Making the Jump to Digital

[61Dynamic]

[font color=\'#000000\']We can't realy give you a usefull answer without knowing what type of photograpy you plan on doing. Given the site, Landscape is an obvious assumption but not a given.

Based off the lenses you have I assume you lean towards, shooting animals. If this is the case, I'd most definatly recomend the 20D. It has a much faster and more accurate AF than the lack-luster sytem the 300D has (even with the firmware hack, it ain't all too great).

Also, the 20D has a much bigger buffer (11 RAW vs 4 RAW) and faster frame-rate (5fps vs 2.5fps). The 300D will lock up occasionally for 30 sec wile processing images if you max out the buffer. Otherwise it'll take a good 14 sec before the buffer clears enough for the next shot.

The 20D also has less blotchy noise at high-ISO and a faster shutter speed (1/8000 vs 1/4000).

Side-bySide at DPReview: http://tinyurl.com/6j63x[/font]

[franxon]

[font color=\'#000000\']if you get one now you could get a 20D 'cuz it's newly released and a good jump from 10D. i'm going to place my order next month (when i have time to use it).

if you plan to get one 12 to 18 months later i guess it will most likely be a 300D MKII if by then it's available. My philosophy is always get the latest model from the affordables (but still, it took time for me to end up at the hardly-affordable 20D), that way, from its first day you use it until its last day, you'll get your every penny back.

digital has more fun. for amateurs photography is all about shooting i believe. and digital frees you from the hesitation of cost when shoot.[/font]

[retiredgene]

[font color=\'#000000\']How I Handle the Jump to Digital, FWIW:

I had been taking 35 MM pictures since 1961 when I bought my first Minolta SLR camera as a serviceman in Japan (SR 1 & SR-7). Having worked my way through all phases of photography, various models (SRT 100 to Maxxum 70001) and owning a full complement of Rokkor lenses as well as darkroom experience, I just wasn't about to jump into digital. Why? Lots of concerns about quality, cost and I suppose much trepidation about "a steep learning curve" to get up to speed.

Around 2002 I started noticed that few of the more "serious amateur" photography friends of mine had started to make the move into at least digital darkroom and several local "professionals" talked about what they wanted in the way of DSLRs etc.

So to "bridge" the learning curve, in Februray 2003, I purchased the Minolta Dimage Xi (3.2 MP) after a favorable review by Walt Mossberg of the WSJ (Dec 2002). He recommended it for what were my interests at this stage of retirement - it took excellent pictures, easy to carry while traveling and since I did a lot of hiking around NH, trips out west etc it seemed to fit the bill and it would "ease" me into the digital photography world. Many times I had stopped carrying my SLR - too heavy, I ended to take too many lenses unless on a major vacation trip.

In Nov 2002, I had also made the switch to Apple iMac from Windows and wanted to delve into their suite of digital applications like iPhoto, iDvd etc, post our trip photos to Mac's Homepage for family & friends to view as well as try out printing on a entry level Epson Stylus Photo printer. So much to do, so little time!

I have now taken over 2,000 pictures with it, it is always in my pocket and I have been very please with the results. Granted I tended to use it as a point & shoot but it also would snag some nice pictures since I now carried it everywhere that also printed very well on 8X10. So I felt that way of easing into digital worked for me and helped me get over a good portion of the so called learning curve. I do miss the telephoto lens but one pays a price somewhere along the line.

I just moved up another notch by purchasing the Konica Minolta A2 (8MP) and have all kinds of plans to buy Nikon CoolScan 5000 to convert the "best of my film" library, upgrade printer, get into Photoshop via a taking a course and the list just goes on & on!

I am NOT recommending Konica Minolta as each has to figure their own way but above was the approach I took and it has me as excited about the creative posiibilities in this digital world as I was in the 35 MM SLR world.

