good. I can fire off a lot of sequence shots quickly, too.

I slapped in a 2gig memory card, upped the resolution, and I'm ready to go shooting! I am very satisfied with the Lumix.
Don't know if this helps, but thought I'd contribute my 2 cents worth.
Happy shutterbugging!

Post 124 of 148

Different cameras fulfil photographer’s different needs

by digi_gran - 5/12/07 1:07 PM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

I started with the Fuji finepix S602zoom - a wonderful camera which I still use, but it does have shutter lag.

Then I got the Nikon D70s DSLR (A kit with 2 lenses: Nikkor 18-20mmf/3.5G IF-ED DX lens and a 70-300mm f/4-5.6G AF Zoom-Nikkor lens)

At first I found the change very frustrating because I was used to seeing the image in the viewfinder immediately after I had taken it and now I had to take my eye from the viewfinder and put on my glasses to see the image on the screen! Also, it was much harder to cature the image I wanted as I had done in the past. With my Fugi, what I adjusted in my viewfinder was what I got, but with the Nikon everything was either too dark or too light.

I have at last mastered it to some extent but what I find wonderful about the DSLR is the amazing dynamic range within the images and far more photographs can be rescued in the editing stage than could be with the Fugi. I think that for images that are for the most part fine as they come out of the camera the "prosumer" cameras are best and if you are taking many images in a hurry and need to zoom in and out without changing lenses they are invaluable, but for portrait shots and landscapes, the DSLR is wonderful.

I also bought the Panasonic Lumix DMC - FZ30 because of it's extra zoom but I find it much more grainy than the Fugi and it hunts at full zoom which can be very frustrating. However with my three cameras I can capture totally different images of the same view all with a different "mood" and colour spectrum!

The Fugi is especially good at grabbing shots from a moving vehicle so I always travel with it on my lap, and my husband doesn't even have to stop the car!

In conclusion, it depends what sort of a photographer you are. DSLRs take a much longer learning curve and the images need a lot of editing to get them perfect and prosumers are great for fast work, producing images that don't need that much editing but which lack the dynamic range of the DSLRs.

Post 125 of 148

Great replies & many I agree with completely as a new owner!

by LaJan7 - 5/12/07 1:32 PM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

For your budget, the Canon is excellent but for the same reasons already mentioned, the Nikon fits better in my larger hands. And if the camera doesn't fit in your hands, it's as good as worthless.

Regarding frames per second, there's not a chance you will get over 3 FPS for under $1000. And NOTHING will even do that unless you get good fast media to write to. Buy cheapo memory cards and you will be limited to a much slower write speed. I don't know where someone got 5 or 6 FPS but I researched it a lot and there's just nothing out there but the expensive professional cameras well out of your price range. But take heart: I'm capturing hummingbirds in flight (http://files.tagworld.com/7b014a6a9f3f40e7b0f8b915f23db09e.jpeg) and dragonflies buzzing by (http://files.tagworld.com/384b103af88d414b84284e7517354e82.jpeg) with 2.2 frames per second with my Nikon D80 and a slow memory card. Timing and practicing "aim and focus" on EVERYTHING that moves got me fast enough to catch anything I want to catch, including butterflies in flight.

I'd also like to suggest you buy from Ritz or one of their family of stores. One of the major selling points for me going there was the awesome service agreements and the FREE CLASSES. In just one class, you can learn a TON about photography and a good teacher will be able to answer your questions about your camera as well. I studied digital photography about a year before buy my D80 and learned more in two hours than two books combined. LOL! (No, I don't work for Ritz or any camera store; I shopped stores as well.)

My Nikon does have a major dust problem and I really take care of it. But just opening the body and changing lenses gets dust everywhere and cleaning it out is almost impossible. Canon has a huge advantage there. I've taken to just marking where the dust is and editing it out in the processing stage - a poor man's work-around and it sucks royally.

The one thing I didn't read (and I'm sorry but I didn't read all 100 comments/replies! DAMN!!!!) is that you'll be spending a ton more than the camera on lenses for macro (extreme close-up) photography using DSLR. This disturbed me greatly since I fell in love with macro using cheapo cameras and my "pocket rocket" Olympus IR-500. So whatever you do, KEEP YOUR CHEAPO CAMERAS! If not for that foresight, I'm be out another $300 for DSLR macro!! If you get a good intermediate zoom lens for your DSLR tho, you can reasonably hold it steady enough for what appears to be extreme close-ups and you can also hold it steady using a tripod. Once again, the Canon has the advantage there as they have less expensive lenses with anti-shake build-in. At 50 years old, anti-shake (or a firm tripod) is...uh, vital for me with telephoto lenses. LMAO!

