Digtial Detritus

It's clean-up/clean-out time around the Frugal Propellerhead household. One of the downsides of upgrading is that one is often left with misc. devices that don't work anymore....especially if your upgrading takes the form of the rare, but necessary operating system changes.

I guess I'm about waist-deep in a change-over to Windows 7. I dipped a toe in when I picked up the T43p a few months back and it had W7 loaded. So I left it the way it was to see if I'd like it and I definitely did; enough so that it planted a seed that has been growing in my little brain. Windows XPP has been a good friend, it's was a nice upgrade to Windows 2000, but worlds ahead of 98 or ME! But eight years down the road, it's time to say goodbye.

So, when I was looking at the X300s a few weeks ago, I also kept an eye on whether the machine had W7 loaded and the one I was able to snag had W7 Professional 64-Bit on it, along with 4Gb of RAM. However, along with the benefits of a 64-Bit operating system, there are some losses along the way. Some devices simply don't have the necessary drivers and probably never will. The main one so far has been the trusty little Canon LIDE 30, USB powered flatbed scanner. I don't use it much, but it's done a good job when nothing else would've even been along for the ride! At some point, I'll probably end up picking up one of the current versions such as the LIDE 100 as a replacement. Sometimes, there's just NO substitute for a flatbed scanner.

I have had a few surprises though. Amazingly, the converted from Thai, UltraNav compact keyboard I picked up works through a generic PS2 KB/Mouse to USB adapter! And shockingly, I found a Targus USB "Port Replicator" that had sat in the a box in the garage for 12 years took the drivers off of the Targus site and ran with it. This no small thing since the X300 only has the 3 USB and the one ethernet port. So this little small remote-sized device gives me an extra USB port, but PS2 KB/Mouse as well as parallel and serial(!) ports. Now if I can only get the software to recognize the GlobalSat BT-308, Bluetooth GPS receiver, I'd be golden!

For now, back to trying to get rid of stuff I don't/can't use any more.....

The "Holy Grail"

You guys that read this halfway regularly know that I love technology, but especially computers and cameras. So, I get pretty excited about lots of stuff: iPods, the Android phones, iPads, most anything Sony, pretty much any "small" computer (as long as its not a Netbook). However, every once in a while, something comes along that hits you right square between the eyes!

I remember when the MacBook Air came out, I thought that the concept was as close to perfectly executed as I'd seen in some time. The form-factor was virtually ideal. I've always loved the 13.3" screen size and that footprint married to something that thin was just mouth-watering. However, there were the few little things that bothered me about it: the ONE USB port, and something that sized that didn't have an optical drive was just going to be a deal-breaker! Yes, I understand how thin and cool it was, but I already have something almost as thin, just as light and DIDN'T have an optical drive in my ThinkPad X41.

Then within a month of the "Air's" introduction, Lenovo came out with the ThinkPad X300. THIS WAS IT! Almost as thin as the "Air", on-board optical drive (DVD Multi-Drive), LED backlit screen with the higher 1440 x 900 resolution and a 64Gb SSD! Holy Cow it was just impossibly perfect....with the exception of the out-of-this-world price of $3000+!!! So it might was well have been made of Unobtainium.
Fast-forward 2 years and lets look at how something like this fits into the Frugal Propellerhead's budget. I've been working on 2 different laptop computers; one a ThinkPad T43p mobile workstation which I bought for $250, but was worth about $100 more, the other a ThinkPad X41 complete with UltraBase and 32Gb SSD worth about $350 or so. That comes out to about $700 and amazingly, I came across an X300 on eBay that sold for about $655 3 weeks ago. Right around this same time, I friend called up looking for a machine spec'd like my T43p at the $300 price-point.

The rest is obvious and with a little bit of luck added (that machine that "sold" for $655 didn't go through and I got it for $667 the following week). Sold the T43p for $325 and now I just have to sell the X41 and I will have flipped my 2 older machines into one that still has a year of warranty left to go. If you've never seen and/or held one of these things, you owe it to yourself to go down to Micro Center and just pick it up (the current X301 that is). There's just no way that:

1. It's that thin!
2. It's that light with a 13.3" widescreen on it!
3. Anything that thin and light can feel that solid, open or closed!

