6/9     Photo Enthusiasts.  I'm looking for a camera mainly for outdoors
        shots.  Camping, Hiking, Travel, etc.  I'm leaning towards the dSLR's.
        What do you think of Canon Eos Rebel (D300), D10, Nikon D70, and
        Olympus E-1.  I also hear rumors of a cheaper Olympus dSLR in the
        late summer.  The only consumer compacts I'm considering are the
        8 MP's, 8080, Powershot Pro1, etc., that have almost all the features
        of a dSLR.  Any thoughts on these cameras, or recommendations would
        be greatly appreciated.
        \_ Wow, check out all these photography geeks.  Now I know where all
           the net pr0n is coming from.
        \_ sounds like you just want a fancy point-n-shoot and have no existing
           lens.  In that case, look at Pentax, Sigma, and Olympus.  They tendto
           be cheap, and their camera is pretty good.
           to be cheap, and their camera is pretty good.
        \_ shoot me an email.  and for those who are interested in this
           debate... join me.           -kngharv
        \_ http://csua.com/?q=canon+rebel&sort=d
        \_ I recommend the canon 300D. I have one and I use it mostly for
           taking photos while traveling. It is light enough (with the
           stock 18-55 lens or a 28-105 lens) that it doesn't feel like a
           burden to carry while traveling.
           The 10D is basically the same camera as the 300D except that it
           is much heavier, more expensive and doesn't come with a lens. The
           added weight of the 10D was one of the factors that led me to the
           300D. (To be fair the 10D's extra weight is in the magnesium body
           which probably makes it a more robust camera, but the plastic 300D
           seems sufficiently robust for ordinary traveler).
           I would avoid the Nikon and the Olympus since they come with CCD
           sensors. The images from CCDs are not nearly as clear as those from
           the CMOS sensor in the 300D and the 10D. (AFAIK, the way a CCD
           sensor works is that each "pixel" captures just one color and
           then the other colors are interpolated from the adj. pixels. The
           CMOS captures every color at every pixel giving a more accurate
           and clearer/less-noisy photo). --ranga
        \_ Didn't I hear recently that there was some EOS Rebel hack that
           lets you unlock most of the features available on a D30?
           \_ I just googled and saw this:
           http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
              I think the dig. rebel is a pretty good deal anyway.
           \- if you dont have an investment in nikon gear, i would avoid
              nikon, unless you are willing to spend $$$ and prefer nikon
              look/feel/interface to canon. again, if you dont have a lens
              \_ Is this b/c of $$$ of Nikkor lenses or b/c of Canon quality?
                 \_ Nikon and Canon has similiar quality.  Both are excellent.
                    Nikon tend to have better wide angle lens, better macro
                    lens, and better flash technology.  Canon tend to have
                    better auto-focus (EV +1 or better), much better focusing
                    speed at telephoto, and generally more feature-packed
                    than nikon for similiar-priced camrea body.
                    Canon is a better company,though.  Nikon's long-term
                    viability is in question            -nikon guy
              investment, i think you need to figure out your total budget
              for body+lens, rather than treat them separately. i think a
              reasonable analogy is amp:body::speaker:lens. you should go to
              http://photo.net and narrow it down some [either to 2-3 models or
              compare on some narrow question rather than "what is better"].
              i note in passing, that weight concerns can be a big deal
              if outdoor = hiking with equipment. while the 1.5x multipler
              is nice for your zoom shots, it makes panoramaic difficult.
              a nice 24prime becomes a 35mm. an 18mm lens or zoom will get
              you 28mm view field, but that is a $$, large lens. if outdoor
              means "at the family BBQ" than this doesnt apply. --psb
              \_ D70 and D300 come packaged w/an 18mm lens.  Where do the
                 diff's betw. a pro-level $2k+ 18mm vs. the DX 18mm lie?
                 \_ in general, there is no such thing as "pro level" versus
                    "consumer" level lens.  If you got the chance, look at
                    \- i personally dont use those terms but there is for
                       sure a difference in build quality as well as specs
                       between say the nikkor 50 1.8 [$100]and nikkor 50 1.4
                       [$300], or the nikon 18-35zoom [<$500] and the 17-35
                       zoom [$1000+] ... i think it is fair to characterize
                       a 300/2.8 as "pro" lens vs. a 300mm zoom at 5.6.
                       lens grouping can also affect optical quality, such
                       as whether a floating element is used. --psb
                       \_ yes, it is true that slower lens tend to have inferior
                          build quality than faster one.  The cheaper lens is
                          somewhat optically inferior than the expensive counter-
                          part is actually generally not true (with exception of
                       \_ yes, it is true that slower lens tend to have
                          inferior build quality than faster one.  The cheaper
                          lens is somewhat optically inferior than the
                          expensive counter-part is actually generally not
                          true (with exception o f
                          "consumer zoom").  50mm f/1.4 definitely has better
                          build quality than 50mm f/1.8.  But in Nikon's case,
                          50mm f/1.8 is actually a bit sharper than the f/1.4
                          counter part.  For 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, the 85mm f/1.4
                          has a lot more apature blade thus make brokeh a lot nicer.
