I wonder if you are asking the right question. I am and would be more interested in, after the initial setup of the menu options when the camera is new, and with the User Guide in hand, can I then do my shooting without having to access the menu. There is nothing I would want to have to avoid more than having to access the LCD menu during a photography session, intuitive or not. And with my Canon EOS 5D, the only time I do access the menu is to choose a custom (Picture Style) setup for a couple of special effects lenses I work with occasionally, and I do that before I leave to go out and do some shooting. Otherwise the menu setup remains the same for weeks and sometimes months of using the camera.

You captured what my meaning was and made it even more clear to me.
That's is one of the reasons you are a writer : ) you have the ability to make it clear.
I am interested to know which, in the $1000-2000 line up, is easiest on the user.
Like you said I have no desire to go scrolling through menus on the LCD unnecessarily once the initial set up is complete.
If I do what to change settings on the fly, the most common changes need to be easily accessible, a button or dial turn away to get where I want to go.
I have repeatedly read that the Nikon menus are convoluted and that a separate operation manual should be purchased to really get a handle on the options...not at all what I want.
The upgrade from my P&S, in and of itself, is going to be a big pair of shoes to fill so the ease of getting what I want out of the camera is important with the least frustration.
You have had the privilege, or not, of working with almost every camera out there so I am thinking you are the man to ask.
Who are your top 3 brands for being the most photographer friendly overall?
Another question.
With all of the advancements being made each season I have had the thought of buying a entry level dslr. Really getting to know what I am doing then upgrade in a few years to the higher level pro-sumer model when my pallet in photography has really developed.
Losing the initial investment on the body, but using it to really find my niche and know what attributes are important to me. I am thinking I would spend more in the end getting a high end prosumer unit now and then once I grow into it spend another chunk down the road to upgrade to the current high level prosumer model...guess that is the plight of all enthusists, professionals and modern world CONSUMERS...there is always a new technology to make life a little easier or the out come just a bit better.
Should I even be worried about the longevity of the system I get now?
Curious about your opinion on the best place, brand or no brand, for a hungry novice to jump in and get the best bang for my buck.
I like to shop like I have an expendable income but my purchasing is quite a different story.

Aloha

Considering this will be your first dSLR camera, and risking that some will think I am biased, even considering I've owned and used almost every brand of camera that has sold more than 10 cameras over that last 50 some years, there are two schools of design thinking. Sony following Minolta's lead puts a lot of controls in buttons on the camera body that would otherwise be LCD screen menu options. Personally I find I forget what the buttons do. I don't like the computer adoption of the word intuitive because it is essentially a misnomer, but some dSLR option menus are simpler than others and some more logical, and in that respect I think the Canon Digital Rebel ranks quite high, but also the Sigma SD-14 is simpler and less cluttered with dubious goo-gaws than some.

Without any previous commitments, starting fresh, I would suggest the latest 12MPX Canon Rebel would be a great starter camera. And don't poo-poo the kit lens they sell with it, it produces excellent images and covers most of the every day optical needs. Plus Canon's Professional software for converting and editing .RAW format camera files works quite well and is free to Canon users. Most of the name brand products will probably outlast in terms of wear their usefulness and desirability in terms of evolving camera technology and the camera being made obsolete.

I would recommend a solid camera overall than simply one with a rudimentary "no fuss" menu. I would recommend either Nikon or Canon, because they are most popular and versatile. Here are my recommendations:

Canon Rebel XSi (450d)
Nikon D60
Nikon D300 (if you can afford it, its excellent)
Sony Alpha A350 (you get a lot of features and great live view, but lots of noise and the weakest image quality of the 4)

Those are the best "entry level" cameras, except for the D300. That camera is midrange and better than all of the other 3. But don't forget lenses, they can be expensive, therefore in that case you may not want it due to the hefty price tag. I say the XSi is the best bet, though I own a D60 with the 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm VR. The D60 is good, too.

I am really quite curious what the basis of your opinion is, although apparently you think because a brand is popular that says something about it's "solidity". From my observations it is popular because the brand name is most familiar and more people know the name in association with cameras.

I would also question the basis of your opinion about the Sony, in particular because Sony unlike Nikon is a company that designs and manufactures digital camera sensor chips. Do you know who manufactured the sensor chip in your Nikon?

And I have one opinion of my own. Would their be any sales (they cost more) of VR lenses that have anti-shake mechanisms if photographer were not too lazy to carry and use a good tripod. And is anti-shake as effective as a good, solid (heavy) tripod?