As they say in Batman- POW!!!

The Free Kitten

Off topic, but hey, since I'm stuck here at Baylor Medical Center for at least another day or so, I thought I'd post this message about my funny little story.

It started on Father's Day a few weeks ago when my wife decided to get me a cat. So we go off that day out into the country....this is EAST TEXAS you understand so there are dirt roads and trailer houses involved......to pick a kitten from a lady who worked for our school district, but lived out in the country.

Here is where an experienced cat person would have turned and gone the other way, but we being "city folk" who've never owned a cat...... Anyway, the mother was an "outside cat" who NEVER interacted with people (in the country that means "mouser" and probably had any number of physical things wrong with it). So, after observing the kittens for 30 minutes I picked an orange tabby who actually wanted to play with people. So we took him home and I named him Indy (eg. Indiana Cat).

So the typical kitten type things occurred over the next several weeks. We (my wife) spent a great deal of money buying it toys, collars and a fancy litter box (it litter trained in 2 days), everybody got scratches. However, I got the more serious ones since I got to "put the cat up" when the time came (usually after the kids had riled it up). I didn't think a lot about it until I noticed that one scratch wasn't healing like the rest. We went the extra mile and ripped it open, washed it good, poured alcohol on it, slathered it with anti-bacterial cream and bandaged it. And finally early last week (after about a week), it started to get better.

That night I felt like I was coming down with the flu, so I took stuff and went to bed early. That was Wednesday night. Thursday (my day off), I spent in bed. Friday I felt a little better and thought I'd turned the corner on a little bug. Saturday, I woke up worse than before, so went willingly down to the urgent care place and they looked me over, listened to my story and with a straight-face, the Doctor says: "you have Cat Scratch Fever", to which I respond....."I thought that was just a an old Ted Nugent song! Oh I forgot to tell you that my fever was so high (103.2 and rising) that they gave me 800mg of Ibuprophen BEFORE the Dr. ever came in!!! :o

So I go home armed with my 2 prescriptions, and slightly amusing story about my ailment. I took the prescriptions and generally lay around all day, just to make certain I'd be good to go by Sunday night (July 4th) to start our little family mini-vacation. This is were the story gets good.

I wake up Sunday morning feeling pretty good, but my right eye feels a little funny, so I look in the mirror and see that I look like Phantom of the Opera; except that instead of that half-mask he has....the right side of my face diagonally down from my forehead to below my right ear is swollen and red. But hey; since I felt pretty good, I just thought that it was the lymph nodes clearing out the junk and it would go away. My wife looked dubious (I think she was really starting to feel guilty now). Later the doctor's office call to follow up and I mention this condition to which there is awkward silence followed by putting me on hold, then a doctor gets on to tell me she's calling the other doctor and finally telling me that they "strongly ENCOURAGE" (I really love how proper Indian doctors are) me to come in to be checked...immediately!

So I go, and on the afternoon of July 4th, I'm the only person there. She takes one look at me, tells me that she needs me to take MORE anti-biotics and go get a CT of my right eye area. The cute nurse from the day before comes in and ask me to pull my shorts down: that she was giving me 2 shots. One in each hip- 5 minutes apart "BECAUSE THEY ARE SO STRONG YOU ARE GOING TO FEEL LIKE YOU'RE PASSING OUT"!!! So I get my shots, she walks me out looking concerned. I go home, gather up the family in the car already packed to go on vacation and we go to a hospital to get my CT. On the way, we stop 3 times for me to make noise out the door and I almost pass out just inside the emergency room doors. After I'm able to get up and get through admitting, the person who has been waiting for me from CT had to take someone from emergency and we end up waiting another hour.

So, 5 minute CT later, after the tech sent the results to the doctor and tells me that everything looks pretty good and I can leave, we head out to get across Dallas to check into our hotel and go to the ballgame late, but hey, we really want to see the fireworks afterward. On the way, as we're stopped to pick up something we can eat in the car when the doctor calls and says that she want me to go to the downtown Baylor Medical facility emergency room and have blood work done and be started on IV antibiotics!

