An Opinionated* Buying Guide for Photography
Equipment:
OCT 2001 EDITION
(*opinionated, but it is based on personal experience and
Internet reports by other users)
A copy of this file will always be available
at: www.davidchun.com/photoguide/
Compiled by David Chun
LAST UPDATED: October 8, 2001 9:07 AM
Introduction
Want to buy photographic equipment but not sure what's available out there?
Tired of the un-opinionated buying guides in Popular Photography that don't
really give a recommendation because they are afraid of losing advertising
revenue if they piss off a manufacturer? Well I'm not getting money from any
of these manufacturer so I can be as frank (and bitter) as I want to be.
Before I buy equipment I spend a day or two on the Internet slogging my way
through reviews, opinions and user reports. It is a tiring process. I hope
that this list will help cut down the time people need to spend on research
allowing them to spend more of their time taking photos. I hope that this
list, although biased and opinionated, will help inform and perhaps even empower
fellow photographers (before they go shopping at the local camera store).
At least, I hope it will greatly narrow things down so that the buying process
is less complex and confusing.
For almost each category, I have selected one winner by selecting it in BOLD
RED. The only exception to this is in the film category...I just
don't have enough experience all types of film, and since usage for film varies
greatly, I've decided not to narrow it down to just one film. Maybe this policy
will change in the future....
FLAME WAR DISCLAIMER: This list is not meant to be exhaustive, but a compilation
of some of the user reports on the Internet and my own limited personal experience.
This page is an on-going effort... I'm hoping that in the future more Internet
users will help to contribute.
This page is constantly under revision and review. Send
me e-mail on suggestions of things to add or remove.
What do you want to buy?
1.0 - I want a point and shoot camera.
1.1
- I want to buy a inexpensive point and shoot 35mm camera.
1.2
- I want to buy a point and shoot 35mm camera with zoom.
2.0 - I want a digital camera.
2.1
- I want to buy a inexpensive point and shoot digital
camera.
2.2
- I want to buy a moderately priced digital camera.
2.3
- I want to buy a pro-sumer SLR digital camera.
3.0 - I want a 35mm SLR.
3.1
- I want to buy a moderately priced 35mm SLR.
3.2
- I want to buy a moderately priced 35mm true macro
AF lens for my SLR.
4.0 - I want film.
4.1
- I want to buy colour slide film.
4.2
- I want to buy colour print film.
4.3
- I want to buy black & white film.
5.0 - I want a digital 35mm film scanner.
5.1
- I need a inexpensive digital 35mm film scanner.
5.2
- I need a moderately priced digital 35mm film scanner.
Where else to get opinions and reviews on the Internet?
Check these great sites out:
www.camerahobby.com
www.photo.net
www.photodo.com
www.photographyreview.com
www.photozone.de
1.1 - I want to buy a inexpensive point and shoot 35mm camera.
Two main contenders here: the Yashica T4 Super and the Olympus Stylus Epic.
Both have non-zoom, high quality lenses that provide surprisingly good results.
The Yashica comes with a Carl Zeiss-Tessar coated lens and reportedly has
better sharpness in the centre than the Olympus. The Yashica T4's reputation
is legendary and is highly recommended by Philip Greenspun (editor of Photo.net).
Many other users have posted favourable results with Yashica T4 and been surprised
by the quality of sharpness in their prints.
Price-wise, the Olympus Stylus Epic is slightly cheaper, but is also more
small/compact than the Yashica T4. Although not as sharp and constrasty in
the center as the Yashica, the Epic said to be sharper in the edges of the
photo compared to the Yashica T4. Both cameras are weatherproof and are heartily
recommended (even professionals carry these cameras around as backups to their
more expensive cameras). Best results are achieved with both cameras when
using 400 ASA print film (something like Kodak Royal
Gold 400).
For more information and to read a thread on Photo.net comparing the two
cameras click
here.
I'm not too concerned about compactness, and find that Yashica is plenty
small enough for me. I think the waist-level viewfinder is the strongest feature,
and wins my vote. Being able to take those "magical" candids (without
anyone knowing) will usually make your photos better than those plain rigid-posed
shots. The Yashica is great for stealth shots of camera shy people. Street
photography with the Yashica is way better too. Pull out the small Yashica
and compose a picture at waist level and people in the picture won't know
they're going to be in a photo. Take out your SLR and take the same photo
and people will know you're taking a photo, and will tense up as they walk
by, or worse try to duck and avoid getting caught in the photo. All you get
is a photos of duck-walking/bowing people. Sigh.
| |
Yashica T4 Super |
Olympus Stylus Epic |
| PROS: |
Legendary Carl Zeiss-Tessar coated lens provides
sharp and contrasty pictures
Waist-level viewfinder allows you to compose
and take shots while holding the camera at waistlevel. Great for street
photography and candid shots...people don't realize you're taking a
shot!