My final question about lenses is why do you need expensive lenses for a low-resolution camera. This is the same curiosity I had of film photographers who talked all the time about sharp lenses but always used ISO 400 film that was incapable of recording what the expensive lenses could resolve. Now the top megapixel count for most camera is 12. I regularly work with image files that are 78 megapixels, scans from 35mm film images, and with some fine-grained film images I'd like even more resolution.

Most of what I like to shoot is in the dimness of the rain forest mostly under the canopy of trees in dappled light. A bit of a fern obsession : )
Just curious if for me at this point the difference of a 3.5/f and 2.8/f lens
can be acceptably made up by the camera.
What are your thoughts on the lens included in the kit
EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, in comparison to the
EF S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM

Thanks David for your help.

Faster lenses offer three advantages. Autofocus will be faster and more accurate. Viewfinder will be brighter making it easier to compose in dim light. Faster lenses allow using faster shutter speed which means more stopping movement or sharper images if not shooting with a tripod.

Quote:
Most of what I like to shoot is in the dimness of the rain forest mostly under the canopy of trees in dappled light. A bit of a fern obsession : )
Just curious if for me at this point the difference of a 3.5/f and 2.8/f lens can be acceptably made up by the camera.

Aloha Larry,
So in your opinion, as a novice but, enthusiastic photographer ready to take it to the next level, will I see a dramatic difference with these two lenses?
Worthy of a 800.00 difference in price? For a beginner?
The 2.8/f retails at B&H for 960.00.
I am not so much hung up on the cost as I will either spend it now or in a few years when I grow out of and technologies improve on the body.
Just mulling it all over: )
Off to mow the lawn!

Besides the three advantages I spoke of, faster lenses usually mean higher quality images at any given focal length and aperture. But you may need to use a tripod to see the difference in your images.

For example, I purchased a Nikon 18-70mm lens to use on my D200 but was not happy with the image quality even when using a tripod. I just sold it on eBay today for the same amount I purchased it for two weeks ago. In testing it, I had higher quality results using fixed focal length lenses, which is more my style anyway. And If I were going to use zooms on a regular bases, they would all be the 2.8 versions which are known for their high image quality.

Quote:
Aloha Larry,
So in your opinion, as a novice but, enthusiastic photographer ready to take it to the next level, will I see a dramatic difference with these two lenses?
Worthy of a 800.00 difference in price? For a beginner?
The 2.8/f retails at B&H for 960.00.
I am not so much hung up on the cost as I will either spend it now or in a few years when I grow out of and technologies improve on the body.
Just mulling it all over: )
Off to mow the lawn!

I will invest in fixed focal length lenses as time goes on and as my style develops a bit more. Once I graduate from my entry level DSLR to a more sophisticated body, when I am far more seasoned and directed to confidently make those decisions.
For right now I just want to make my initial investment work to my greatest advantage. I will keep the 17-55 as my daily shooter until I start to feel that I am ready for advancement. During my learning curve I just want to be taking the best shots I can. If it is possible to compensate with technique
and maximizing the cameras intricacies with the kit lens then I would like to challenge myself to master that then spoil myself with a killer lens later.
If that is just to darn masochistic and getting the better lens will flat out make the learning curve shorter or more fruitful then... maybe worth it?

Well at least we have one thing in common, a love of rain forests, but the one I frequented as often as possible is much colder than what you are used to, as it is the Olympic rain forest in Washington state.

A faster lens for most of what you will likely want to photograph will not be practical because most subjects I would expect will demand more depth of field sharpness to make a good image to reproduce the subject, so being it is often low light, get one of the new carbon fiber tripods, and be more leisurely in your shooting using a tripod to support the camera so you can get sharp results at slow shutter speeds.

Fast lenses and VR are expensive luxuries to accommodate laziness in most cases, and ego via bragging rights, although lens stabilization is a practical advantage to sports and news photography.

Larry,

There is no basis in fact that faster lenses provide better overall optical performance, In fact any optical engineer will say just the opposite and for several reasons. For faster lenses to obtain correction of aberrations in all aspects of performance usually requires more glass elements which increases internal light flare and a decrease in image contrast and tone separation as well as edge sharpness in fine detail.

In photographic camera lenses some of the highest performing are single focal length f/9 apochromatic flat field 4 or 5 element lenses like the Rodenstock Apo-Ronar series.