So that's how I ended up here. Yeah, we got to the ER, waited a minimum of time, but was in a room getting stuff done (4 vials of blood), and 3 bags of IV meds till 12:30am at which time they tell us that they're going "to admit me and keep me a few days". Around 2:30 July 5th, I get to my room, more nurse/hospital stuff for an hour or so, then I sleep till 5:30 at which time somebody comes in to get 2 MORE vials of blood from me.

....and you know what, I don't really feel sick at all; I just have that swollen half-a-face thing going on. There really is no such thing as a "Free Pet"!!!

The other players

OK, now that I've gotten through the whole Nikon line-up as related to getting into the DSLR game, let me address the other players in this field.


First of all, there's the arch-rival; Canon. Canon is basically just like Nikon, in that it is also highly successful in the market place, has a long-standing history in camera making and is large enough to have a wide line-up of models. At this point, it may be somewhat more successful in sales and has a bit of an edge, stemming from a perceived reputation amoung advanced amateurs of higher image quality. Of course, I've already espoused my opinion on the topic that:

1. Actual image quality at the levels that are being discuss isn't enough to measure much less as a deciding factor.
2. In general, the real difference are few and not really worth discussing either.

Which gets us back to which Canon models should be be looked at to fit into our concept of a camera to get started in the hobby. If we use the same criteria as we did before (6 megapixels), then the models will be the Canon EOS Digital Rebel (300D in some markets), EOS 10D, Rebel XT (350D in some markets and has an 8Mp sensor) or maybe the EOS 20D (essentially the same sensor). All 4 of these models fall into the about the same price-point of somewhere between $350 and $450 right now.

The main thing to remember is that in the Canon system, the "Rebel" branding is used in relation to their strictly consumer line and is considered an entry level product. Where this comes to bear is that there are some actual feature which are crippled so that those models can be differentiated from the "x0D" "prosumer" line. From what I can tell, the main issue being that it is much more difficult to over-ride the automation in the Rebels than the number series cameras. Many reviewers who actually shoot with both tend to stick with the Canons for ultimate image quality and the Nikons for speed of "in-the-field" use. To paraphrase one reviewer; I use my Canon when I'm going to have my tripod out and all the time in the world.

As far as glass is concerned, it's a "pick-em" situation. Each has some lenses that are better than the other and some that are worse. It was a no brainer for me since at the time that I made my decision, Canon didn't off an "Image Stabilization" (VR in Nikon speak), 18-200mm super-zoom so I bought Nikon. Now Canon has that same lens. And of course, Canon changed their mount when they went auto-focus, so you don't have the luxury of simply mounting an old lens. Of course Canon does have the advantage of a shorter flange to film-plane distance so you can just get an adapter that's let you mount even Nikon lenses. You do lose ALL automation, but it can be done.

In a nutshell, there's precious little to give between the two brands and it comes down to which you prefer the handling.

Now, on to short descriptions of other possibilities that are out there that I find to be reasonable alternatives to the "big boys".

First of all, there is Olympus. This was the system that I almost bought into instead of the Nikon. The cameras that are most likely to fit the bill are the "E-xxx" series. In the U.S. they began with the E-410/510/420/520, all with essentially the same 10Mp sensor. Their professional/semi-professional unit E-3 has a similar sensor as well. These (especially the E-4/510) will sometimes fall into that $350-450 range as well, however, they don't sell as many units as Canon/Nikon so there won't be as many that appear on the used market. At the same time, it must be said also that they don't tend to sell as well for various reasons so the price is usually somewhat lower than a similarly spec'd Canon/Nikon model.

There are two very seductive features (at least for me) on these Olympus', the first being that they have sensor self-cleaning system built-in and 2nd being very traditionally Olympus that they are significantly more compact than either the Nikon or Canon. One feature that many people like is the "Sensor Shift" technology which is what Olympus calls their version of IS/VR. The kicker here is that theirs is built into the body of the camera so ALL lenses get the benefit of it. So, what's not to like!?! Actually among the engineering community, it's a little controversial (note that neither Canon or Nikon chose this route). The issue is that it's another electronically controlled, highly sensitive, moving part that central to the actual camera vs. in the lens, so therefore, if it fails, you're "dead", where-as, on a lens-centric system, you switch lenses and continue to shoot (without that lens, but hey...). I think the differences is that both Canon and Nikon have a LARGE population of professionals to think about who can't afford to have their camera fail. From my standpoint, it's really a bigger problem for an amateur since most of us don't have an extra $500-1000 camera body sitting around in case one fails!

