The Compact DSLR System: Part 1

It's the summer of 1977, and the Konica Autoreflex TC had been introduced the previous year. I'm 16 and standing in a little camera store on University Ave., in Lubbock, Texas looking into a glass case, much like this one at the object of my desire. Things are just so intense in your teenage years. So much so that you can often get a ghost of it when some certain song plays, or you smell something in the air..... I often talk to my Psychology classes about how our memory and how it works....., but of course, they are teens themselves, so they look at me like I've "lost it". Anyway, I remember this camera so clearly that years later, when I'm standing in the space that store had been at, which would become ironically a maker of awards and momentos, called Paddle Tramps, that I can completely bring back the sense of that time. ...... Anyway; I had settled on wanting this camera because 

1. I wanted what every other camera buyer of the time did, a compact system SLR, and 
2. I didn't have any idea that the Canon A-1 was about to be released!

Why compact, and why, the TC? Five years before that, in Cologne, Germany at that years Photokina show, Olympus had set the SLR world on it's collective ear with the introduction of the M-1, later renamed the OM-1 due to Leica's protests over some unimportant model that they had previously used that designation for...... Anyway, all that aside, this not only propels Olympus from respected outsider to the wunderkind of the camera world. 

Every since it's introduction 13 years before, this had been the face of the now dominant Japanese photographic industry! This represented what was then new: combat photography from the jungles of SE Asia, student protest on college campuses, California counter-culture, and moon rockets! All gone in one fell-swoop! Big, old, heavy, dusty and out-of-step! The OM-1 and later the OM-2 sent every camera company in the world scrambling to get something put together that was going to be competitive. Good grief; even professionals were trying out the new camera (although they would mostly return to the Nikon F-2/3, and Canon F-1 soon enough). However, in that space of time between about 1973 and 1977, everybody was going small. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford small. Actually, I couldn't afford Olympus. The Olympus was almost as expensive as the pro Nikons and clearly out of the range of a teenager with part-time jobs.....which left me with the Konica TC. It was a system, and most importantly, it had shutter-priority automation, where you set the shutter speed and the cameras set the aperture. This is what every aspiring photojournalist wanted (or so I believed anyway), because you could be certain that the shutter speed could stop the action. Let those who shoot flowers use Aperture priority! Of course, most importantly, it was cool, small and did I say cool!?!

Fast forward 30 years, and we have gone from film to digital, and oddly, we also went through the whole growth in size path to compact dimensions.....again. Understandably, in the early days of DSLRs, the electronics were still relatively large, so the cameras needed to be bigger. Subsequently, like anything electronic, the successive generations have brought the components down in size as more and more powerful processors and integrated circuits have come into use. The last two major barriers being the elimination of the focusing motor from the body of the camera by using "ring-motors" inside the lenses themselves and the removal of the top info panel on all-but high-end cameras in favor of a larger control LCD on the back of the camera itself. I know what you are thinking: I'm not going to get into the whole "mirrorless" issue today, since I'm classifying those cameras as different than the DSLRs that we're talking about. Not worse, not better, just different.

For this, we have to go back to 2003, and the camera that started the DSLR revolution (at least as far as the consumer market is concerned), the Canon EOS 300D (or Digital Rebel on this side of the pond). It and it's successor, the 350D (built on the same chassis) was and still is the yard stick that all future compact DSLR are measured against. See the layout? The grip, control wheel, the mode dial on the left of the penta-prism? The lack of major controls on the right side of the body? If it looks familiar, huh; that's because, every manufacturer has copied this layout in the last 10 years! 

This change is pretty much the only reason for the major difference in size from the D50 to the D40. Yes, the removal of the focusing motor cuts a bit of height, but not enough to be a difference maker. No; the change from the CF card to SD, makes no difference. They only did that because the expected market for this type of camera is an up-grader from "compact digital" cameras to "beginner" DSLRs. And not having to buy a new card makes it easier for them. Don't believe me, go find a picture of an Olympus E-410/420. It's tiny! It uses a CF card. 

Where am I going with this? It's that the major sea-change originating from the Olympus back in 1972 has finally settled in to the digital realm as well....if you are careful. When Olympus originally made the design changes that they did, it wasn't just cosmetic. It was a change in philosophy. It wasn't just the camera either, they literally redesigned everything in the system to fit the new camera. Eventually it would effect the entire industry. I came to understand what that meant when I put my small (18-70mm f.3.5-4.5) zoom on the D40 and realized that even that lens was a little big. However, when I grabbed my "old" glass made in the late 70's after all the manufacturers redesigned everything, that I found the correct fit. 

 

The Tamron 300mm f/5.6 and my Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 fits the D40 like they were designed for it. That's because that they don't have motors built in to them, are made of brass and engineered from the very beginning to work with the Olympus OM-1s and Pentax MXs of the world. As you can see, after the Canon 350D, other cameras have come along and gotten even smaller. Left to right, you have the Olympus E-420, the Pentax K-x, then the Nikon D40. 

The lower end Nikons and Canons have grown a little since the 300D and D40, but last month, Canon released the EOS SL1, which puts them "back in the game". What I'm saying is, that it doesn't have to stop at that 40mm "Pancake" lens (I'm all too aware that BOTH Canon and Pentax "pancakes" in their line-up now). 

I clearly remember every month when my issue of Modern Photography arrived, I'd go right over to the great Herbert Keppler's column and read his thoughts. Quite often, he would be extolling the virtues of a lightweight, compact camera matched with high-performing, but equally lightweight lenses. From those articles, I learned the basics of how to create a traveling kit. You add all this together with a nicely performing compact DSLR, then you have the modern version of what Y. Maitani envisioned 40+ years ago.  

