PDA

View Full Version : The camera budget


Eriol
08-31-2005, 10:25 AM
For the current hobbyists, enthusiasts, and professionals, what is the typical outlay a person new to the field could spend to have a "general-purpose" Digital SLR that can be used in a variety of situations (but may not be able to do specific specialty shots) as well as lenses. Assume the person has already gotten some training on camera terminology and skills and is ready to take the plunge.

(I personally am not ready to do this. I'm curious what the barrier to entry is estimated to be.)

jtnishi
08-31-2005, 11:08 AM
Well, really, you need to split between lenses & bodies. But I'd say as long as you can outlay about $1000-$1200 pre-tax, you can get a decent start (assuming about $700-$800 for the body, and maybe an extra $200-$400 to get one extra lens and basic accessories like a compact flash card). Getting into Digital SLRs is not a cheap proposition. It's meant to be a long term type investment.

If you don't shoot a lot, it might be easier to actually jump into film SLRs instead. While the per shot cost is going to be significantly higher, the equipment is generally going to be significantly cheaper. Inexpensive film SLRs abound at swap meets. And even in retail, film SLR bodies are cheaper than digital SLR bodies.

Frankly, the barrier to entry for digital SLRs is probably going to get a little lower, but not much lower over time. Don't ever expect them to compete in price with compacts. Even though Digital SLRs get a lot of attention, they're mostly used by a relatively small set of individuals compared to people using digital cameras. But assuming the skills are there, the price isn't so bad. Consider it an investment, like investing in a computer.

JadeCat
08-31-2005, 11:28 AM
Be ready to spend at least $700 on a new camera body w/o a lens. You may be able to get a used one for a little less.

Then comes the expense of lenses, and depending on what type of photography (I'm guessing Cosplay photography tho'), will determine what lenses to purchase, and those are an initial expense.

Your friend is looking at spending probably about $1000.00 for the body, a lens, and maybe a camera bag. This price, obviously goes up the higher the camera s/he wants.

Eriol
08-31-2005, 01:23 PM
Well, really, you need to split between lenses & bodies.

I forgot about the lenses. Thanks for bringing that up.


Getting into Digital SLRs is not a cheap proposition. It's meant to be a long term type investment.

I was aware of the hobby being expensive, but I didn't know what the average expenditure was just to get into it.. I appreciate you and other giving some numbers.

If you don't shoot a lot, it might be easier to actually jump into film SLRs instead.

I completely forgot about film SLRs. Thanks.


Frankly, the barrier to entry for digital SLRs is probably going to get a little lower, but not much lower over time. Don't ever expect them to compete in price with compacts. Even though Digital SLRs get a lot of attention, they're mostly used by a relatively small set of individuals compared to people using digital cameras. But assuming the skills are there, the price isn't so bad. Consider it an investment, like investing in a computer.

Thanks for the assessment. I have never put the point-and-clicks in the same league as the digital SLRs. I am getting annoyed by some lack of control in the point-and-shoot cameras, and some of these compact models go up to $500-$600, so my impression was, "Why would anyone spend that much on a point-and-click when he or she could educate themselves on photography more and buy a modest digital SLR?"


Thanks for your response Jadecat. It looks like the basic barrier of entry is around $700-$1000. I can at least use this information to advise any of my friends or colleagues who might jump into this without thinking.

AgentSakur9
08-31-2005, 01:31 PM
I gotta tell ya, Switching from the Sony DSC-F817 to the Canon 350D hasn't been the easiest of transitions. With lenses and new media, I've spent about $1500. Is that really necessary? Nah. I wanted jump off the Cybershot because I had outgrown it as a photographer.

Outgrown? I had reached the limitations that camera had and it was time to move on. Mind you I started with no prior photography experience, so it took me the latter part of five years to fully master the Sony. The Majority of my work that people have come to enjoy are the product of a "Lesser" Camera. I say "lesser" because that's what I've been told by my "peers." Nonetheless I am proud of the work I'd produced.