And of course, another difference is that Olympus uses the four/thirds sensor size which is physically smaller so their conversion factor in lens focal length is 2x, instead of the ~1.5x of Nikon/Canon. This is a non-issue with the exception that there are less wide-angle options to work with.

I'll address one other manufacturer today and that's Pentax. Much like Olympus, it's an old-line and well-thought-of Japanese company who has a lot of history and although don't sell a lot of units and don't do a lot with professional is considered every bit the equal of Canon or Nikon in the consumer field. Their offering in the range that we've been discussing is the *ist DS" or K100D cameras. Their models are excellent and quite often winning international awards. Their lenses are outstanding and pretty much the equal of Canon, Nikon or Olympus....so what the issue? They are a dickens to find!

Pentax just doesn't sell that many units, in fact, their Korean partner (Samsung) is rapidly catching up to them. A big plus for them is that they can use all of the old (even pre-auto focus) lenses back to the first K-Mounts. I strongly considered them when I switched to digital since I had 12 K-Mount lenses at the time, but I was determined to down-size BECAUSE I didn't want to carry all those lenses around.

So, I've touched on Canon which in my eyes is pretty much a personal taste issue between them and Nikon. And then there were the two "also rans"; so what other factors are there other than they are hard to find? A big one for me is that, since they are small (relatively speaking), many independents (such as Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, etc.) don't make products for them. In my world, this translates to mean that there are less options which translates to mean higher prices.

The Weird and the Wonderous!

So....if I didn't live in Texas, how quickly would I be staring at a police officer, if I just took this thing out in public and started using it!?!


Anyway, I bought a BushHawk (which is what this contraption is) from Craig's List a few weeks ago. Last week, I finally got around to ordering the adapter plate which would allow me to attach my big lens (Tokina 80-400mm) to it. Why? A number of reasons, but at the core of it; is this thing cool looking or what? It's not quite as interesting at this point as my inspiration, which was a camera called the Fotosniper (their word, not mine), which they develop probably some time in the 40's and then after several generations, and Glasnost, etc. began to appear in increasing numbers in the U.S. circa. 1980's. This thing is far more modern, but not quite as cool if you take into account the really interesting case, etc. that they came packaged in.


Pretty interesting little camera huh? Makes mine look positively civilized. I still want one of these things some day, just not right now. Especially since it was a good package day since I came home to find, the aforementioned adapter plate for the BushHawk, but also the new Manfrotto 804RC2 head which will allow me to use the repaired tripod, a package from my buddy Kym containing some of his surplus lenses that I can use and the perfectly timed replacement anniversary present for my wife since today is....TA-DA, our 10th anniversary!

Oh, I almost forgot to mention that this particular BushHawk had supposedly belonged to noted photographer Franz Lanting who shoots for National Geographic, among other publications!

The "Process" of Buying

Where I left off last time was a discussion of the major players in the market and my personal needs as well as quirks (in relation to camera equipment that is). So lets review the specific parameters first:

• At least 6 megapixel sensor
• A system camera meaning one of the "Big Boys" (eg. Canon, Nikon, Sony...maybe Olympus or Pentax)
• Some sort of camera motion compensation
• $1000 budget- "All In"

Every company has produced at least one model with a 6Mp sensor, so that part was really a non-factor, it's just whether I could get that model into my budget would be the issue. At point, I'll dive into the vagaries of product line and differentiation a little bit so you can understand what's out there.

In the DSLR (as in the film SLR before it) world, there are 2 basic types of cameras; Professional and Consumer. Now understand that this doesn't mean that they won't sell you the camera if you don't make a living with it, but a designation of what it's designed to do. In fact, for those of us on a budget, we LOVE those well-heeled consumers who over-buy for their needs, under-utilize the equipment, and ultimately sell of at a ridiculously low price later when they upgrade to the latest and greatest. There is also a quasi-middle-ground that's sometimes called "prosumer" or "semi-professional". And then of course, within each group there is some stratification of products as well. From here, I'll use Nikon as my examples as it's the brand that I own and therefore know the best.