Gene[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

It does for pros who shoot a lot, but I think that if you consider the total investement of a digital dark room (including software) + paper + inks +

Well, I think most folks (at least in the USA) who are open to the idea of digital photography already have a computer.  As for Photoshop, I think way over 50% of all copies are pirated (100% in India and lots of other places), so no cost there.  Once people get serious, they want the latest upgrade and also a manual, but initially getting started with digital is not an expensive move.  Walmart inkjet printers and paper are also quite cheap and pretty good quality for 8x10.  Of course, once you get serious you want better than that, but getting started is cheap enough.

As for upgrade lusting, yeah, that's true for all things electronic, but nobody holds a gun to your head.  My 1ds still takes great pictures that are more than good enough for almost any conceivable application in spite of the fact that the MKII has been announced.[/font]

[wibblefoo]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi,

No doubt this is a regularly asked question, but here we go...

I am currently in the process of assessing my options in making the move to digital. My current kit is Canon and consists of one EOS 500 and one EOS 500N body and the following lenses:

Canon EF 50mm f1.8 MkII
Canon EF 80-200mm f4.5-5.6 MkII
Sigma 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 Asph. Macro MkII
Sigma 70-300mm f4-5.6 APO Macro

The kit is clearly in the amateur catagory, as am I (though the 50mm lens is lovely).

The question is thus whether to
a) Buy a 300D (Digital Rebel)
 Wait a bit/splash out and get a 20D
c) Ditch Canon, flog all my 35mm kit and get something else

Opinions?

Thanks[/font]

[wibblefoo]

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks for the opinion.

After posting, I did a lot of reading and I think I'll be sticking with 35mm for probably the next 12-18months. Maybe longer.

I've recently rediscovered the joys of making photographs with my old praktica without all the faff of lots of fancy options getting in the way.

I think that the only thing really driving my desire to go digital is probably that everyone seems to be doing it (and I love a bit of technology).

Cheers[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']

I think that the only thing really driving my desire to go digital is probably that everyone seems to be doing it

Well, that's not the best of possible reasons to do something, but even if you get into digital for that rather trivial reason, you will surely very quickly discover many far better reasons than "me too".  Unless you jump too quickly and end up with a particularly poor choice of cameras (for your needs) you will surely like the move to digital and discover that there's more than just band wagon jumping to explain the rapidly growing popularity of digital.  There's a bit of a learning curve to using a digital camera effectively and a really big learning curve for using Photoshop effectively, but after even modest progress in these learning curves you'll see the work flow and versatility and quality advantages of digital.[/font]

[BernardLanguillier]

[font color=\'#000000\']digital has more fun. for amateurs photography is all about shooting i believe. and digital frees you from the hesitation of cost when shoot.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi there,

Having gone through all the steps of the migration from film 35 mm to digital, I am not sure that it ends up being that much cheaper for amateurs.

It does for pros who shoot a lot, but I think that if you consider the total investement of a digital dark room (including software) + paper + inks + ... as well as the marketing driven urge most people feel to upgrade you gear on a regular bases, you end up realizing that keeping shooting 35 mm film ends up being much cheaper an option (especially if you have the gear already).

Best regards,
Bernard[/font]

[Graham Welland]

If you are making the transition to digital then the most cost effective approach is definitely to start with the 'digital darkroom' and migrate to the DSLR later. You'll be able to take advantage of both worlds - i.e. maintain your film camera equipment investment/techniques and scan/fix/print your own best images on demand.

Film didn't suddenly become a bad/poor medium. I have a couple of colleagues who are extremely happy with their investments in 35mm film scanners (both Minolta 5400 incidently - they highly rate them) and the freedom to scan their new and existing slides. The investment in the PC/Mac, printer and Photoshop or Photoshop Elements is shared with any future migration to pure digital capture at the camera stage. If you are a MF shooter then starting with a flatbed like the Epson 3200/4870 is also a cost effective starting point.

Personally, I mostly shoot digital from end to end but that's because of the inherent advantages of digital capture and the ability to review your results on the fly. That said, I still enjoy shooting film as a well exposed 6x7 on the light table is still exciting and, since I don't have to do this for a living, is part of the enjoyment of the hobby.