Anyway... That's what it really boils down to. Ultimately it shouldn't matter how much money is spent, but how the tools are used. As much as I love my new D-SLR, it really was my Sony that got me the jobs and respect that I've earned as a photographer.

I say if you can spend less and still get high quality pictures, go for it. Don't mind everyone else.

**edit**
Why would anyone spend that much on a point-and-click when he or she could educate themselves on photography more and buy a modest digital SLR?"

The point and click camera I have (Sony DSC-F717) is actually a really good training tool to learn how to shoot. It offers Shutter Priority, Apeture Priority and Full Manual. So you can learn a lot even though it's a point and shoot.

Also the point and clicks offer features most DSLRS can. Like recording Movies in Avi, Mov or Mpg format depending on what manufacturer you go with. The high end Sony's come with NightFraming which for all purposes gives you NightVision for low light or no light settings (like shooting at nightclubs.) This is different than NightShot as that NightFraming shoots in full color. The Higher End Sony's also offer a Laser Assist Focusing system. That in itself is pretty cool. It shoots out a "Laser Grid" and tells the Camera to focus on that area, even in the dark.

So yeah, while the D-SLR has superior qualities, some point and clicks have features that cater to the casual to the "Semi-Pro" Photographer. (where I am sitting at currently)

Eriol
08-31-2005, 01:45 PM
Also the point and clicks offer features most DSLRS can. Like recording Movies in Avi, Mov or Mpg format depending on what manufacturer you go with. The high end Sony's come with NightFraming which for all purposes gives you NightVision for low light or no light settings (like shooting at nightclubs.) This is different than NightShot as that NightFraming shoots in full color. The Higher End Sony's also offer a Laser Assist Focusing system. That in itself is pretty cool. It shoots out a "Laser Grid" and tells the Camera to focus on that area, even in the dark.

For me, I can do without movie capability. I don't see how useful it is as compared with a digital camcorder, which is designed for video. I consider the movie features of a camera much like some features of a cell phone: extraneous.

I'm not yet competent on photography, but my biggest gripe with my current point-and-click (Olympus D560 Zoom) is the shutter lag. I can't always keep a steady hand, and it would be nice for the shot to finish within a fraction of a second after I snap the shot. I've had issues where I must have moved during that time frame, creating a blurred image.

AgentSakur9
08-31-2005, 02:12 PM
Shutter Lag plagued me for a while. One thing that's good about Shutter Lag, you end up choosing each of your shots carefully.

I am going to sound like a Sony Rep again, but hey that's all I shot with up until now.

One thing that the Higher End Sony encorporated was their "SteadyCam" Technology in their Point and Shoot Camera. The F828 also has a shutter lag of .086 or something, easiest one of the quickest non-DSLR cameras out there.

As for video feature? Yah... I hardly used it. Some people like to record clips of stuff on the go without switching to another device. My Camcorder has a "Still Shot" mode and the pictures are awful... HA HA

The Best advice I can give anyone to improve: Shoot Everything. Play with your camera and shoot everything.

I practice at home with those Foam Backboards you get for reports and two lamps. I then use PVC Statues or Action Figures. This creates a scale studio. You can move the lights for different situations, play with your apeture and shutter controls... and if they're not pure white lights, you can adjust your white balance. Since it's scale, it's a pretty much contolled environment.

Then when you shoot in real world settings, use what you learned from the "Studio" to real life application.

Plus since it's a figure and not a live model you get less lip if you leave them under a lamp. LOL. But whatever you do, Shoot, shoot, shoot!

Eriol
08-31-2005, 02:46 PM
I practice at home with those Foam Backboards you get for reports and two lamps. I then use PVC Statues or Action Figures. This creates a scale studio. You can move the lights for different situations, play with your apeture and shutter controls... and if they're not pure white lights, you can adjust your white balance. Since it's scale, it's a pretty much contolled environment.

Then when you shoot in real world settings, use what you learned from the "Studio" to real life application.

That is a nice idea for practicing. Thanks for that idea.