I was born is Seattle and raised in Anchorage.
I adore the moss ridden forests and diversity of undergrowth in the Pacific NW but too darn cold and though I love shooting in B&W I like to live in technicolor.
Grey on grey for months on end sucks the life and inspiration right out of me.
Sun, and green year round is much more palatable. I live in the up country at about 2700 feet above sea level so it is much cooler than coastal beach living... it is like a perpetual beautiful Seattle summer day where I am at.
Great advice for the lens, my gut was telling me it was over kill. I would say 50% of my photography consists of candid portraits, kids, friends, life in progress type stuff, on the fly as the moment strikes, and the other 50% is
composed, quiet, thoughtful, just nature the camera and me.
I love the idea of just going with the kit lens and making it work for me,
though a good carbon fiber tri pod cost as much or more than some lenses.
geeez the first one that came up on the B&H site was over 800.00
A whole new set of options to wrangle : )
Any recommendations in that department a good and reliable, reasonably priced brand?
I was planning on ordering from B&H but just found out that Costco has the XSI kit in stock at my local warehouse. Might just get it there, though the 45 mile drive each way might cost me as much in gas, as 2 day UPS shipping over the Pacific...or close. That way if there are ever any problems I can just take it back and not pay for shipping and deal with warranties etc.
Cold Sierra Nevada calling from the refer.

Peace.

Interesting! My first assignment as a photographer was when I was in the Air Force at the base near Anchorage in 1952. Alaska was a great place to be a photographer, especially then, you could take scenics and there were no power line, telephone poles or fences outside of town.

But I spent most of my working life as a Hollywood photographer, although I had a home 200 miles north in San Luis Obispo county, and commuted once a week to the madhouse. I moved to Seattle in '89 after my wife died and stayed about 6 years, and then in Eugene, Oregon for almost 5 years and the gray, wet winters finally drove me back to the California coast where I am now. Now I am old enough I would probably even enjoy beach weather in Hawaii(S).

Probably the tripod you looked at that was so pricey may have been a Gitzo, about the only great photo product still made in France(S). Let me do a bit of research. I am sure there are less costly models, but I suggested carbon-fiber because I assume you do a lot of hiking when you take a camera out, and a light-weight yet sturdy tripod is worthwhile, and if too heavy will discourage taking and using it. A less pricey brand is Manfrotto, and there is a Japanese brand called Velbon I was shown two, three years ago by Koichiro Nakatani the President of the company on his way to the PMA convention that was quite compact and would be good for packing on the trail.

Besides big SUV's Americans like big lenses because they too are impressive looking, but they are also heavy, so slower lenses if you have a tripod make walking with a camera more enjoyable. Its not the equipment that counts it is first being able to see a picture in what you are looking at and then taking the time and effort to get an ideal exposure of the subject. Its not how many or how fast one one makes photographs its how many are worth keeping.

Costco is good and if you need Canon service there probably is an authorized service center in Honolulu.

You will do well, you even know to drink the best beer!

PS Velbon tripod at Adorama: Velbon El Carmagne 530 Carbon Fiber Tripod with Pan Head & Case, Height 10.2" - 64.7", Maximum Load 8.8 lbs.
$289.95

Was just talking with a friend the other day about traveling abroad and the ridiculous amount of Americans snapping worthless photos outside their tour bus with these massive over powered, under used and appreciated set ups that probably never leave auto mode.

"Besides big SUV's Americans like big lenses because they too are impressive looking, but they are also heavy, so slower lenses if you have a tripod make walking with a camera more enjoyable"

I here you on that one. Hawaii is crazy with not SUVs but huge diesel trucks.
It is just insane. All for show, no substance. I drive a 4 runner but my boys and I camp at least once a month and the places we go are 4x4 access only. My town is a blip on the map so there is not a lot of day to day driving.

"Its not the equipment that counts it is first being able to see a picture in what you are looking at and then taking the time and effort to get an ideal exposure of the subject. Its not how many or how fast one one makes photographs its how many are worth keeping."

I love this!! I am going to paste this to the inside of my camera bag.
priceless quote, thank you. I see photos in everything, always have. But for what ever reason, mostly, confidence, I never took it seriously. Upheaval in my personal life has caused some MAJOR re-evaluation and re-assessment of my daily priorities and how I want the next book of my life to read.
I want to do it so, I'm gonna do it! Life is too short.
And yes, I do like my beer, Can't go wrong with Sierra Nevada! Fresh out of the cooler after a long hike or day of yard work...ahhh think I'll have another, it sounds so good after all the weed whacker and I had a good go today!
Thank you again for sharing all of your great information and being such a resource.