Great Deal: The 6 Megapixel DSLR

In the later half of 2003, a huge shift occurred in the photography world. Although Single Lens Reflex cameras equipped with digital sensors had been around for some time, going all the way back to midway through 1990s. They were unwieldy, expensive and didn't have enough resolution to pose a threat to film. And although the Nikon D1 of 1999 with it's 2.7 Mp sensor was the killer hardware for professional photojournalists, the $5500 price tag barely made a ripple in the consumer market. Then came the Canon Digital Rebel (300D)!
Most of you know that I'm not a Canon shooter, but I'm happy to give credit where credit is due. List priced at $899, this was the camera that kicked down the door that led to the world-wide consumers stampeded....along with the rest of the camera manufacturers that had the where-with-all to build a similar product. Nikon followed with the D70 in January of 2004 and the DSLR rush was on!
So, why then, with those cameras? Let's start from the beginning. Ever since the 1960s, the single lens reflex (more specifically Japanese SLRs) had dominated the photography scene. Virtually all serious photographers bought them, and those that didn't (serious or not) wanted one. When digital came along in the mid-to late 90's, it was obvious that, that was going to be the next big thing in photography, however, the sensors didn't give enough resolution for pictures to not look grainy and "pixelated" when blown up beyond snapshot (4x6) size and there was so much electronic "noise" in the image beyond ISO 400 that they were all but unusable.
However, between 2000 and 2003 a series of technologies converged to form the perfect storm of consumer market-dom! First, noise was conquered in larger APS-C format sensors which was the size first used in market-viable DSLRs. At the same time, manufacturers were able to get enough photo-sites onto them to get resolution up to 6 Mp, thus enabling prints blown up to 11x14 (and beyond) to be virtually indistinguishable from film! The third and main event was the breaking of the $1000 barrier which brought in the flood of consumers which has further driven the costs of production (and price of cameras) down through the magic of economies of scale! You take these advances, cram them into a cheaper to produce plastic body, get rid of a few expensive features; a seminal product is created!
At this stage of the game, everyone from serious amateurs to soccer-moms were snapping them up as fast as Canon and Nikon could build them. This led to pretty much every other manufacturer jumping into the pool. I'm not going to do a timeline here, but suffice to say that between 2003 and 2005, everyone from Pentax, Olympus to Konica/Minolta got something out into the sub-$1000 market-space. What does that mean to us......the frugal propellerheads of the world?
The fact is that to the "Average Joe" who just wants to shoot pictures of their kids growing up, family events and maybe even dabble in some artsy things like shooting the moon or wildflowers, 6 Mp is plenty. And these barrier-breaking cameras are now hitting the used market by the thousands! With entry-level replacements MSRPs at something south of $599, that puts fully functional used DSLRs in the sub-$300 range and I've seen them sell for close to $200 or less!
Think about this. Here's cameras which are all legitimately competent at virtually anything a normal person might ask of it. Give's the user the capability to access a virtually limitless treasury of lenses of every description, quite often for a "song", shoot pictures to your heart's content AND simply delete the non-keepers.....without the costs of film.....ALL AT THE PRICE OF A HALF-DECENT POINT-AND-SHOOT!!! That's just crazy! Is this a great country or what!?!

Which one should you consider? That's contingent on a few factors, the most important being what feels good in your hands and you like the interface the best. It's like the Mac vs. PC question. So here are my recommendations to look at and see what fits you the best:

• Canon Digital Rebel XT (300D) and XTi (350D)
• Nikon D70, D70s, D50, D40
• Olympus E500, E510, E520, E610, E620
• Pentax *ist D, *ist DS
• Konica/Minolta 5D
• Sony A100, A200 (first two models after Sony took over the Konica/Minolta line)

I chose these, because they are all at least 6 Mp, and can routinely be found in the $200-300 price range. All of them are systems that have been around for some time and therefore have sold quite a lot of cameras (with Nikon and Canon being far and away ahead of the others), lenses and other accessories. Some of them, such as Nikon and Pentax still use the same lens mount (with some modifications) going back to their film camera days thus allowing a user access to a huge inventory of glass, both OEM and after-market.
Which brings up the reasons for choosing one manufacturer over another:

• Feature set. Research, research and research. All of these cameras have ridiculously long lists of features, some useful, some not as much. Most have similar ones, others (like the Konica/Minolta sensor-shift), not as much.
• What do you like. Be a pest. If you have friends with any of these cameras, by all means ask them about it and see if you can take a few pictures with them. For instance; you may find that while most reviewers don't care for Canon's grip size/shape, that maybe with small hands, you are fine with it.
• Personal history. Does your dad have a bunch of old gear in a closet that you can have? Maybe there are several old Nikon or Pentax lenses that will work with your "new" camera and put you ahead of the game?
• Cast a wide net. After looking at the other factors, if it doesn't look like one is an overwhelming favorite, then create a list of all the ones that might work and find the best deal among them.
• Other factors. What else might you want to do with it in the future. It could be anything from underwater photography to astro-photography. Understand that the most popular (read common) models such as Canons and Nikons generally have had the most accessories made for them. This could range from something as common as dedicated flash units, to something as esoteric as telescope adapter mounts or macro-photography bellows units.

If you used to use SLRs back in the film days, the decision is a "no brainer". If you haven't and have been shooting pictures with a digital point and shoot, the difference in using a DSLR is astounding, almost indescribable. You'll wonder why it took you so long to do it. No, although $200 isn't inconsequential, the fact of the matter is that for a rather modest investment you can open yourself up to a whole new world.
Next time: how to collect important DSLR accessories, the Frugal Propellerhead way.