Finally, whatever feels right for you is right for you. You want to take photos. If you hate your camera or even don't feel it's an extension of your eyes and hands, it's worthless at any price. I got Nikon, some get Canon, and some get at least 10 other good to great brands. If you're looking for a deal, SHOP. If you're looking for expandability in lenses, SHOP. If you're looking for fun, DSLR will rock your world - HARD!

Best of luck!

Post 126 of 148

HELP needed to select dSLR Macro camera!

by adrianeyl - 5/12/07 4:59 PM In reply to: Great replies & many I agree with completely as a new owner! by LaJan7

Read through some of the replies here as I am interested to go from my point and shoot Sony P-10 to a dSLR.

Being a dentist, I take a lot of in-the-mouth shots so the macro option is a must for me. I was wondering anyone could recommend me a dSLR in the $1000 range or so that has these features:

1) a good macro shot option
2) a ring flash
3) automatic shake protection as I can't use a tripod

The ones that the dental magazines recommend are the Canon EOS20D, Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT and Fujifilm Finepix S2 Pro. These cameras are close the $3000!! I was hoping someone can provide a better alternative.

Cheers and thanks in advance!

Post 127 of 148

Sorry but....

by LaJan7 - 5/12/07 5:11 PM In reply to: HELP needed to select dSLR Macro camera! by adrianeyl

...I'd go with the highest end of point and shoot cameras. Some offer complete manual controls for all situations and all offer macro. I don't think I'd feel comfortable with a dentist holding a 3 pound, HUGE (from a patient's perspective) DSLR camera over my face - even if he was an ace photographer. And I go to the dentist for an ace dentist, not an ace photographer. Sir, you'd scare the ever-loving crap out of me with my face under a DSLR!

Besides, a DSLR is only as good as the lens for macro. And a good macro lens costs a LOT more than the camera. It's also a lot longer so you'd either have to put the patient as low as the chair would go (if it can go that low) and stand over him/her with something that will look like instant death if it falls or do zoom without being able to get close enough for tiny locations in the back of a small mouth.

Someone else may see something I don't see but I doubt it. I think you started off with the best tool for the job.

Post 128 of 148

stick with hi end non-slr

by paulhattori - 5/12/07 1:41 PM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

Having gone thru rebel, nikon 70, canon20(5 fps) and currently sony alpha1000(too slow in fps-good in image stab) and use zooms from 24-85 canon and 70-300(canon and sony) for sports. The new canon digital non-slr looks good. It is supposed to have hs video which is what I want for grandsons sports and image stabilization(which I need).
It may not be in the 10Mpixel range but with the hs video, you will be able to capture the moment.

Post 129 of 148

Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot

by jolenj - 5/12/07 9:48 PM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

Hi...

The short answer is: "If you have to ask about dSLR cameras, I would suggest you stay away from them and continue with the SLR-like (or point and shoot) digital cameras."

One additional thing...if you don't take 75-100 pics per week (every week) normally and 200-300 pics on special days, then stay away from dSLR cameras! Of course, most amateur photographers get these dSLR camera systems as a 'status symbol', as in "see what I can buy".

I suggest you expand your existing camera's accessories rather than getting a new dSLR!

Ciao...JJ

Post 130 of 148

New to DSLRs

by Jgrffn91 - 5/14/07 11:10 AM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot by jolenj

""The short answer is: "If you have to ask about dSLR cameras, I would suggest you stay away from them and continue with the SLR-like (or point and shoot) digital cameras."""
hmmmmmmmmmm I suppose it's better to stay in the dark that to ask for a light???????????

Overall, sometimes it is better to explore all the options with whatever camera you own. I certainly have had many folks tell me I should not be using a point and shoot and upgrade to a dSLR. Well I've been quite satisfied with my 'high end' point and shoot, it's taken me over a year to explore all the options and add accessory lenses to exapnd the camera's optical reange from 26mm - 550mm (one .7x wide angel and 0n 1.4x zoom). I recently did a cost comparison - it woul cost me nearly double what I have spent to obtain all the features I currently use if replacing with as dSLR.
I am definetly not interested in being a professional photographer - an avid hobyist suits me just fine.