Aloha!

The brand would not be popular if it wasn't solid and good. It builds its reputation over time by producing cameras for the consumer. Of course if the consumer were not to be satisfied with the camera, they would defer from purchasing it and would indubidably return it. Therefore, people would refer to this brand as mediocre or poor such as a reference to samsungs cameras.

Although Sony manufactures and develops chips, their cameras fail to impress with excessive noise and lower image quality. The 14MP Alpha A350 has around 1900 lines of resolution compared to a 10MP Nikon that has around 2100 at ISO 1600. And yes, I know who developed my sensor. Nikon did and does as with a few other of their cameras. They have been "discontinuing" the implementation of Sony's chips.

And a low res camera???? Most of them are 10MP these days!! Look at the 1D MK III, supposedly a "low res camera." And the Rebel is 12, as well as the D300, D3, 5D and D700. The D80, D60, and D40X are all "low res cameras" too at 10MP. So, apparently your convoluted logistics has produced new delineations to MP and low res.

You have every right to your opinion and your loyalties. But just because you want to believe something does not make reality conform to your belief.

The reality of the digital method of recording, and reproducing an image is pure mathematics that is completely separated from any physical existence. A pixel taken at any XY coordinate in an image file on your computer is just five numbers in a limited range of possibilities. So tell me how can there be a difference in quality if a pixel has the same number values for RGB and its XY coordinates in the matrix which is a digital photo?

The reality is that if you have five different brand cameras with the same megapixel count sensor chip that outputs images, and to make it easy lets say each produces 3800x2700 pixel image files which is 10.26 megapixels, and all the camera use the same focal length lens precisely framed on the same subject. And then each image is processed in the same way (by the numbers) to an 8-bit TIFF file on a computer. Then the pixel at any XY coordinate will represent the same coordinates in the subject and will have RGB values producing color and density that are very similar. The images may look slightly different in color content in terms of hue and saturation.

Even taken with different cameras this set of digital image files can be made to have exactly the same RGB values at each pixel at each XY coordinate using computer editing. That would make each image from each different camera identical to a very exact extent. Then on what basis can there be a difference in quality between digital images having the same total number of pixels (megapixel count) in output????

The one quality difference in images produced digitally is in the amount of information recorded of a particular subject. And it is the one factor that is quite analogous to film cameras. With a film camera if you want better image quality increase the film size, if you are using 35mm and want more image quality get a medium format camera, the larger the film area the more image information recorded. With digital if you want more image quality get more image information in what is captured by increasing the pixel count (megapixels).

This idea is more true to digital than film of course because a film image is made up of grain, and the extent you can see the grain in an image it is extraneous noise. The noise level in digital captures is exceptionally low if you capture images at the sensor's lowest base rated ISO speed. so the information is close to pure and is expressed in simple, hard, fast numbers. Every digital photographer should get a look with a text editor into what is in a digital image computer file. It is numbers, just millions and billions of numbers. Numbers are discreet, and specific: a red value of 44 is just that, 45 or 43 is an exactly different amount of red.

David,

Larger Pixel count does not always equate to better picture quality. Yes, there will be a negligible increase in 'resolution' but the numbers are deceptive.

Going from 8mega pixel to 10 or 12 mega pixels buys you 20% to 40% more resolution and most of the time it's on the lower end of that scale.

Image quality can and does suffer with higher density sensors. The sensor sites, the pixels that capture light, need to be LARGE to avoid noise specially if you plan on using higher ISO settins. ISO in digital camera's is done by increasing the 'gain' of the individual sensor sites, but increasing gain can be noisy as apposed to a longer exposure at lower ISO.

The key to 'better' image quality is the density of the sensor sites on the image sensor. With D-SLR's we see sensors sized at about half the size of 35mm film, usually listed as 23.7 x 15.5 mm for most D-SLR's. Point and Shoot cameras are using tiny sensors in the 4x6mm size or even smaller.

When you pack more and more sensor sites onto a sensor of a given size, you start to loose quality as apposed to gain image quality. That being said, the larger sensors on D-SLRs offer a huge leap in quality over Point and Shoot cameras and in the 'better' (read more expensive) D-SLRs, noise is kept in check

This quality improvement is not just resolution, but in colour depth, which is very important in 'image quality' and is why D-SLRs approach film in there 'resolution' of image.

