which is the most adaptable camera?

[redonnemoi]

can do the following things:

use color filters, including UV filter
use sunshield
can affix a standard "multipurpose lens" (I don't know what this means :S), that can do a moderate amount of zoom
can affix a lens that can do very very long zoom and not just no zoom or "all the way", i want in between settings as well(macro lens? :S I don't know either )
can affix a lens that can do extremely wide angle photography, but not horribly fisheye distorted (preferable as wide angle as human vision, or close)
and of course, a camera able to manually adjust everything (exposure, fstop, flash type, zoom speed, etc)
of a high resolution (9MP or more)
can affix an external flash
can use a double tripod (is this necessary for long lens tubes? if not sorry cross it off )

thanks very much

[JSPhoto]

can do the following things:

use color filters, including UV filter
use sunshield
can affix a standard "multipurpose lens" (I don't know what this means :S), that can do a moderate amount of zoom
can affix a lens that can do very very long zoom and not just no zoom or "all the way", i want in between settings as well(macro lens? :S I don't know either )
can affix a lens that can do extremely wide angle photography, but not horribly fisheye distorted (preferable as wide angle as human vision, or close)
and of course, a camera able to manually adjust everything (exposure, fstop, flash type, zoom speed, etc)
of a high resolution (9MP or more)
can affix an external flash
can use a double tripod (is this necessary for long lens tubes? if not sorry cross it off )

thanks very much

1: Not really needed in digital photography (color filters that is). In fact the 1D series has built in prcessing that can do much of this in camera or via software A Hoya UV(0) should be on ALL lenses to protect the front element (glass) from scratches as this filter will not affect color.
2: All Canon EOS Lenses come with lens hood, most can be removed, although a couple of the real large lenses they can't.
3:4: etc.... Lens choice depends on use, the EOS series has a lens for any type of shooting you want from 10mm up to 1200mm, of course the 1200mm lens is around $13,000.

5: camera body, sounds like your wanting a high end pro body, better be ready to shell out $3,000 to $7,000 dollars. A used Canon 1D MKII N is 8MP and used plan on $2500 and up. The 1DS is $6500+

Double tripod?Even with the 1200mm you don't need that, but you do need a very sturdy tripod as that lens weighs 36 pounds, then add a 3 pound lens. But for all other large EOS lenses you can use a monopod, even with the 600mm.
All EOS bodies accept external flash.

JS

[mwfanelli]

Pretty much any DSLR with the MP you want does all of these things. Most of what you are looking for is standard for a DSLR.

As mentioned, the color correction filters are not needed with digital, that is what white balance settings are for. A polarizer is required as that can't be reproduced in software. Contrary to some others (a very contentious issue, believe me!) NEVER use a UV filter for "protection." Use the lens cap, that's what it is for. A lens hood provides lots of protection for the lens and helps the image rather than degrading it. In about 35 years of photography, including really abusive conditions, I have yet to damage the front element of any lens. People wil argue this forever.

I am biased towards Canon and Pentax. In fact, were I starting from scratch, I would probably choose a Pentax 10D over the Canon I have or any new ones in my budget. Pentax has the widest lens compatibility of any system out there. Canon does an excellent job if you keep track of the EF and EF-S lens differences. Nikon has gone bonkers with all sorts of lens exceptions for their cameras, too bad. Sony is a warmed over Minolta that doesn't impress me and the super-small 4/3 sensor of Olympus is not something I take seriously. Other opinions will vary!

So, my suggestion is to look at the Pentax 10D and the Canon 400D (XTi) first.

[JSPhoto]

. Contrary to some others (a very contentious issue, believe me!) NEVER use a UV filter for "protection." Use the lens cap, that's what it is for. A lens hood provides lots of protection for the lens and helps the image rather than degrading it. .

Micheal.

You completely miss the point of using the Hoya UV(0) for lens protection. The only contensoius part of it is you REFUSE to accept what has been proven in both the real world and in tests.
#1: yes, the lens cap is to protect the lens BUT not when shooting (unless you figured out a way to shoot with the lens cap on)
#2: when shooting you STILL need to protect the front element from damage and a hood will not keep objects from hitting the glass (except if the object actually gets deflected by the hood before it hits the glass) and it won't keep kids fingers off the glass (you'd be amazed how many kids try and stick their fingers on the glass), where the Hoya UV(0) will protect it. I have had rocks, parts and more hit the lens and it has been saved by having this filter on, the filter got trashed, but I would rather replace a $47 filter than spend $200 to $1800 or more replacing glass or a lens.
#3: It also keeps unwanted UV light out that the hood can't do anything about.
#4: The Hoya UV(0) will NOT degrade the image quality. Lens hoods do nothing at all in respect to image quality other than blocking light from specific angles. Image quality is the same whether or not you have the Hoya UV(0) on or not. I have tested it on all my lenses and there is no difference. Other tests done with many lenses by different manufactuers show no degrading of quality either so I have no idea where you are getting your information.
It's basically a cheap insurance policy that has the added benefit of keeping out UV light and it doesn't affect quality.