Pete

Post 131 of 148

Camera - for what?

by Lars Johansson - 5/13/07 2:42 AM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

Dear Stefan,
you have already received lots of good advice, but there's one I haven't found among the many letters:
Choose a camera that's right for what you are going to photograph.
Sports & wildlife? In that case, you cannot tolerate a long shutter delay. Test cameras you like - and don't throw away the old film-SLR if milliseconds are the difference between success and failure. Also, check the delay between exposures & video.
Travel? A digital SLR is bulky and heavy, you'll hate it before you're back from your first big trip.
Portraits and nature? Check that it works nicely on a tripod. Shutter delay may not be a problem. Pluses for big screen and lots of bytes. No real reason to pick the dSLR.
Available light photography? Here the dSLR has an advantage - wide-opening lenses allow lower ISO, better image quality at low light.
Generally, there are many excellent cameras on the market. If you don't need long focal lengths, get a model that's compact but not so small that it's fiddly to use. If you're going to take it with you when biking, hiking, mountain climbing, etc, look for something that could have been designed for Army use - well sealed, no controls that can easily be broken, etc.
With a fixed wide-range "pretend-SLR" zoom camera, you get most of the advantages of an SLR and few of the disadvantages. Zooms now range to 400 mm and over, and some have accessories to increase wide-angle coverage.
Stefan, as so many people have told you already, you'll probably be happier with a non-SLR, and that will allow you to buy several useful things without exceeding your budget. Maybe a good tripod, a better printer, photo-related stuff for your computer. Again, it's a matter of the intended use...
Best of luck,
Lars

Post 132 of 148

Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot

by singhlin - 5/13/07 6:07 AM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

Many good Point-And-Shoot camera have Continuous (Burst) Shooting to enable you to take a big burst of pictures to cover the whole sequence of an interesting and important action event. For example in Canon PowerShot S2 IS camera and in Continuous (Burst) Shooting, it will take 1.5 shots per second or 2.4 shots per second and keep going this way until either (a) you release the shutter button, or (b) the entire memory card is filled up with the big burst of action photos. The camera has a button on the top for you to press to activate very quickly the Continuous (Burst) Shooting.

Sing

Post 133 of 148

Recognize the step you are taking

by whfite - 5/13/07 8:43 AM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot by singhlin

At least as important as the type of camera you buy is an honest self-appraisal of what you intend to do by way of image-making. Point-and-shoot cameras are made for precisely that: To allow Uncle Purvis to grab a few pictures of Aunt Minnie's birthday party or to let Tripp and Bitsy bring home pictures from their cruise. The fact that the operating systems of point-and-shoots allows the inclusion of lots of ginchy "features" does not alter this basic truth. Nor does the bleating of those who claim that they routinely make gallery-quality prints from images captured by their $175 Cheeze-O-Matic 307-J with 28X digital zoom and 13 quintillion megapixels.

Moving to a DSLR enables you to transition from snapping Baby Pauline's Baptism Party to real image-making. Alas, the majority of people who buy DSLRs do so more for self-image than for digital image. I'm a professional photographer and I can tell you that not one in one thousand self-proclaimed "serious" amateur photographers uses even 25% of the capability of his or her expensive DSLR. Heck, even a dedicated and hard-working pro seldom uses even half of what the camera will do.

But it isn't the pro vs amateur distinction that matters. There are many, many amateurs out there who beat the pros hands down on image quality...both technical and compositional. What matters is your commitment to the endless hours of practice and hard work that go into developing serious camera skills. If you are willing to commit to that level of dedication then go for a good DSLR. If not, pick a nice point-and-shoot and be happy with it.

Numerous other responders have provided excellent advice about brands and lenses and features. I will recap very briefly.

+ There are two brands to consider: Nikon and Canon. Period. Try them out and choose the one that seems best to you. All the high-cost advertising in the world will not change the fact that either of those brands will take better images than their owners.
+ Forget the hybrid mutants that look like DSLRs but have fixed lenses. They offer nothing of genuine significance that you cannot get in a smaller, more convenient package. Except bragging rights, maybe.
+ Buy lenses from the body manufacturer. That is not to say that there are not decent 3rd party lenses out there but, overall, you are far better off to spend a few more bucks and get the lenses that were designed specifically for the body you choose.
+ Base your selection more on ergonomics than on esoteric statistics or exotic features. I assure you that you will NEVER see the difference between a 7-segment autofocusing sensor and one with 28 segments...or 280 segments.
+ Ignore Gee-Whiz numbers. Remember that when you look at a fine image you are seeing the skill of the photographer much more than the capability of the camera. Read Ken Lockwell (www.kenrockwell.com) in this regard.
+ As the cabbie said when asked how to get to Carnegie Hall, PRACTICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE.

And have fun. That's the most important part.

Post 134 of 148

Money doesn't buy images. And the camera's only the start.

by Truckles - 5/14/07 1:43 AM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

Hi Stefan:

Haven't time to read through all the posts but here's my response:

1) A digital camera is a computer with a lens attached. Lousy lens = lousy images, regardless of number of megapixels. An 8MP performance is fine.