                          counter part.  For 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8, the
                          85mm f/1.4 has a lot more apature blade thus make
                          brokeh a lot nicer.
                          But aside from that, the optical differences betweenthe two
                          is insignificant.  I have a 70-210mm f/4.  And in that case,
                          Nikon's 80-200mm f/2.8 is optically superior, eventhough
                          I don't think they DELIBERATELY make the slower lensoptically
                          inferior.  The truth is, bulk of the cost lies upon making a
                          lens just this bit faster.    -kngharv
                          the two is insignificant.  I have a 70-210mm f/4.
                          And in tha t case, Nikon's 80-200mm f/2.8 is
                          optically superior, eventhough I don't think they
                          DELIBERATELY make the slower lens optically
                          inferior.  The truth is, bulk of the cost lies
                          upon m aking a lens just this bit faster.    -kngharv
                          [formatd]
                    both focal length and maximum apature.  larger the
                    maximum apature, more expensive it is. Just give you an
                    idea.  Nikon has two similiar lenses:  85mm f/1.4 and
                    85mm f/1.8.  note, that f/1.8 is only 2/3 stop slower than
                    f/1.4.  But 85mm f/1.4 cost twice as much, and weights
                    three times as much as 85mm f/1.8.  Does it mean that
                    85mm f/1.8 is optically inferior? no.  all it means
                    is that it is slower, nothing more.
              \- BTW, I cant emphasize enough about the weight. when you
                 are "travelling" it is a big commitment to carry 5lbs and
                 +$3k in gear. are you sure the "extra reach" of the SLR
                 approach is worth it? if you end up taking 5x as many pictures
                 with a small digital, you'll probably end up with as many
                 good pix. BTW, the main "feature" of a dSLR is choice of
                 lens, not can you choose iso level etc. --psb
                 \_ there are some feature differences too I think. i.e. can
                    you get the features like high megapixels, wide iso
                    range, and the various other settings in a much lighter
                    package?
                    \_ main selling point of dSLR is the flexibility of interchangable
                       lens. Sure, there are functional differences, but they are
                       insignificant for most people... or obscure.  Example of
                       obscure feature: shutter lag.  Would you spend extra $500
                       for faster shutter lag?
                    \_ main selling point of dSLR is the flexibility of
                       interchangable lens. Sure, there are functional
                       differences, but they are insignificant for most
                       people... or obscure.  Example of obscure feature:
                       shutter lag.  Would you spend extra $500 for faster
                       shutter lag?
                      \_ that's what I'm saying, it's not $500 extra for a
                         dig. rebel compared to a reasonable alternative.
                         sure if someone just wants snapshots then any cheap
                         camera will do.
                 \_ That's the _only_ reason I'm considering the 8MP compacts.
                    Weight.  OTOH, with the dSLR packaged lenses, I'd only
                    need to get a zoom lens to 133mm to get the same zoom range
                    as the 8MP compacts.  I was thinking of pairing the dSLR
                    up with a sub-compact for when I want to go very light,
                    and ditch the extra 2-3 lbs' of camera weight.  The other
                    "main feature" of dSLR's I like is the fps and shutter lag.
                    Both are very problematic w/compact cameras.
                 \_ Actually most of the dSLR's come with a CMOS sensor instead
                    of a CCD sensor. The image clarity from a 6 MP CMOS sensor
                    is better than anything even the 8 MP p&s compact digicams
                    can achieve. I bought the 300D because of the sensor, not
                    because I could switch lenses.
        \_ Recent Popular Photography and Imaging magazine gave the edge
           to the Nikon D70 over the Canon Digital Rebel. It gives it a
           bang-for-the-buck edge over the D100.
                             \-D100 is really sleazy naming ... implying it
                               is a "digital f100" when it is a digital N80
                               which is an ok camera but not really a serious
                               camera like the F90 and higher. btw, i really
                               really really hate the G lenses ... i like
                               having aperture control on the lens. --psb
           \_ I just hate that the D70 has only ISO 200 minimum.