ZiggyB
08-31-2005, 03:29 PM
If you're on a budget, something else to consider are SLR-like cameras. They are still really good digital cameras and most have amazing lens (fixed, but still really good). They use an EVF (electronic view finder) to get that "looking through the lens" feel, so you get the feel of an SLR camera but not nessessarily the price.

The camera I used for the longest time, the Minolta DiMage A1 really got me used to going to a full DSLR like the Canon 350D/Rebel XT. But it's only about $600 now and that gives you the body and lens.

There are other cameras in the class such as the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828.

Yes, you're stuck with the built in lens, but you save a ton of money as well. But quality wise you do get much sharper and more control with a true SLR. But my Minolta was pretty close.

jtnishi
08-31-2005, 03:31 PM
Thanks for the assessment. I have never put the point-and-clicks in the same league as the digital SLRs. I am getting annoyed by some lack of control in the point-and-shoot cameras, and some of these compact models go up to $500-$600, so my impression was, "Why would anyone spend that much on a point-and-click when he or she could educate themselves on photography more and buy a modest digital SLR?"


There are actually still a few good reasons to spend that much on a point-and-click style camera. Remember that point-and-shoots don't have that investment expense afterward of buying a big pile of glass. Also, in general, some of the lens choices on point-and-shoots just don't have an equivalent on SLRs. The one reason I got the F707 over 3 years ago [$1000] was because the lens was the 35mm equivalent of a 38-190/f2-2.4 lens (doable because the sensor is smaller). Of course, the DRebel wasn't out then, so I suppose one could argue my hand was forced a little bit. :P

But the key thing is that point-and-shoots are generally simpler to use. The more complex the camera, the steeper the learning curve is going to be. I'm still learning a lot trying to handle my DSLR, even though I've used fully manual film SLRs in the past. It's significantly easier to get reasonable results from any point-and-shoot. The advantage is that when I do get good results from a DSLR, I _really_ get good results.

However, granted, it does seem that there's a more than competent set of point-and-shoots in the lower $150-$400 range that can easily create good pictures without that extra expense. I think at this point, the only really reasonable choices up in that $500-$600 range are the mega-zooms.

Eriol
08-31-2005, 04:12 PM
ZiggyB and jtnishi, both of you raise good points about the expensive point-and-clicks that I have not realized. I agree that for the average person, most cameras will deliver the "good shot."

I'd have to research cameras some more, but as I was telling AgentSakura9, the shutter lag on my Olympus 560D zoom is beginning to bug me. At least at my current skill level, I would be fine with a point-and-click camera, if I can get that shutter lag to an absolute minimum, like a film camera. I do use my digital camera's "pre-focusing" now, i.e. hold the button down halfway to allow the camera to focus, but the time frame between when I fully press the button to when the camera registers the shot is still a bit long.

shiroin
08-31-2005, 07:04 PM
the moment as soon as you step into photography, you are saying that you are willing to spend large sums of money (assuming you are getting a SLR instead of small chessy cams)
as you get more interested, you will want to buy new equipments suited for different situitations (filters, lenses, remote cord, tripod, external flash, what not)

heres my suggestion for a good start (affordable + quality)
Nikon D50 Body (dont get the kit, 18-55mm is not so useful all the time and its apprature is really low F3.5-5.6)
if you have more budget simply get the D70s Kit (comes with the 18-70mm F3.5-4.5, its also an improved version of the award winning D70)

get the AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24~85mm F3.5~4.5G(IF)or the AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor ED 18~70mm F/3.5~4.5G (IF) as a startup and a good lens for general and protrait photography
(I am not going to suggest SIGMA lens because I have not yet used one and do not know how good they are. One thing I know, they are cheap)

get a tripod, at this point you may not think you need one, but when the time comes, it is handy to have one. Get a cheap one, since you are not likely to look forward to spend thousands with reduced vibration, and one that would support the weight of your camera!

get UV filters or protector filters for protecting your lens.

get a simple cleaning set with cloth, cleaning liquid and a small sprayer.