Currently, I am using a Nikon D40 which is only 6mp. The images coming from this camera will surpass any point and shoot camera no matter the mega pixel count. Comparing Nikon D40 8x10 prints with my Canon A700 Point and Shoot show very obviously how much information is lost by the Canon.

I would also like to add that better lenses produce better images. I have seen and continue to see photo quality differences between all the lenses I own and borrow.

The 18-55mm kit lens that came with my Nikon D40 takes fine images, but the 55-200mm VR takes slightly less good images. The 55-200mm VR is not as sharp (but only just) and i prefer the colour rendering through the 18-55mm

I have also borrowed a 55mm Micro which was by far the sharpest and most colour accurate of any lens I have put on my camera. Is there more resolution? Sharper pixels, and accurate colours count as more resolution in my books.

You are right, digital has different rules to analogue. A sensor is not like film at all.

TOM...

There is one very serious issue you have not addressed, and it is the fact a new generation of image sensor technology is just coming onto the market that includes improved and increased sensitivity of the sensor material, which of course obviates your statement that smaller sensor site size reduces quality and causes more noise. It is all relative and nothing in this field remains static - the goal post are reset by the players pretty much at will.

Hey i have no doubt that the show goes on, but we are talking current technology and it is true that densely packed sensors suffer.

There is also the super Foveon sensor used in the Sigma cameras. It reads all three colours at one sensor site, with its multi-layered sensor. This obviates the need for Bayer interpolation and produces images that compares with higher mega pixel cameras. Wish they got somewhere with that one.

TOM...

First of all you are exposing the shallowness of your understanding. The Foveon imaging sensor works fundamentally in the same way other digital image sensors do with each cell site reading only one color. The primary difference is the three color RGB sensor cells are arranged in layers with one color for each layer of the Foveon chip and are stacked one on top of the other similarly to a color film emulsion.

The current technology in the present set of new camera models just released do in fact represent a new generation with enhanced cell material and cell design providing greater sensitivity relative to size than previous sensor chips. This has been further advanced by improved lenses for each individual sensor site.

David,

That is just what I said about the Foveon sensor, just didn't say it like you did. I read the reviews, I saw the technical drawings, so I DO know how it works.

I think you just want to 'win' for whatever that is worth. Are the new camera's(Canon XSI, Nikon D300 etc) with their new sensors better then old ones? YES! I've read the reviews, I've seen the zoomed photos and the pixel details. Are noise levels lower? Sure! I too am waiting for the $600 D-SLR that has noise levels comparable to a Full Frame digital sensor, or for that matter a Full Frame sensor camera that costs $600!

I don't doubt your credentials or your knowledge, because they are plain to see in your posts and articles, but really, you don't know me or my background so it's a little anti-social/childish to be chastising me for my knowledge and/or opinion.

Is it OK if I take an interest in photography and participate in what I perceive to be a community of like minded people? Yes i still have things to learn, but I think you do too, cause really, what's the point if we don't learn something?

Feel free to correct me, but please don't shut me down or chase me away.

TOM...

There is nothing that can be won but a lot is lost to those who read repetitions of questionable and wrong ideas resulting in misunderstandings and lost time and effort chasing down paths to nowhere.

I have not chastised you because you are not in front of me, but what you say is. And all I want to accomplish is to try to dissuade disinformation, which by the way does not hamper anyone's opinion stated as such. If you or anyone likes this or that better than that or this, have at it.

If the forum does become a soap-box for ego embellishment however, I may kick the box a bit that you're standing on. But like e-mail, these conversations get a bit off-course when you cannot see the expression on a speaker's face.

Since you have no allegiance to any particular product or manufacturer and seem to want everything in one thing, except that you realize SLRs can use a plethora of lenses, then why not go for the what appears to be the latest and close to most intuitive camera -- naturally using the many things from the minds of Minolta -- the latest, Sony Top-of-the-line, flagship, with built in anti-shake and a load of other things too numerous to mention. And, as far as it appears they are here to stay for a good while anyway. Since you are in a far-away place and do not have the pleasure of hands=on buying, check out the major suppliers such as adorama, bH and such. Or, if you can afford a short trip to the big shore, find a camera shop to look. However, many do not stock the top-of-line anything in the hitherlands.Have fun in whatever you decide.

Nikon D-40 is the easiest. Olympus cams are the worst by far.