Should we wait?

[vondo]

...as prices are now less than the cost of a quality SLR ever was with all but the very bottom of the market.

That's just false. When I bought my Canon film system (2002) my Elan 7E was $400 or $450. That's a mid-range body. A comparable DSLR with similar flexibility is the 30D which is still well over $1000. I own the original Digital Rebel and it is not nearly as featured as my Elan. Annoyingly so. It's successors (Digital Rebel XT and XTi) are still right around $500 and $700 respectively.

 

[Warren_L]

I think with digital cameras the quality of the camera body and lens are pretty much equal in importance. Sensor quality, or the quality of the file a camera outputs, is very important. And you still can't discount optics.

When I was shooting film my old Nikon FM2s would gives me just as good of a photo as my F5's given that I was using the same lens, film and exposure. With digital the camera body makes a huge difference, as do quality lenses.

I guess my point is that a camera is more than just it's sensor, and I'm not suggesting that having a good quality sensor with good dynamic range isn't important, but if I had to choose between spending more money on either getting good lenses or a higher end camera, I'd cheap out on the camera every time. You can have different cameras with similar sensor qualities, but the cheaper ones are likely to be made with cheaper materials, less sophisitcated electronics perhaps, fewer features. To me, a stable of quality lenses I view as an investment. A camera body will probably be upgraded at some point in the future.

 

[RonFrank]

That's just false. When I bought my Canon film system (2002) my Elan 7E was $400 or $450. That's a mid-range body. A comparable DSLR with similar flexibility is the 30D which is still well over $1000. I own the original Digital Rebel and it is not nearly as featured as my Elan. Annoyingly so. It's successors (Digital Rebel XT and XTi) are still right around $500 and $700 respectively.

By 2002, film camera's had already dropped in price. Nikon had already released the coolpix lineup (1997), and Canon the Power shot (1996). The D60 was out as was the D100, and many pro level models as well (D1x/h, 1D) and DSLR's were taking the photojournalism world by storm. Consumers were flocking to digital, and film sales and prices dropping quickly.

I purchased a Rebel kit for my parents, and think I paid around $450 for it with one lens in the mid 1990's. My first AF camera was the Nikon 8008, and paid around $600 in 1988. To put the cost in perspective, at that time cost of a new single family house (national average, US Dept of Housing and Urban Development) was $112,500 as opposed to $264,540 in Oct. 2004 which is not current, but you get the idea.

The Original Digital Rebel was a dumbed down camera. Thank Nikon for forcing Canon to offer a more full featured version with the release of the D70.

I'm not sure one can begin to compare the Rebel XT, an 8mpix, 3fps, 7 focus zone full featured camera that includes a TFT LCD for review, WB control, and a feature list that goes on for pages with the film Rebel. There is SOOO much more to the digital version that it surprises me they can sell them for what they do now!

 

[bladephotog]

I guess my point is that a camera is more than just it's sensor, and I'm not suggesting that having a good quality sensor with good dynamic range isn't important, but if I had to choose between spending more money on either getting good lenses or a higher end camera, I'd cheap out on the camera every time. You can have different cameras with similar sensor qualities, but the cheaper ones are likely to be made with cheaper materials, less sophisitcated electronics perhaps, fewer features. To me, a stable of quality lenses I view as an investment. A camera body will probably be upgraded at some point in the future.

I agree Warren, the lenses you buy will outlast most cameras. And nowadays even the lower end digital cameras deliver pretty good images. Unless a buyer has unlimited finances they'll have to decide which is more important, and where they're going to make a compromise. The nice thing is there are enough camera and lens choices out there to allow a comfortable compromise. Actually there are enough great, mid-range cameras, lenses, housings etc., that it makes it hard for most people to justify buying top-of-the-line gear unless they have unlimited funds.

 

[victor]

In the late 80's and 90's the 35mm film SLR had reached a peak. For shooting above water which body you chose made much less of a difference than the film and lenses. I loved kodachrome for it's saturated colour but it's speed was frustrating.

With DSLR the sensor plays a big part in the qualitiy of the picture as does the onboard software.

For me above the surface it's the size and feel of the camera that counts alot. I cannot get on with these tiny camera's even my 8080 feels to small for a point and shoot. I need something that is the same size or bigger than my nikon SLR's and is heavy enough to feel substantial.

I suspect I will stick with my past and use nikon galss for prime lenses and third party for zoom's.

Reports on the Sigma 17 -> 70 f2.8 sound very tempting. Must look into the cost of a port for this and see if I can have a play with it..

 

[vondo]

By 2002, film camera's had already dropped in price. Nikon had already released the coolpix lineup (1997), and Canon the Power shot (1996). The D60 was out as was the D100, and many pro level models as well (D1x/h, 1D) and DSLR's were taking the photojournalism world by storm. Consumers were flocking to digital, and film sales and prices dropping quickly.


I purchased a Rebel kit for my parents, and think I paid around $450 for it with one lens in the mid 1990's. My first AF camera was the Nikon 8008, and paid around $600 in 1988. To put the cost in perspective, at that time cost of a new single family house (national average, US Dept of Housing and Urban Development) was $112,500 as opposed to $264,540 in Oct. 2004 which is not current, but you get the idea.

You can't really use those numbers. House prices don't follow inflation and the houses being built today are not the same houses that were being built in the 80's. You can get really accurate if you want, but as a first guess, you can assume 3% inflation which gets you 1.03^16 or 60% total inflation. But cameras, like other electronic goods have *always* dropped in price. I was looking at a 1793 magazine yesterday advertising a Minolta entry range SLR for $300. That'd be $820 in today's dollars neglecting the serious inflation of the mid-late 1970's.

The Original Digital Rebel was a dumbed down camera. Thank Nikon for forcing Canon to offer a more full featured version with the release of the D70.

I'm not sure one can begin to compare the Rebel XT, an 8mpix, 3fps, 7 focus zone full featured camera that includes a TFT LCD for review, WB control, and a feature list that goes on for pages with the film Rebel. There is SOOO much more to the digital version that it surprises me they can sell them for what they do now!

Well, I own an original Digital Rebel, an Elan 7, and a film rebel. The original digital rebel is clearly more of a child of the Rebel than the Elan. What it's missing (off the top of my head) are a bunch of photographer features

DEP mode (A-DEP is not so great)
Mirror lockup
Selectable focus mode
Selectable metering mode
Rear control dial
Flash Exposure Compensation

The only ways it was more like the Elan were in size and weight and a metal lens mount.

Now the recent Rebels seem to have solved MLU and the focus and metering modes (although menus are not nearly as useful as switches as on the Elan). The size of the new Rebels is a lot smaller and more toy like.

Of course, I'm leaving off digital-only things, since there is no comparison, but where the two compare head to head even the new Rebels are not more featured and more ergonomic (the rear wheel is a big deal) than an old $400 Elan.

That's not to say that every camera mentioned in this post isn't a great camera, they are. They just serve different niches and the Rebels are clearly for beginning DSLR people. I, for one, am becoming quite frustrated with mine having gone back to using my Elan for the last couple of months. If you want to match the advanced amateur experience of the Elan or the EOS 3/5, you need to head up to the 20D/30D which will set you back around $1000.

Edit: I don't use any of these underwater, I use an A620. I don't want to spend $1500 on a housing and port just so I can flood an expensive camera.