(no subject)

[den]

Now that I've got my lens I've gone back to film photgraphy, so now I have to wait for the developed photos to see how they look. I need a good, high quality digital SLR.

Comments

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

I've got the current Canon low-end model (i.e. the 'new' digital rebel, 350D - it has significant improvements over the older one). It's very nice and quite small too. Obviously, it costs a fair bit; didn't seem unreasonable to me, but may be to you. So anyway, if you're considering that, I'd recommend it. There are only three things that mildly annoy me about it:

1) The viewfinder image is a bit small
2) It has just a single control dial - so in manual mode, moving the dial changes shutter speed, you have to hold a button as well to change aperture
3) It doesn't show ISO speed on the little info screen or in the viewfinder

Otherwise it's great. Check www.dpreview.com for comprehensive reviews on any digital cameras you might be considering.

Apart from the cost, the other issue you might encounter with Canon's lower-end digital SLRs is that they have a smaller sensor than 35mm film, meaning that your lenses effectively have 1.6x the focal length. So you might not have a lens that covers the wide end, and obviously if you have to buy another lens it starts looking more expensive... (The wide-angle lens I'm looking to get costs about as much as the camera.)

Canon do make full-frame digital SLRs, but these are both hugely expensive and also plain huge (big & heavy). Personally I think the smaller sensor is a better compromise...