• Professional- In the Nikon line, this equipment is designated by a single digit such as 1, 2 or 3. This number is preceded by a letter designating either F (I guess for "film) or D (for digital). Of course, the D1 was their first completely "in-house" digital camera, followed by the D2 and the current model being the D3. These model numbers can also be modified as interim improvements are made (eg. D3s) or sub-models that do something differently or more, such as the D2hs for the improved and "high speed" D2. These things are "beasts"! They physically are made to the size of the old professional film SLRs with the motor drives attached. They are typically not good candidates for the typical amateur to use (especially beginners). They tend to be extremely intimidating with a ton of buttons, but they also leave out some things like a "pop-up" flash since it's assumed that the user will have a full-blown dedicated lighting rig to use. The big boys have some of these that sport the full-sized (meaning the same size as a 35mm film frame) sensor that Nikon calls FX. Barring getting into a full-blown Hassellblad, these are the biggest sensors that you can buy which are around 24 megapixels! So you'll HAVE to have these huge and expensive 32Gb storage cards just to hold the files. Oh, and you have to have lenses that cover the bigger sensor format as well, which are also more expensive. So again; not recommended for the regular person just wanting to take nice digital pictures!
• Pro-sumer or Semi-Professional- These are the middle-ground of DSLR cameras. In a nutshell, they are really cut down professional cameras, made like professional cameras, but are easier to use like the amateur models....they're even about the same size, but typically somewhat heavier. They tend to be heavier due to the build philosophy, beginning with metal chassis (usually magnesium), environmental sealing, and heavier duty components, since their expected number of shutter actuations is at least 50% if not 100% higher than the typical consumer camera. They also tend to leave out many of the full on amateur feature like "scene" modes that the Japanese manufacturers believe most amateurs need. On the flip side, they give FAR great control over the cameras various functions. These cameras can generally (when outfitted with the correct pieces) make perfectly adequate substitutes for full-on professional models. In fact many of the practicing professional will use these as "back-up" bodies or when they need something lighter and smaller than the beasts that they normally use. In Nikon's line, these models were given a 3 digit model number beginning with 100, so the progression so far has been; D100, D200, D300 (currently the newest being the D300s which has video capture onboard). They've progressed from 6Mp, to 10Mp, to 12Mp which is typical of the most companies.
  
• Consumer- For the Nikon line, these were originally given 2 digit model numbers beginning with the D70, after which the line split into 2 levels with the advanced amateur cameras going up to the D80, then D90 (current) and the "entry" level cameras going down with the D50, then D40 followed by the D40x. As you can see, they've pretty much run out of numbers here so they've moved on to the 4 digit numbers with the current entry-level camera being the D3000 and the more "full-featured" version with video as the D5000. With that out of the way, here's the meat of what these cameras are and do (IMHO). They are less expensive to produce since they leave out some features as well as build differences such as full on polycarbonate chassis vs. magnesium. Although many will have some sort of metal sub-structure that keeps the critical components such as lens mount, mirror box, pentaprism, and senor in rigid alignment with each other. They will also have a lower level of sensor, but more than enough to do the job. This is by far the fastest growth segment in the digital camera market and as a result THE most competitive. Therefore, the various manufacturers can't be perceived as having an inferior product feature-wise since the typical consumer in this market segment knows a great deal less about the actual intricacies of photography and usually make buying decisions based on features and perceived quality. One other trend that has developed in this segment is the movement toward a smaller, lighter weight and easier to carry camera. The Olympus led consortium got the ball started with the four/thirds sensor standard which allowed both a smaller camera (smaller senor), which also allowed a much shallower lens flange to sensor plane distance. Nikon quickly jumped onto this trend, by switching to the SD memory card and eliminating the focusing motor from their lower-end cameras (beginning with the D50 and then on to the HIGHLY successful D40, D40x, and D60 series) which cost them the ability to use legacy auto-focus lenses from the film-AF days, but allowed a MUCH smaller lighter body. I suspect that their research indicated that the typical purchaser of these cameras were not the old guard that was highly invested in their system from the "old days" and didn't have a bunch of lenses that demanded compatibility. Apparently they were right on the mark since the D40 became so ubiquitous that Wal-Mart and Target sold them....and we all know that those retailers only deal in items of HIGH volume! They set the price as low as they could bear and made up for it by a much higher volume sales and the ongoing purchase of accessories such as lenses, flash, camera bags etc. The same strategy used by inkjet printer manufacturers who all but give you the printer in anticipation of the purchasers having to regularly shell out $40-50 for the cartridges! This segment of the market is populated not only by the big boys, but all the others as well including the Koreans and I suspect some day soon, the Chinese!