as you get more gears, suggest to buy a camera bag that can fit all your gears, now just get a small bad that will fit your camera.

get a Sandisk UltraII 1GB for storage (if u think its too expensive its on sale on amazon)

other than this, with those i think you are all set for some general photography, if u want more suggestion u can always ask me :)

shiroin
08-31-2005, 07:13 PM
I gotta tell ya, Switching from the Sony DSC-F817 to the Canon 350D hasn't been the easiest of transitions. With lenses and new media, I've spent about $1500. Is that really necessary? Nah. I wanted jump off the Cybershot because I had outgrown it as a photographer.

I had a transition from a Cybershot D10 to a Nikon D70s.
It was hard in the beginning to learn all the basic ideas (apprature, shutter speed, flash, color balance, white balance, etc.)
but after you play with it for a month (actually had around 4000 shots the first month XD) you will learn quickly and get on to it quickly

The point and click camera I have (Sony DSC-F717) is actually a really good training tool to learn how to shoot. It offers Shutter Priority, Apeture Priority and Full Manual. So you can learn a lot even though it's a point and shoot.

D10 only had Auto XD, but it was good to learn how to reduce vibration and to learn some basic compositions.

One thing that the Higher End Sony encorporated was their "SteadyCam" Technology in their Point and Shoot Camera. The F828 also has a shutter lag of .086 or something, easiest one of the quickest non-DSLR cameras out there.
ok dood in japan they have all the newest sony toys.
but even the newest sony toys can not avoid vibrations.
T7, compact, but really horrible. D10, a old model i had, is even worse...

once u get hold onto a SLR, try ways of holding the cam and fine a way that suits you the best. with the way SLRs are generally hold, there shouldnt be much vibration unless you are using a big telephoto lens withour tripod :p

shiroin
08-31-2005, 07:21 PM
i have some suggestions for point and shoot digicams

aside from my Nikon D70s, i also have a casio exilim ex-z500 and is it a good point and shoot that has good anti-vibration, color balance and sharpness. The best thing about it is its really large LCD.
i also strongly suggest panasonic lumix cameras. they have the best anti-vibration system out of all point and shoot cams. i would of gotten it if i was given the choice. the ex-z500 was given to me as a gift.

One more tip
do not get a Samsung or a SONY!

skypirate
08-31-2005, 08:20 PM
I gotta tell ya, Switching from the Sony DSC-F817 to the Canon 350D hasn't been the easiest of transitions. With lenses and new media, I've spent about $1500. Is that really necessary? Nah. I wanted jump off the Cybershot because I had outgrown it as a photographer.

Outgrown? I had reached the limitations that camera had and it was time to move on. Mind you I started with no prior photography experience, so it took me the latter part of five years to fully master the Sony. The Majority of my work that people have come to enjoy are the product of a "Lesser" Camera. I say "lesser" because that's what I've been told by my "peers." Nonetheless I am proud of the work I'd produced.

Anyway... That's what it really boils down to. Ultimately it shouldn't matter how much money is spent, but how the tools are used. As much as I love my new D-SLR, it really was my Sony that got me the jobs and respect that I've earned as a photographer.

I say if you can spend less and still get high quality pictures, go for it. Don't mind everyone else.


Amen.

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned the true heartbreak of owning a DSLR...
Dust on the sensor (followed by schreeching music from Psycho")

Yeah, there are a few models that address this.

Eriol
08-31-2005, 10:08 PM
Thanks for the advice shiroin. I didn't realize that the kits were unnecessary if you knew enough about photography to pick and choose what you need. Usually here in the U.S., kits are sold with roughly what a starter person needs and is cheaper than buying the parts individually.


What's this dust on the sensor? Why is this such a problem? You can't clean it off easily? Does dust collect when you separate the lens from the body?