2) No amount of money buys good images. A computer-with-a-lens-attached may be the most expensive and technologically best-specced model in the world but if the owner takes crap pictures, then crap pictures is all it will yield.


3) A computer-with-a-lens produces a digital output. Digital outputs are the start, not the end, of the imaging process. Digicam users who can't be bothered to invest in and learn about post-processing software like Photoshop are only using half of the tools available to maximise the joy and effectiveness of digital photography. Reliance on in-camera processing is plain silly.

4) High quality dSLRs are great for those who want to invest the equivalent of an expensive overseas holiday in their purchase and from that platform then spend more and more on further lenses. Slightly lesser quality pseudo-dSLRs are great for those who want to invest in an expensive overseas holiday and take the camera along with them to record it -- and still have enough money left over to buy a decent post-processing suite of software.

5) These slightly lesser quality pseudo-dSLRs are also great for those who realise there's no point in being able to shoot and post-process large images if they then can't be printed any bigger than A4.

6) These slightly lesser quality pseudo-dSLRs are also great for those who realise that the printed pictures they take will be framed and hung on walls to be viewed by family members, relatives and other visitors, none of whom will arrive with a magnifying glass in order to pore over every pixel.

I've had both Canon and Nikon dSLRs and they were fine. I started taking pictures with a Russian-made Zenit 35mm in 1967 so in the past 40 years have graduated from black-and-white prints for the family album to colour slides to digital images for use as magazine covers or magazine spreads in publications both in the UK and overseas.

I've since sold my dSLR kits because of the weight and inconvenience and for the past year have used a digital camera with a built-in image stabilisation system which at full retail cost less than a third of the price Canon charge for just one ancillary lens with image stabilisation.

The camera is the Konica-Minolta (as was) A200. It was purchased for $250 second hand on eBay. As was my $250 Epson A3 colour printer. I also paid $100 for the now obsolete Photoshop 7.

The results of this $600 combination are not as good as those from the Nikon and Canon dSLRs when I come to run a glass over side-by-side examples of dSLR and pseudo-dSLR images.

But as noted, I don't have family members, relatives or friends who microscopically inspect the framed images in our home. And I've been left with sufficient money to indulge in photography for the sheer joy of it, to go off on repeated overseas trips with my humble A200 (which also shoots perfectly watchable home video, too) and a tripod...

And return with images which have captured the moment.

Isn't that what photography is all about???

Good luck, Stefan.

Post 135 of 148

And that's the bottom line...

by noirx - 5/14/07 6:37 AM In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) Moderator

...because a professional photographer said so.

A "professional photographer" wrote:

"There are two brands to consider: Nikon and Canon. Period. Try them out and choose the one that seems best to you. All the high-cost advertising in the world will not change the fact that either of those brands will take better images than their owners."

Declarative, unqualified statements followed by a rhetorical "period" often translate as: "I can provide no rational basis for why I believe this, but if I make myself seem hyper-confident, I'll discourage anyone from making me back-up the statement." These statements are often preceded by a claim that this person is an authority on the overarching topic.

Of all manufacturers of cameras, Canon is outdone in "high-cost advertising" only by Sony. Sony is currently running a campaign for a point-and-shoot model with "face detection" (You know the one: Dad is not a horse's rear end). There's a Canon television commercial that's been running consistently for months: something about "Why we love football." Nikon has an ongoing "Legends Behind the Lens" campaign which appears as a menu selection on Tivo DVRs. In contrast, I can't remember the last time I saw an Olympus or Pentax campaign. So if a "professional photographer" makes a claim that ONLY two manufacturers make worthy DSLR cameras, and those two happen to be among the three who do expensive, wide-reach marketing, I'd have reason to suspect that this "professional" is himself under the influence of said marketing.

It very well may be the case that Canon and Nikon make the best professional equipment: although I wonder what Sigma users would have to say about that; but Sigma doesn't do "high-cost advertising," so, amazingly enough, Sigma using professionals are a relative few. Because a company produces superior professional grade equipment, it does not necessarily follow that its consumer-level products are wholly superior to comparable products from other manufacturers.

Based upon the dozens of comprehensive reviews that I read written by knowledgeable "professional photographers," and the sample photography which accompanied those reviews, there are indeed worthy contenders on the market that do not bear Canon or Nikon branding.

Empty rhetoric, no matter how seemingly authoritative is its source, is still just empty rhetoric.

Forum legend:
Locked Locked thread
Moderator Moderator
CNET staff CNET staff
Samsung staff Samsung staff
Norton Authorized Support team Norton Authorized Support team
AVG staff AVG staff
Windows Outreach team Windows Outreach team
Dell staff Dell staff
Intel staff Intel staff
Powered by Jive Software