Quieter operation than the Olympus
|
1/2 stop faster lens (2.8 as opposed to Yashica's
3.5)
More compact than the Yashica. Truly a pocketable
camera.
Edges of pictures are more sharp than Yashica.
Faster shutter delay than the Yashica.
Slightly cheaper than the Yashica.
|
| CONS: |
Slightly more bulky compared to the Epic.
Edges of pictures are not as sharp as the Epic.
|
Has trouble focusing on small moving objects
when compared to the Yashica.
Overall picture is not as sharp as the Yashica.
(Really a hair difference apart).
|
| REVIEWS: |
TO BE COMPLETED
|
TO BE COMPLETED
|
For more information and a thread on Photo.net comparing the two cameras
click
here.
2.1 - I want to buy a inexpensive point and shoot digital
camera.
The Olympus D-360L is a great cheap digital camera. It has been on the market
for a year, and its similar precedesor the D-340R was released over 2 years
ago. This is the cheapest digital camera you can get before you start to get
really ugly results. Yes you can get even cheaper digital cameras, but the
results look particularly hideous. Although only a 1.3 megapixel camera, the
Olympus D-360L holds up its own. Personal experience with this camera has
shown that it has excellent build quality, is rugged (dropped a few times
onto concrete floors and still worked without skipping a beat) and captures
pictures at 1280x960 resolution that are of sufficient quality to be posted
on websites at 640x480 resolution.
3.1 - I want to buy a moderately priced 35mm SLR.
Two main contenders here: the Nikon F80 or Canon Elan 7. Both offer similar
features and offer compatiblity with a wide range of lenses. Read Edwin Leong's
website:CameraHobby.com. Then read
his 35mm SLR buying
guide. It provides more detailed coverage than can be summarized in this
section.
More than capable models are offered Minolta and Pentax, but I don't care
for either model lines. Most professionals seem to use Nikon or Canon, as
a result it is far easier to get support as well as rent lenses for Nikons
and Canons than it is to get rental Minolta or Pentax lenses.
I'll have to agree with Philip Greenspun...don't wimp out and get an all
range zoom (35mm-105mm or a 28mm-135mm) like I did when I first bought my
camera. If this is your first 35mm SLR body, be sure to buy it with a fixed
focus Nikon or Canon 50mm AF. Don't let the dealer sweet talk you into something
else. Besides if you get really seriously involved in photography, you'll
want a fixed focus 50mm lens anyway.
The best compilation of the Nikon vs. Canon arguments is listed, at Edwin
Leong's website: CameraHobby.com.
Read his analysis
between Canons vs. Nikons. I'd have to agre with Edwin. Although I'm a
Nikon user, if I had to do it all over again, I would buy Canon...
| |
Nikon F80 (aka N80 in USA) |
Canon Elan 7 (aka EOS
33) |
| PROS: |
Compatible with all the Nikkor lenses made in
the past 40-60 years. But you won't be able to use the built-in meter
with the older manual focus lens.
You belong to the Nikon snob's club. Whoop. E.
|
Ability to use Canon's USM lenses which allows
simulatneous manual and autofocusing
Ability to use Canon's lenses with IS (image
stabilization technology).
|
| CONS: |
No USM or IS equivalent is readily available
for Nikon users. SilentWave is apparently similar to Canon's USM but
is only available on only the most exotic and pricey Nikkor lenses.
But you won't be able to use the built-in meter
with the older manual focus lens. Bummer.
|
Eye-glass wearing users have complained about
eye relief.
|
| REVIEWS: |
TO BE COMPLETED
|
http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/elan-7.html
|
3.2 - I want to buy a moderately priced 35mm AF
macro lens.
I was shopping for a good AF macro/portrait fixed focus lens for my Nikon
F70. I soon found out that Nikkor Micro 105mm f/2.8 AF-D lens sells for about
$649.95 US at B&H ($524.95 grey market) which a little above my pay scale.