Super No 1
08-31-2005, 11:56 PM
This is what happens when you get "junk" on your sensor.

http://superno1.homestead.com/files/tests/DSC_2928b.jpg
It shows up as black spots on the photo, which you can easily see in the sky, especially right below the blimp. In this case, I was at an airport on a windy day and got a lot of junk blown into the camera. Getting dust on your sensor is inevitable no matter how careful you are. If you can't get it off with a blower, you'll have to clean it off with solution, unless you want to live with it and edit it out of every photo.

When I chose to go the DSLR route, I had $3000 saved up. I wanted to get everything that I needed to do event shooting. I wanted a good prime lens for a portrait lens and a big, fast zoom lens to shoot indoor events. That was in addition to a kit lens. I also wanted an external flash.

I don't know how much money I have spent on everything. I lost track a long time ago. Getting a camera body is the easy part. It's all of the other things that will drive up the cost of owning a DSLR. You need lenses, memory, batteries, cleaning suppplies, flash, bags, and filters. A DSLR isn't for everybody, but I recommend one for anybody who is really serious about photography. If you're just a casual shooter, I don't think it's worth the expense.

shiroin
09-01-2005, 01:10 AM
nah mine was worse...
i lived in this old apartment with carpets.
and for some reason fur things keep invading my camera
i have dusts on my viewfinder and had some on my sensor.
now that the sensor is clean everything is good, but the viewfinder is just really dirty....

jtnishi
09-01-2005, 01:19 AM
Thanks for the advice shiroin. I didn't realize that the kits were unnecessary if you knew enough about photography to pick and choose what you need. Usually here in the U.S., kits are sold with roughly what a starter person needs and is cheaper than buying the parts individually.


What's this dust on the sensor? Why is this such a problem? You can't clean it off easily? Does dust collect when you separate the lens from the body?

Yeah, dust will collect pretty much at any time you change lenses, unless you're crazy enough to make the changes in something like a cleanroom (or a box equivalent. :P). And yes, dust is a pain to get off the sensor, because the sensor is one of the parts you don't want to touch if you can avoid it because it scratches (and that's putting it lightly), and also keeps something of a static charge that lets dust cling. There's plenty of guides on the web about how to clean sensors. All of them scare the heck out of me, because they all generally involve something scraping against the sensor to remove dust. One of those little niggles with digital SLRs, I guess.

This was, of course, never a problem with film, because film had the benefit of a shutter curtain to protect the film when it was loaded.

ZiggyB
09-01-2005, 01:34 AM
And the fact that once you changed the film, any dust that did collect on that roll went away.

Dust will get you eventually. After the first couple of days I actually got lint on the inside of the view finder. And I only changed the lens like twice.

One other thing to get is a blower. This will allow you to blow off dust from the reflex mirror and the CCD sensor.

I was reading about the dust problem and it's actually possible to get dust on the sensor even if you never change the lens. Zoom lenses will suck in and push out air as you rotate the lens to zoom. This causes a vacume inside the camera body which sucks in dust and lint. X-/

Honestly, it's not going to be a major problem, you just have to get used to the fact that you may have to clean the sensor once and a while. But have the blower handy, that should solve most of your dust issues.

Eriol
09-01-2005, 09:42 AM
I have to say that that dust problem is annoying. I know I would be constantly keeping the camera clean, and I don't even own a DLSR. I just know that my personality would require I maintain that camera like crazy.

It sounds like from all the anecdotes that the camera body is one of the lowest cost things, and that your budget is eventually consumed by lenses, memory, and batteries.

Hmm, entering DSLRs introduces new problems that I never thought about. Makes film and point-and-clicks rather worry free.

When you first got your new equipment, did any of you have slight anxiety to treat your equipment gingerly like some museum piece to avoid dropping or bumping into something with the camera?

Speaking of batteries, what do DSLRs typically use? I presume it is a proprietary battery using Li-Ion or NiMH. I wouldn't think those cameras would still be using 2 or 4 AA batteris.

Ollie
09-01-2005, 02:58 PM
You may want to think about how meticulous you want to be about cleaning. With some care, I doubt dust in the body will be a real issue for a while at least. If you end up cleaning it more than necessary, you're probably just increasing the risk of something scratching a component or being not quite getle enough while cleaning.

