Well, I started photography recently, with my father's 30ish year old Yashica TL Electro X. I swore I'd stick with film, 'till I earned some money with it, in order to upgrade (trying to keep my funds separated into different areas, force things to fund themselves), which was a good idea, until the shutter gave out. I probably won't repair it, because I figure now is a better time than ever to go digital.

The uses: Generic photography, lots of random artsy stuff. Macro lenses are a must, preferably ones that aren't too expensive, or I could by macro lenses for the filter mount, if necessary, I'd rather not though. Also likely is some wedding photography. So I'm concerned with how large I'll be able to enlarge it. Although I should note that the buddy with whom I am going to be doing weddings with, has a 120mm SLR, so that could be set up on a tripod, for enlargements out the wazoo.

What's not necessary: high continuous speeds, and a large buffer. They're nice, but I'm not willing to spend a lot for them. Any sports photography will be for kicks and giggles, not as a professional, so there is no need to pay out the nose for 5 fps, and a buffer that'll hold 20 images.

I'd prefer it be under $1000 (kit). I'm kind of looking at the D70s, D50, and Digital Rebel XT, and I'd kind of like your input on the matter, keeping in mind lens availability, etc.

Oh yeah. My older camera used the Pentax style M42 screw in mount. I have a 50mm and a 70-150mm lens (Can't remember f/ numbers off the top of my head, kind of irrelevant ATM), I'll prolly sell them, unless if they can be adapted to the newer DSLR (I know I'll lose auto-exposure capabilities, and there'll be the magnification factor). I've heard that some adaptors from M42 to other brands sacrifice the ability to focus to infinity, this wouldn't be very desireable, is this true? For what brands?

-Ashton

Well there is the Pentax *ist DL.
Or one of the new K models too.

- that the manual say can suse M42's with an adaptor. I'm sure they'd say something if it wouldnt work, but a call to your local Pentax dealer would work. I'm going with this one, mostly because of the price point between CF and SD. SD has dropped in the past few months, to where it's just crazy affordable. CF, although more rugged and harder to lose, is still slightly expensive in the large range of capacity, but I suppose it being harder to lose and all... Did I mention a DL could be wrangled for a little less than $500

Dont get me wrong though, the D50 is a great camera. Nikon lenses are great, build quality is wonderful, but a little high for my liking, even with the new model comming out. There's been talk about the price of the D70's going down, with that new model and all.

The Rebel... I like everything about it but it's grip. I've used Canon for film, great wayy back in the day - but I dont like that silver plastic body, or the black. I do wish Canon would come out with an SD SLR, besides the Mark II's.

So I'm concerned with how large I'll be able to enlarge it. Although I should note that the buddy with whom I am going to be doing weddings with, has a 120mm SLR, so that could be set up on a tripod, for enlargements out the wazoo.


You sound so glum!

I wouldn't be concerned about enlargement sizes. I have done lots of high quality tradeshow images with my 4-megapixel EOS 1D. I also did a 6-foot print for a tradeshow, from a cropped Canon G2 image. That was probably pushing it about as far as it will go - and then some. But the truth is, I think a good digital file, that's set up right, makes better prints - no matter how big you go. I used to be a custom printer for fine art photographers and I like the quality from a digital SLR much more than that from even the best 35mm film. I even like it better than 645 film. And I'm talking about 6-megapixel cameras, not the EOS 1Ds or Nikon D2X.

So go ahead - make the switch. And don't sound so unsure about it. The biggest problems you'll have are the learning curve and digital storage. But you'll save money in the long run and if you learn how to set them up, your final image quality will be better.

So basically, you're saying that the sensors in most modern DSLRs will suffice, processing and handling make more of a difference. That being said, are any particular brands more efficient/effective than others, or is it merely a matter of preference?

So basically, you're saying that the sensors in most modern DSLRs will suffice, processing and handling make more of a difference. That being said, are any particular brands more efficient/effective than others, or is it merely a matter of preference?

They will more than suffice. I think they offer more potential than any 35mm film.

Canon and Nikon are the professional standard for digital SLRs. They offer the richest and most robust cameras and systems. But Pentax and Olympus digital SLRs are also good and offer their own benefits. In particular, they make physically smaller cameras which are good for people with small hands, or if you want to take them backpacking.

For more information on the benefits of different digital SLRs, you should take a look at my digital SLR guide. It tells you waht to look for and gives some more detail on each manufacturer - except Sony - who are just entering the market with their first digital SLR, the A100 "Alpha".

Digital SLR Guide >> (http://www.photographyreview.com/digitalslrguidecrx.aspx)

Hope that helps. I would say there's no reason not to buy a digital SLR, unless you want the simplicity of film. Like I said, digital offers more potential. But film is still simpler in that you shoot it and drop it off for processing. And you choose the look of your images by film type. With digital it's more or less up to the photographer to determine the look of the image.

Let us know if you have more questions.