Well, I *was* thinking of buying a DSLR...

[JohnH]

I've been thinking about buying a DSLR for months now. I already own Minolta kit, so the 'natural' upgrade path might have been a Sony (who bought Minolta's photography business). But when I got my hands on a Sony, the camera body seemed massive -- it was like picking up a ladies handbag with a lens attached to it.

Therefore, I've been browsing eBay looking for a DSLR that's about the same size as my 35mm SLRs, but it's hard to tell how big they are just from pictures alone.

So today, I walked into a camera store near me and asked which DSLRs would come in a size that I was used to. I was handed a Nikon D3100 and a Canon 1000D and the size wasn't too bad; the Canon felt especially comfortable in my hands.

But what really shocked me was the frame size that's visible when you look thru the viewfinder.... a postage stamp-sized image surrounded by a big, thick black border. That was a real surprise. The guy in the shop explained that it represented the size of the sensor which was smaller than a film frame. I already knew that, but didn't expect the viewfinder to be so drastically affected by it.

Hmmmm. Not sure whether I'm going to bother now. A Canon EOS 300D can be picked up on eBay for £130-£140, so maybe that would be a cheap way to see whether I can get on with digital SLRs. But to tell the truth, it's all left me feeling a little bit disappointed. :?

 

[djoptix]

I think that letting the small viewfinder size put you off buying a DSLR altogether is a bit extreme. I have a Pentax K-X which was great value (2 kit lenses) and uses all my old Pentax K lenses. I love it...

 

[JohnH]

I think that letting the small viewfinder size put you off buying a DSLR altogether is a bit extreme.

You may be right, djoptix -- I've just found a graphic showing that all DSLR viewfinders are not created equal...

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/view-size.html

The viewfinder for the Canon 1000D is represented by the blood-red rectangle; no wonder I thought it looked small! :roll:

[Edit: The article shows that there is a connection between body size and viewfinder size...
"Interestingly, Canon decided to cut the finder size in the 1000D (XS) down by almost 10% from the 450D (XSi), favoring further reduction in body size over viewing comfort. The manufacturers do that not because they are incompetent, but because they believe this will have more market appeal. Unavoidable trade-offs." That explains a lot.]

I have a Pentax K-X which was great value (2 kit lenses) and uses all my old Pentax K lenses. I love it...

In that graphic, the Pentax cameras do rather well. I'll have to check them out.

 

[djoptix]

I would say that the Pentax cameras don't feel quite as good in the hands as the Nikons/Canons, but more than make up for it in features, and K fit lenses are very reasonably priced secondhand.

Canons and Nikons both attract serious fanboys so be prepared for some pretty polarised opinions if you ask them!

What a lot of the reviews aren't particularly clear about is that you must get some prime lenses if you want to take classy-looking pictures. Here is one I took with my K-X - not a posed shot, of course!!! Say "aaaahh"...

 

[MikeD]

I got a 300D when they came out. I had an EOS 50 at the time which I liked very much. I remember thinking that the viewfinder was a bit small, but I got used to it.

 

[highlandsflyer]

What a lot of the reviews aren't particularly clear about is that you must get some prime lenses if you want to take classy-looking pictures.

Especially with the smaller sensors, the sweet spot is often much more generous.

Many of the non prime lenses exceed the resolving quality of your sensor when not fully open.

Most of the reviews are written by photographers, not the people selling the cameras.

 

[djoptix]

I've found that my cheapo prime lenses (for example, my 50mm is available for about £50 on ebay) take much better pictures than the kit lenses, and they're obviously brighter too!

Mind you, I'm not saying that the kit lenses take bad photos by any means. Here's one taken with the supplied 18-55. By the way, I'm not fooling myself that I'm a great photographer - these pictures are more a representation of what you can get when you're not trying very hard!

 

[JohnH]

I'm a big fan of prime lenses, but the only lens mount where I could find a selection of wide-angle primes was the micro four thirds mount (Lumix/Olympus).

I've found a webpage where a guy compares his Minolta SRT-303 (my first camera was an SRT-100) with a Sony Alpha 700:
http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/04/04/th ... n-and-now/

Here are the viewfinders...

The film SLR:

The digital SLR:

I think I'll just wait for full-frame DSLRs to come down in price.... :?

 

[Mr Panda]

I am also very much sitting on this fence

Use wide angle a lot (20mm or so in film (35mil) camera terms)

Haven't found an affordable DSLR I like yet. Also keen to use trusty old Pentax K lenses

 

[MikeD]

I wouldn't get too hung up on gear. Affordable stuff can put out great results, usually it's only at the extremes of aperture or zoom ranges that weirdnesses show up.

This is from a 300D and a Sigma 10-20 zoom, probably at about 12mm:


CRW_1364 by MikeDavis, on Flickr

Same day, same camera, Canon 70-200 f4:


CRW_1402 by MikeDavis, on Flickr