I pretty much ferreted out all the above information before I did anything in terms of buying. First I sold the "Super-Zoom" Nikon Coolpix 8800 as quickly as I could so it wouldn't continue to devalue and rapidly did as much market research as possible. Some of my early posts are devoted to this process so I'm not going to repeat it here. My budget dictated that I could run out to Wal-Mart or wherever and buy a Nikon D40 or Canon Rebel XT brand new "off-the-shelf" complete with the "kit lens" which is generally the "normal" zoom (18-55mm which translates to roughly 28-85mm). And my $1000 budget would probably allow me to then buy the other "kit" lens that's sometimes packaged together (55-200mm which translates to be 85-300mm). So, what's not to like? Everything that I wanted and needed in one shot that fit neatly into my budget.

Here's are the problems:

• I wanted it all in 1 lens complete with VR.
• I wanted to be able to eventually use legacy lenses all the way back to manual focus ones.
• Philosophically, I've never liked buying the "bottom-of-the-line" in anything. I'd sooner buy a used car that's built better than a brand new lesser one at the same price. One day, I'll try to motivate myself to write about the economics and the responsibilities aspects of this philosophy. Until then, just chalk it up as one of my quirks!

Here are my solutions:

• According to my research, the Nikon 18-200mm VR lens could be had at around $600, give or take $50 depending on how good/lucky one got on eBay. Since, at this point-in-time, neither Canon or Sony had an equivalent, so the brand decision was made for me. I must come clean though that I was leaning toward Nikon anyway since I just didn't like the way Canons operated or looked, but I would have overcome these personal issues if the lens situation had been the other way around. Because, in photography; it's all about the glass!
• My desire to have the capacity to use legacy lenses only added to my decision. Way back when everyone switched to auto focus in following Minolta's lead Canon made the decision to completely change their lens mount to make manufacturing and future design changes easier. They were in a position to do this since very few professionals used their equipment and this was the group that the manufacturers could least afford to alienate (at that time anyway). How this effects me is that legacy Canon lenses won't mount on the new their DSLRs without an adapter, plus there isn't a vast stock of old weird and wonderful lenses that were designed for them since they weren't the choice of professionals "back in the day". This also led me to want to select not only a Nikon, but one with a focusing motor built-in since that would allow me to use the many older lenses from the early autofocus days that didn't have the built-in focusing motors. Theses are often cheap, because the well-heeled Nikon afficionados turned up their noses at them and the typical consumer either didn't have a camera that was compatible or didn't know that they'd work. The result? Lots of older lenses (particularly from independent manufactures such as Tamron, Sigma and Tokina) that are very inexpensive by comparison. Sure, they are older and tend to focus a little slower, but optically they are quite often comparable to anything produced today and in many cases, built better. I must point out that the advantages tend toward the longer end of the lens spectrum since those lenses were designed during the 35mm days and with the 1.5 (or 1.6 for Canon) multiplication factor, the wide-angle end of the product lines aren't as useful.
  