I just recently made the jump to digital SLR, also after feeling I'd pushed my Kodak EasyShare to the limits. After the 350D body and kit lens (which has actually exceeded my expectations so far), a case, a memory card, a tripod, and a UV filter, it's come out to about $1,100. I'll want another lens and an external flash later on, which will probably bring it closer to $1,700. Just on it's own, though, the kit is giving me what I hoped to achive: higher image quality, faster camera (as in, shutter speed and operation time), more control to adapt to surroundings, and so forth. A $700 point-and-shoot would probably have done an equivalent job, but wouldn't let me further improve and expand.

It's going to be expensive, but you can benifit from a dSLR without going all out. In my case, I'm happy for now with the pictures I get with just the bare minimum, but once I push it to the limit as it is, I'll want to get better lenses and an external flash unit.

JadeCat
09-01-2005, 06:28 PM
Dust is somewhat of a problem, but I don't think it's all that MUCH of a problem. I've had my DSLR for a while, and even w/ changing lenses, I don't get much dust...and I have cat fur about in the air.

There are advantages and disadvantages to P&S and DSLRs. It's matter of knowing what you like, what you're doing, and what you need. With either, you're going to need a myriad of items, such as memory cards, batteries, etc...but with DSLRs, you may or may not need additional lenses, dependiing on how serious you are into your photography

The P&Ss, while complicated, offer up advantages to DSLRs because they are really made for consumers who just want to take pictures and not worry about post processing (PP), etc.

I had a P&S camera, until the shutter lag began to really really bother me, esp. in the sports arena and nature photography. It wasn't *too* bad when taking cosplay or other costuming shots when people posed.

With DSLRs, you're going to need *some* post processing, etc. For the Canon 20D, the photos need to be sharpened slightly (not always) in Photoshop or other PP applications whereas P&Ss are almost perfect when it comes to sharpness.

WIth DSLRs, you can get more flexibility, but comes at the expense of buying additional lenses and other things, such as filters, tripods, etc.

For those on a budget, who only want to do cosplay photography, I say P&S or really cheap(er) DSLRs (such as the Rebel XT) are probably the way to go versus the higher end DSLRs out there.

If you're really into the photography, then DSLRs are the way to go, but understand the cost factor.

After all, anything you spend on photography can't be spent on costuming supplies.

Eriol
09-02-2005, 11:14 AM
Ok, here is another concern when spending wads of money. How durable are expensive (point-and-shoot) P&S and DLSRs cameras? How long have you had them? Did any ever require expensive repairs?

For example, when I buy a computer, I often buy a warranty extension, because something invariably fails over the life of the computer. Cameras seem more "fragile" to me.

JadeCat
09-02-2005, 02:03 PM
Ok, here is another concern when spending wads of money. How durable are expensive (point-and-shoot) P&S and DLSRs cameras? How long have you had them? Did any ever require expensive repairs?

For example, when I buy a computer, I often buy a warranty extension, because something invariably fails over the life of the computer. Cameras seem more "fragile" to me.

Actually, it's the opposite. Cameras are MEANT to be taken out and about. And many cameras are pretty durable. Pro photographers are taking their cameras out into the field, and mom/pops/grandparents are taking their cameras out to amusement parks, bdays, etc

Desktop computers are meant to stay indoors. Vibrations & heat can really damage the innards of a computer.

The lenses of DSLRs are delicate and can be scratched, hence the use of filters, lens hoods, etc, to keep the glass protected.

P&S are pretty durable. I've had mine for 4+ years, I've never had to repair it, and it's still running fairly well. I've taken my DSLR out for hikes, photoshoots, etc, and been okay so far.

Places like Best Buy, Costco/Sam's Club, have extended warranties (read the fine print), and will just replace your camera if anything goes wrong. The manufacturers have 1 year warranty to replace & fix the camera.