The Nikkor Micro 60mm f/2.8 AF-D lens sells at more reasonable $379.95 US
($309.95 grey market), but is not at the right focal length I wanted...
If you own a Canon system, buying a genuine Canon macro lens is also quite
expensive: the Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8 EF USM sells for $599.95 US ($539.95
grey market). Because of the USM option, it might be worth getting this lens.
If it is too expensive, you can perhaps settle for the non-USM version which
sells for about $150-200 cheaper.
Otherwise, Nikon, Canon, (as well as Minolta and Pentax) users can look at
3rd party AF macro lens as an option besides buying an OEM lens. Here are
the options: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX ($359.00 US), the Tamron SP90 90mm f/2.8
($409.95) and the Tokina ATX 100mm f/2.8 (sorry no price listed at B&H).
Vivitar also comes out with a 100mm f/3.5 macro lens that is slightly cheaper
than these other three (at $139.95 US) and apparently takes suprisingly decent
photos. Both the Vivitar and the Tokina are not true 1:1 macro lens but rather
are 1:2 macro lens. The Vivitar comes with an adapter to screw on that will
allow it to take 1:1 macro shots. Some users have reported that the Vivitar
seems to have inferior build quality and cheapish plastic, but no real reports
of breakage.
Check out these threads on Photo.net: 1,
2.
Also check the lens reviews at Photodo.com
and Photozone.de. As for the lens rating
system in the chart below, closer to 5 is best.
Judging by users' reports, I would put my money on the Tamron SP90...and
that's what I did. I bought the Tamron about a month ago. No complaints so
far. I chose to buy that model because of reports of its sharpness and pleasing
bokeh. Since I also wanted to take portrait photos with this lens, good bokeh
was a particularly important in my buying decision. Lets compare them:
| |
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 |
Tamron SP90 90mm f/2.8 |
Tokina ATX 100mm f/2.8 |
Vivitar 100 f/3.5 |
(REFERENCE)
Nikkor 105mm f/2.8
|
| PROS: |
Feels and looks more durable than the plasticky Tamron lens.
True 1:1 macro lens
|
It's precedessor the Tamron 90 f/2.5 was considered a legendary macro
lens. This newer version is apparently even better.
True 1:1 macro lens.
Commented to have a really beautiful bokeh.
Good user reviews about sharpness
Clutch style focus system- switchable between AF/MF by pulling or pushing
focusing ring inward or outward
|
Internal focusing. Users
claim allows for faster autofocusing |
Bargain price |
n/a
|
| CONS: |
A couple of users have complained about bad bokeh with this model.
Check out this thread
on Photo.net
Complaints about build quality on the Sigma.
|
Plasticky feel
Personal experience as well as other users have complained about the
AF hunting for focus
Some users have complained the clutch-style AF/MF switch is too weird.
|
A user has also complained about bad bokeh on this model.
Not true 1:1, rather only 1:2 macro
|
Not true 1:1. 1:2 with an adapter...
1/2 stop slower than other lens listed here.
Report of inferior build quality.
Relatively low lens numbers amongst these other macro lens (but the
number is still quite respectable for something this cheap)
|
n/a
|
| PHOTODO LENS RATING |
4.1 |
4.3 |
3.9 |
3.2 |
4.1 |
| REVIEWS: |
|
|
|
|
|
4.1 - I want to buy colour slide film.
This list is not exhaustive...use this as a guide only to help you select
films. You may want to experiment for your work as well as use other manufactuers
such as Agfa and Konica
Fuji Velvia is commonly criticized for inaccurate colours when photographing
portraits of lightly skinned subjects, but some users have reported great
results when photographing Asian subjects. A lot of Japanese photographers
apparently shoot fashions models with Fuji Velvia 50. Try shooting Fuji RTP
64 of buildings and streets at twilight for a truly awesome effect.
If I was stuck on a deserted island and was allowed to have a running fridge
and only one slide film, I would pick Fuji Velvia...I just love the saturation
and exaggerated colour!
Particularly popular and personal favourite films have been highlighted in
red. Also take a look at Philip Greenspun's Photo.net
for film recommendations.
4.2 - I want to buy colour print film.
This list is not exhaustive...use this as a guide only to help you select
films. You may want to experiment for your work as well as other manufactuers
such as Agfa and Konica. Particularly popular and personal favourite films
have been highlighted in red. Also take a look at Philip Greenspun's Photo.net
for film recommendations.
