|
dirko
Apr 4, 2003, 2:58 PM
Post #1 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
I have really been eyeing the Canon 10D and think that I am going to go digital in the next 12 months, but I am scared!
Being a climber, I am a wide-angle junkie. I am worried that the 1.6 conversion ratio (lenses become 1.6 times longer) is going to to be technically problematic and just plain expesive. As I understand it, now I will have to have a buy a 15mm lens just to shoot 24mm. Do any other people out there shoot digital SLR, and has the 1.6 factor been an issue in your climbing photography?
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Apr 4, 2003, 3:31 PM
Post #2 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I'm using a Nikon D100 and this issue hasen't bothered me at all. Others may disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 4, 2003, 3:46 PM
Post #3 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
I work as a photojournalist, and have used digital SLR's for the past five years, and yes, the 1.6 conversion factor is sort of bitch... I haven't done much climbng photography, but before I shot digital a 24mm lens was one of my favs to use for my work... I am lucky, however, as the newspaper I work for supplies all my equipment, and i got this nifty Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 to use as I pleased, and it works out really well... you will have to have that 15mm or 16mm in order to get a 24mm on a normal SLR... My suggestion would be, if you're going to invest in digital and you really want to use that 24mm but don't want to spend the money, I would say if you've waited this long the you can wait a little longer... The reason digital cameras have that conversion factor is because of the size of the CCD... The camera companies COULD and DO make a full-sized CCD, but the end product is just too much for the average Joe Climber to drop on a digital camera... hence, shave down the CCD and shave down the cost... Digital cameras are computers, and as we all know computers only get fancier and cheaper, and eventually you will see a 1:1 ratio in an amature digital SLR... it just might take a couple more years... there is progress... the top of the line professional Canon and Nikons have made great steps... the Nikon D1H is around 1.4 (this is what i use), and the brand-spankin' new Canon EOS 1Ds is FULL FRAME!!! yes, you'll have to shell out $7500, but this just means that very soon down the road some amature SLR's will be on the market that are the coveted 1:1 ratio... patience, young jedi...
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Apr 4, 2003, 3:58 PM
Post #4 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Reno:
My thoughts as well. I have an older Sony Mavica digital I use in the interum. Once the 1:1 drop in price, I'm heading down to get one :)
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Apr 4, 2003, 4:12 PM
Post #5 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
The thoughts expressed above make perfect sense. Digital cameras are indeed small computers and the prices will continue to drop. However, like computers there will always be a more advanced version just around the corner. You could conceivably wait forever.
Ultimately you need to make a choice based on your needs. If you need a 16mm lens to get the shots you want, the answer is clear. For me the answer has less to do with specific lens needs and more to do with a desire to be working with digital files instead of film. I'm a graphic designer and I spend all day in the world of pixels. I've been waiting for years already and finally had to pull the trigger. I couldn't be happier. :D
By the time the 1:1 digital SLR's are in my price range I'll probably be ready to add a second digital body to my arsenal.
|
|
|
|
|
biff
Apr 9, 2003, 3:59 PM
Post #6 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2001
Posts: 851
|
I just got a 10D (I was on a waiting list for 3 weeks).. and I am not scared of it (although I might be scarred of the credit card bill when it arrives :cry:
To get wide angle you just have to spend a bit of money.. I am sure somone has already mentioned the Sigma 15-30mm or thier 14mm. These are both decent lenses, and would provide (IMHO) a wide enough lens on a digital camera. Plus you would have Ultra wide when you purchase a Full Frame Digital camera, in a few years.
If you wait a little while for the excitement to die down on the 10D, you might see price drop to $1399.
|
|
|
|
|
trbrts
Apr 11, 2003, 1:14 AM
Post #7 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 94
|
I have a D60 and yes, the conversion and subsequent loss of wide angle blows. But, it is great with a 1 gig drive in there to just blast off a bunch of shots and not even have to worry about wasting film. Luckily for you the Canon 1Ds now has a 35mm size ccd. So now a 28mm stays a 28mm. But watch out for the price! It's not cheap, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Apr 11, 2003, 1:32 PM
Post #8 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
why dondt you buy a camera that has the pickup chip as wideas normal film??? that way there would be no conversion. though its probably cheaper to buy a normal camera and an extremely wide lens.
|
|
|
|
|
jenna
Apr 14, 2003, 5:45 PM
Post #9 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 67
|
digital can be super fun, but it gets expensive, and i love my manual SLR. some people have both, and there are advantages to both. the best thing to do is try it out. if you have a friend with a digital, borrow it for a day and see which you like better
|
|
|
|
|
renobdarb
Apr 14, 2003, 5:52 PM
Post #10 of 10
(2048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 393
|
In reply to: why dondt you buy a camera that has the pickup chip as wideas normal film??? that way there would be no conversion. though its probably cheaper to buy a normal camera and an extremely wide lens.
I suppose if he had $8000 to drop on a camera body alone, he probably would...
|
|
|
|
|
|
