Quote:
Originally posted by jyl
Thinking about this some more, it may come down to the lenses (as it often does, in photography).
If I went further down the FD route, I could assemble the following set of glass: FD 17mm f4.0 (have), FD 24mm f2.8 (have), FD 50mm f1.4 (have), FD 35-105mm f3.5 ($180 on eBay), FD 200mm f2.8 ($140), FD 80-200mm f4.0 (have), and FD 300mm f2.8L ($700). This would be a pretty wide range of focal lengths (17mm to 300mm), reasonably fast (a f2.8 or faster choice at most focal lengths), mostly consumer-grade glass, for around $1,000.
If I went the digital route, I'd have to use zooms to keep this affordable. There are so many choices, but just skimming over the catalog, maybe the 17-40mm f4.0 ($650 street price), 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 ($200), 75-300mm f4.0-5.6 ($160), and a fast 50mm f1.4 ($100?). Anyway, I could do this for about $1,100. I'd have bought the least expensive consumer-grade lenses. I'd be giving up the super-wide end (17mm x 1.5 multiplier = 26mm is as wide as I could get). And I'd have fairly slow lenses; f3.5 or f4.0 would be my fastest choice at most focal lengths. On the positive side, I'd have a nice telephoto end (300mm x 1.5 = 450mm).
Since the digital route would also require buying a body ($1,600 for 20D body-only) and memory cards, I couldn't hope to accumulate the higher-end or faster Canon EF glass any time soon. I wouldn't buy the new lenses that are specifically designed for the APS-sized image chips - I want the glass to be usable on film and full-frame digital SLRs too.
So, this leads me to two questions.
First, how would the FD lenses I've described compare with the EF lenses I've described (or an alternative set for roughly the same price?) In optical quality, durability, and "feel"?
Second, how much can in-camera digital ISO adjustment compensate for the slower EF lenses? When shooting indoors with a 20D and a f4.0 lens, can I simply set the ISO to 800? What do you lose in image quality, etc, by cranking up the ISO?
Thanks to the photo buffs for helping me figure this out.
|
jyl: as a convert to digital of 3 years, I have some opinions. I went from a Nikon F3 to an Olympus RS-100. Resolution was low (2.1MP) by comparison to current cameras, but the Olympus cost about what I got from selling all the Nikon stuff... The Olympus added an anti-motion control that turned out to be an unexpected boon in low-light shooting. The low resolution was deceptive. I was able to enlarge images in PhotoShop with surprisingly little loss.
Ultimately, needing (I thought) more resolution, i got a Canon Digital Rebel, after extensive research. In truth, I'm unimpressed with the results vs. the Olympus. I don't have a macro lens, so I bought a little $200 Fujifilm to take care of that stuff, and end up using it more than the Canon.
I recommend borrowing/renting and spending time with whatever camera you're thinking about before buying. You'll also need a very good image-maniputation program (PhotoShop is really the only recommendation) because it will work miracles on images, once you figure it all out.
Oh, and an important point: focal lengths with digital SLRs are not necessarily equivalent to 35mm focal lengths. Your 28mm lens may effectively be a 40mm lens on a digtial body, meaning that to get true (film) wide-angle you may have to go into expensive fish-eye range.