4.3 - I want to buy black & white film.
This list is not exhaustive...use this as a guide only to help you select
films. You may want to experiment for your work as well as other manufactuers.
Particularly popular films have been highlighted in red. I do not have much
experience shooting in B&W so I can't give much help. Take a look at Philip
Greenspun's Photo.net for film
recommendations.
5.1 - I want to buy a inexpensive digital film scanner.
Buyer beware. Ultra cheap digital film scanners such as the Tamarack
Artiscan 2400 and the Primescan
1800f (also sold under the Black Widow name) have been getting bad reviews
from users. Severals users of the Tamarack model, in particular, have reported
numerous malfuntions
and frustrations. Although the Primescan
1800f, which is rumoured to be manufactured by the reputable Microtek
company, reports are slightly more promising than the Tamarack, users still
complain about substandard results. Judging by the user reports, I would not
waste my money on either scanner.
The next step would be the HP Photosmart S20 film scanner. It goes for about
$600ish CDN (as of May 2001). It is considered a relative bargain scanner--combined
with a better 3rd party scanner software (VueScan
by Hamrick), users report getting good
quality results. Purchase of VueScan
is highly recommended by most users, in order to obtain the best results...
(Keep in mind VueScan is not
a image editing program like Photoshop or PaintShop Pro but is actually scanning
software.) Take a look at Tony
Sleep's site for good review a lot of desktop film scanners on the market.
At this price point, you are fairly close to the moderately
priced film scanners. Make sure you take a look at those as well. Particularly
if you use thick cardboard mounted slides users have suggested that fixed
focus S20 doesn't quite cut it....both scanners compared in the moderately
priced film scanners are AF/MF.
5.2 - I want to buy a moderately priced digital film
scanner.
Both the Canon FS2710 and Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II have been getting favourable
reviews from users. Both are similar price-wise ($700-ish CDN as of May/2001)
and have similar features: 36 bit colour output, 2700+ dpi. Purchase
of VueScan, a 3rd party scanner
software by Hamrick,
is highly recommended by most users, in order to obtain the best results with
these scanners... (Keep in mind VueScan
is not a image editing program like Photoshop or PaintShop Pro but is actually
scanning software.)
Even with these fair quality scanners, users have noted problems scanning
slides (with contrasty scenes) and report better success when scanning with
negatives. (Some users have suggested that they get better results scanning
slides with the OEM drivers, but better negative scans with Vuescan). Higher
priced film scanners such as the Nikon LS-2000 and 4000 apparently have better
success with slides. Furthermore, higher priced units offer digital ICE or
equivalent. Digital ICE refers to scanning technology that detects dust, scratches
on the film surface and removes them in the scanned version, which helps save
LOTS of time in the post-scan image editing stage. Neither the Canon FS2710
or the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II offer these features.
Acer's ScanWit 2720S also seems to be in this price point, there is very
little information available about this scanner, and no dealer in my local
area seems to carry this model. I have found only two good reviews A review
this model is available at CNet
and as well as the Photoscientia
website...both seem to be fairly enthusiastic about the model.
For more information and to read a discussion thread on Photo.net comparing
the Canon and the Minolta scanners: click
here.
I happen to have an Adaptec SCSI controller already in my computer, so
I don't really have a preference between USB or SCSI. Even if you don't have
a SCSI card, the Canon comes with a PC-compatible one anyway (although I'm
told that Mac users will have to purchase one). To me, batch scanning is not
that important as envision that I only need to make 1-2 scans each time I
use the machine. Besides, judging by the example scans that I have seen on
the Internet, the Canon seems to make absolutely stunning color scans... For
great examples of Canon scans take a look at Rick's
page. I have yet to see scans from the Minolta Scan Dual II that are as
grabbing. Perhaps it is because no one seems to have scanned a super saturated
film such as Velvia with the Minolta Scan Dual II and then posted the results
on the Internet (The Photodo link under the Minolta column does have some
sample Velvia scans with the older Minolta Scan Dual). I also envision late
night scanning (when my family are asleep) which makes me lean towards a seemingly
quieter Canon. Reports of malfunctioning Minoltas (although all users reported
they were able to get replacements through the dealer) make me also suspicious
of the build quality of the Minolta. I'll lick my star onto the Canon for
this one.