I think if you use common sense and a little care/caution, in dealing w/ your camera, it should be okay and last you a long time (ie: don't drop it or treat it like a rubber ball, and put it away when not using it)

A good camera bag is a investment, as well as filters & lens hoods for any lenses you might buy for a DSLR -- (it's cheaper & less heart ache to scratch a $30.00 filter than a $500 lens!)

Eriol
09-02-2005, 04:18 PM
I will have to pay attention to filters. P&S cameras generally don't have filters, so I never realized they have such things for the DSLRs.

gmontem
09-02-2005, 06:27 PM
Ok, here is another concern when spending wads of money. How durable are expensive (point-and-shoot) P&S and DLSRs cameras? How long have you had them? Did any ever require expensive repairs?

About two Anime Expo's ago as I took off my 85/1.8, a little kid running behind me ran into my hand holding the lens and caused me to drop it. The lens fell front first with the UV filter taking most of the damage. The hood would have taken the damage but unfortunately the hood came off. It's one of the non-screwing Canon hoods that snap on/off easily. The lens still works and the fall didn't cause it to front/back focus. Wish the kid's parents were around so I can get them to pay for my $50 filter.

Anyways DSLRs are pretty durable and I've read reports of people accidentally dropping a 20D five feet into the ground and still shooting. Of course, YMMV. I don't think you have anything to worry about as long if you use the neck strap and some common sense, and not abuse it like many PJs do. The only thing that'll break over time is the shutter. Most consumer models have a shutter life of ~30k actuations and ~150k-200k for the pro models.

Eriol
09-19-2005, 11:10 PM
Question on lenses: From some of the posts I'm reading here, is it safe to assume that while camera bodies come and go, lenses by the same manufacturer are standardized somewhat. Thus, you can take a lens you bought last year and it'll fit on some of this year's camera bodies by the same manufacturer. I would think if the lenses weren't compatible, photographers would have a fit, and there would be no market.

shiroin
09-20-2005, 01:15 AM
gmontem:
$50 for a UV filter!? what a rip off... even in japan where UV filters are expensive, the most expensive ive seen are like two three grades yen (in taiwan they are cheaper)

Eriol:
some companies like Kenko makes filters for almost all cameras... even cell phone cameras!
about lenses... as far as I know, Nikon mount standards have not been changed, while Canon has some EOS mount or something.
But generally if u buy Nikon lenses they will fit on all recent Nikons. (or u can get adaptors)
For third party lenses like SIGMA, make sure you buy the lenses with the right mount, else it will not work :)

jtnishi
09-20-2005, 10:21 AM
Question on lenses: From some of the posts I'm reading here, is it safe to assume that while camera bodies come and go, lenses by the same manufacturer are standardized somewhat. Thus, you can take a lens you bought last year and it'll fit on some of this year's camera bodies by the same manufacturer. I would think if the lenses weren't compatible, photographers would have a fit, and there would be no market.

Well, the mounts have changed over the years, but in general, the mounts change significantly less frequently than the bodies do. Canon's current mount is known as the EF mount. It's been around for close to two decades now, with only one minor splint-off (the EF-S mount, for those Canon SLR cameras with the 1.6x crop factor, like the two DRebels and the 20D). Nikon's mount has actually stayed surprisingly consistent over the years (they're all variants of the mount from the classic Nikon F, from way back in 1959!). It has changed somewhat to add all sorts of features, but I believe it's actually still possible to use a lens from that original F on your modern D-SLRs, though it will have to be operated completely manually. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work the other way, if I'm not mistaken.

Like shiroin said, you can typically find mount adaptors to mount lenses with different mounts (such as putting Nikon lenses on Canon cameras, like they did with Corpse Bride). However, most of the time, the thing to keep in mind is that in doing so, you typically cannot use the full feature set, which normally means you'll have to do everything in full manual.

For now, as long as you buy lenses with the EF mount for Canon, or whatever the current variant is on the F mount for Nikon lenses, you'll be fine for a good while. The lenses historically are a more important investment than the body is, though with digital, that seems to be changing somewhat.