I had a 35mm Minolta SLR, and 2 nice lenses I bought while on board a destroyer in San Diego, travelling the world. I wouldn't say I'm a good photographer, but I do enjoy being able to do more than your average point & shoot, though I'm not fluent in the ways of aparature, shutter speed, etc... So when it came time to upgrade, I got the Minolta Maxxum 7D with a new lens, and it fits my old lenses just fine. Then the new lens broke. Sony bought Minolta, so I sent the lens to Sony. They said they couldn't fix it, and my options were to send back the camera and get $1076 back (Refund minus the months used out of a 7 year warranty, which came to like 7 months of use), take back the broken lens, or get a new Sony A100.

Ok, thats the story. So I have about $1100 coming back to me for a new camera, but I'm a bit torn. The Nikon D80 and Canon Rebel XTi are getting supurb reviews, and are currently the best choice for my price point... The Sony A100 got good reviews for Sony's first DSLR (which fits all minolta lenses), but I don't know if I want to spend 900-1100 on a 'good' camera. I want a great camera, and I liked the 7D.

I don't know if I can wait for the 2nd gen Sony to come out... So should I just get the new A100, or go with Nikon/Canon instead? I may just buy a fancy-pants point & shoot until the 2nd gen Sony comes out, but I'd welcome any opinions from the camera enthusiasts lurking about.

 

If it was me I'd buy the Nikon D80 with the 18-135 kit lens. I think you'll be very happy with it.

 

Excellent question. We have had multiple Minolta Maxxums (film) with a half dozen lens, etc. ended up selling them on eBay. Bought a Nikon 5000 before Digital SLRs really came out.

Today, we are searching for a new digital camera and I have read just about every review I could find on the D80 and non-DSRLs ... I've come to the following conclusion.

It all depends upon what your going to do with it. If its to throw pics on the net ... you dont need anything like that. Internet pics more than 72 dpi (maybe 100) are a waste as you cant see the resolution. The only real reason I can see getting 10 MPixel or better is to print 11 x 14s (meaing you need the printer (not cheap) or send them out to be done (more $$ and printer will pay for itself). So, to me, question #1 is

What do you do with the pictures?

Next question is what kind of pics do you take? If your into landscapes, large interior shots with crowds, a 24mm or 19mm (35mm equivalent) is the way to go. 28 mm or higher is point and shoot country. On the other hand, if your into pics of wildlife or maybe racetracks? 300mm minimum or 400mm (35 mm equivalent) better (and not with digital zoom which lowers the resolution).

SO question 2 is, when all is said and done, how many lens do you need?

Flash, gotta have one of those ... looking at $200 easy.

Interior portraits? Multiple flash setups.

Need a "fast" 50mm?

Macro. Nothing beats a real macro lens.

The primary advantage of a DSLR are the interchangeable lens. Secondary advantages of what you see is what you get, a bit faster between shots, slightly larger sensor are all good but IMHO, in no way come to anywhere near the cost of the lens suite.

In the old days, pros would have one or two bodies, different lens on each body. The bodies they kept forever, the lens technology keeps changing ... better glass, faster lenses.

Today, the body technology keeps changing. Today 12Mp, tomorrow 20 Mpixels. But how are you going to use those Mpixels?

At the moment, my conclusion is if I buy a D80, I'm looking at maybe $3K in lenses easy. If you buy nikon (and whats the point of buying a nikon body and Joe Smoe lens), your looking at $900 easy for a good wide angle. 300 - 400mm? I have no idea how much.

If everything you ever take a pic of fits in the kit lens (usually the cheapest lens the manufactor sells), then your golden. But probably dont need a SLR.

So my thinking is ... how much is the whole 9 yards going to really cost me to allow me to do what I want to do. That is what I would do my analysis on.

 

Most folks build their system over time. At least I know I did. Now I'm well & truly stuck into the Nikon system.

There are good deals to be found on used lenses so costs can be kept down with careful shopping.

From what I've read the 18-135 is a pretty good lens for a kit lens. Well above the quality of of most dog chew toy kit lenses.

A fast 50mm for that Nikon is about $95.

Yes a SB 800 would be nice, if you shoot with flash. I find that I don't use mine much.

You are right about 2 bodies in the olden days. I carried 2 all of the time. One with BW & the other with color film. No need to do that with digital. Lenses were a snap to change. One body had a 50mm & the other a 35mm.

 

Thats what I mean ... you get invested in the lense. The lenses is where the money is, not the body.

My wife used the flash everyday ... mostly inside pics, mostly wide-angle

We kept two bodies ... one with a 19 or 24 wide angle on it and the other with a 100 - 300 zoom or 400mm telephoto. Mostly shooting outside ... Wide angle for the landscapes ... long lens for the wildlife shots. Too much of a pain to keep switching lense when your taking a picture on a tripod for a quality landscape to suddenly see a Griz in the distance and reaching quick for the telephoto to get the shot before the silly bear moved!

I mostly found the 50 - 135 range useless for these kind of things. Thats what I mean it all depends upon what your interested in.

 

There are several reviews in my PC Magazine subscription I get, including one in the November issue. Overall, their impression was that the D80 was better if you could afford it, however the XTi was the best bang for the buck, and was JUST under the D80 in performance. Honestly, I would go with the XTi and save that extra ~$200 for a nice lense.

Here's one review (Search the site for more):
http://shop.pcmag.com/shop/product/C.../35998327.aspx

Either way, you can't go wrong!
-Cody

 

If I had $1200 to blow on a camera, I'd get a Canon XT 8MP w/kit lens & add the 70-200mm f/4 L series zoom, both are heavily discounted right now.

EXPLAINER: Moving to a Canon body gives you access to their world-class white glass (L series lenses). Camera bodies come and go, but high quality lenses keep their value & last a lifetime.

 

I have the Sony a100 and I love it. If you want to see sample photos just let me know. I've already posted a few here.

It's my first DSLR, but I've used a DRebelXT... give me the Sony over that one any day.

There are tons of Minolta lenses available used. I built up a nice assortment of 4 lenses from ebay, and I don't have money to blow on camera gear. The a100 has stabilization built into the body... you do the math on dollars saved on lens purchases if stabilization is a concern for you. If you already have 2 nice Minolta lenses - you're ahead of the game.

 

With the 1.5 multiplier on Nikon Digitals a 18-135 becomes a 27-200. That's a very useful range in my book. But as we know everyone has their own priorities.

 

Thats very true... Lots of people won't be making the Minolta --> Sony jump, and therefore there should be tons of cheap used lenses being sold here soon. Talk about getting invested in lenses and keeping costs down.

 

That's true & a good reason not to change camera systems.

 

But I am changing camera systems.

I only have 2 minolta lenses, and I wouldn't be heartbroken going with another system... But the idea of used lenses cheap is pretty appealing with regards to long term costs.

 

With a bit of careful shopping used lenses of every flavor are out there for the picking. Whenever Nikon comes out with a new lens the older versions hit the used market.

Here are a couple of great camera resources.

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.nikonians.org/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/

Hope this helps you some.

 

Still waiting on a refund from Sony, and since I'll be waiting for a new Sony DSLR... I picked up a DSC-T10 today with a 4gb memory stick. It works with my PSP too, yay!

I'll be sure to share pics when I get back from my trip.