JS

[mwfanelli]

Micheal.
You completely miss the point of using the Hoya UV(0) for lens protection. The only contensoius part of it is you REFUSE to accept what has been proven in both the real world and in tests.

Nothing of the sort has ever been proven. In the few cases when a filter has protected the lens, it is splashed all over web sites. The hundreds of thousands of times when it hasn't done anything are never reported. Last month, I dropped my 75-300 lens onto the ground. Without the filter nothing was damaged. Not exactly news. Sorry, but definition of "proof" is not "reported on the web."

#1: yes, the lens cap is to protect the lens BUT not when shooting (unless you figured out a way to shoot with the lens cap on)

Most shooting conditions have nothing to do with danger to the lens. Near salt spray, sand, yeah, go ahead. Normal shooting, no.

#2: when shooting you STILL need to protect the front element from damage and a hood will not keep objects from hitting the glass (except if the object actually gets deflected by the hood before it hits the glass)

LOL! My goodness, are you shooting in a war zone with bullets flying all over the place? Exactly what is hitting the glass?

and it won't keep kids fingers off the glass (you'd be amazed how many kids try and stick their fingers on the glass), where the Hoya UV(0) will protect it.

Then keep your fingers off the lens! I am a first class kludze and I don't get fingerprints all over the lens. If you have kids, maybe. But then, why are you allowing kids to play with expensive lenses?

I have had rocks, parts and more hit the lens and it has been saved by having this filter on, the filter got trashed, but I would rather replace a $47 filter than spend $200 to $1800 or more replacing glass or a lens.

How do you protect yourself from this constant barrage of flying debris? Get real! I have moun ted cameras on fast moving motorcycles, thrown them into backpacks unprotected, had a few cameras slip out of my hands and roll down slopes, frozen, dunked, etc. In not a single case would a filter have protected anything and in no cases was the front element damaged. Other parts, in some cases, were.

#3: It also keeps unwanted UV light out that the hood can't do anything about.

Uh.. glass itself does not pass most UV wavelengths and all sensors include a built-in UV (and IR) filter. There is NO use for a UV filter, digital or film. Even film has not been UV sensitive for at least two decades.

#4: The Hoya UV(0) will NOT degrade the image quality. Lens hoods do nothing at all in respect to image quality other than blocking light from specific angles. Image quality is the same whether or not you have the Hoya UV(0) on or not.

Anything you add to the fronnt of a lens degrades the image. Thats an optical fact. Yes, a good one (a $47 filter on an "L" lens? Good grief...) will minimize the degradation. A lens hood makes a tremendous amount of difference an most angles as flareand extraneous light is caused by light reflecting off of all sorts of surfaces. It is the most underused piece of equipment in photography.

I have tested it on all my lenses and there is no difference. Other tests done with many lenses by different manufactuers show no degrading of quality either so I have no idea where you are getting your information.

References please. Your tests may work that way as you have no lab to do them in. "Other tests"? Done by whom? When, where, under what conditions?

It's basically a cheap insurance policy that has the added benefit of keeping out UV light and it doesn't affect quality.

If it makes you feel good and safe, fine. Some people protect their furniture with clear plastic covers for protection as well, not everyone agrees with that either. There is NO benefit to "keeping out UV light." That belief is at least 20 years out of date.

This argument keeps popping up, I am not going to continue yet another endless discussion on the same tired arguement. If you like to slap full time filters on all your lenses, fine. When you suggest that to others, I will present my opposing opinion. It is then up to the poster which opinion he/she will accept.

[Franglais]

I would say that the D80 is the most economical solution:

use color filters, including UV filter :
- Yes like all DSLR's

use sunshield :
- Yes like all DSLR's

can affix a standard "multipurpose lens" (I don't know what this means :S), that can do a moderate amount of zoom:

- Yes Example the 18-70 is very good and takes you from a moderate wide-angle (for landscapes) to moderate telephoto (for portraits) while remaining compact and reasonably inexpensive

can affix a lens that can do very very long zoom and not just no zoom or "all the way", i want in between settings as well(macro lens? :S I don't know either )

- Yes. Example the 18-200VR which has no equivalent in the Canon range. There is a vast choice of lenses in the Nikon range and all the current ones work with the D80

can affix a lens that can do extremely wide angle photography, but not horribly fisheye distorted (preferable as wide angle as human vision, or close)

- Yes. Nikon do the 12-24 or there are cheaper lenses from Tamron, Sigma, Tokina

and of course, a camera able to manually adjust everything (exposure, fstop, flash type, zoom speed, etc)

- Yes
of a high resolution (9MP or more)

- Yes (10Mpix)

can affix an external flash

- Yes. The Nikon flash system is the best

can use a double tripod (is this necessary for long lens tubes? if not sorry cross it off )

- No camera has a double tripod screw. For really long lenses there is a screw on the lens itself

[mwfanelli]

- No camera has a double tripod screw. For really long lenses there is a screw on the lens itself

I should have mentioned this. Heavy lenses need to be supported at or very close to the center of mass of the camera/lens system. If that is done, then the torques balance out or are, at least, made minimal. Only one point of support is really needed: on the lens.