• On to the last issue as stated above. For obvious reason, this lets out the D40. This meant that for my purposes, in the Nikon line, there were 3 other 6Mp cameras in play. The D100 (which by designation would seem to be a higher level machine, but kinda-not-really), the D70/D70s and the D50. When I looked at my budget, after deducting the price of the lens that I was buying which turned out to be a little under $600, I had about $350 left. My research showed that I could afford any of the 3 cameras above, but certainly NOT the D200 which was just then being replaced by the D300, and was still selling for well over $800 all by itself, meaning I could buy it, but wouldn't have a lens to shoot with! The D70s was eliminated because it cost more and would have forced me to buy a lesser lens than I wanted. I eliminated the D50 since it used the SD card, was the bottom-of-the-line before the D40 and essentially a stripped down D70. So that left me with the D70 or D100. The D100 had more "professional" type feature such as a battery/grip that allowed the use of 2 batteries and added an extra set of controls for vertical shooting. But, despite the fact that this used essentially the same sensor as the D70, it had a much older electronics side as well as the older flash system that's not nearly as sophisticated as the CLS that Nikon still uses on their newest cameras. So, despite the fact that I would have to give up some features and the perceived prestige of using an Dx00 model, I decided on the D70 based on the combination of all the above factors.
  

So there you are. Although you will most probably not have the same needs or quirks that impact the buying decision like I did, how those issues are dealt with should basically apply to most people. The most prominent of my little idiosyncracies that may not affect others is the need or desire to use legacy lenses and I'll probably have to write a whole other post on just why I have this as a criteria. If that's the case, then a much wider spectrum of choices is opened up for a starter DSLR camera...on which I'll write the next post.

Brands, Needs and Quirks

Here's where things get sticky and people tend to argue back and forth quite a lot about the relative merits of who's better. So let me start by restating my stance on this: THERE'S REALLY NO REAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MAJOR BRANDS!!!

Now that that's out of the way, let's look at the major players and a synopsis of what I believe to be the important characteristics of each company or more to the point; the factors that played a role in my selection.

• Canon- Arguably "the big dog" in today's DSLR world. You'll probably find that somewhat more of today's professionals using this brand than any other (including Nikon). It isn't because it's better! It's because that professionals (like others) then to be herd animals and will use what they see or are around the most. Then once they get invested in the "system" (mostly the literally tens of thousands worth of lenses) then they will not/do not change. This was true back in the film days when virtually ALL professionals used Nikon. I am NOT going to get into how and why this happened in today's post. They make VERY fine equipment all up and down their product line and you really can't go wrong with any one of their models. It's like buying a cheap Mercedes...at the end of the day, it's still a Mercedes!
• Nikon- The "Old School" choice. Still a very high percentage of professional use this brand, but they're not the dominant choice like the old days. They tend to be the camera of choice for photojournalist, sports photographers, etc. and really that's because they tend to favor speed of operation over getting the absolutely highest quality image. Because they were so overwhelmingly dominant in the old film camera/manual focus days, Nikon handicapped itself by making absolutely certain that their old lens would work on their new (even Auto-focus cameras). Remember the tens of thousands invested in glass? Basically they didn't want to alienate their huge clientele by changing the lens mount to "best" accomodate new technology. That's not saying that their system doesn't work well and it's not as advanced (because it is), but lets just say that from a variety of standpoints such as manufacturing and marketing it's hurt them in the long run. If this doesn't make sense, you just have to remember that Nikon was and is still a company of engineers that makes nothing but optical equipment of one kind or another, whereas Canon is a large multi-faceted corporation that makes and sells any number of things.
  
• The Others Players- What I mean by this is the other companies that made DSLRs of the type that we're focusing on (to be explained later). First there's Konica/Minolta, these guys are currently disguised as Sony who bought out their technology after this venerable company shut down their camera division a few years ago. So yes, they have some models that could be considered both in the KM as well as the Sony guise. Pentax, another old-line Japanese camera/optics company that's still "in the game". The main issue here which is the same as some of the others, is that they are small and therefore don't offer a complete range of equipment, so unless you have a bunch of Pentax K-Mount lenses, I wouldn't worry about them or their later-day Korean partner Samsung. Although I must say that this electronics giant could very well develop into the 800 pound gorilla in the future.
  
• Then theirs Olympus- The company that defies being placed in any niche! As a matter of fact they operate much like the big boys, but just at MUCH lower numbers. AND they don't use the same size sensors as everybody else (more on that later). They have full-blown professional cameras such as the E-1 and E-3, as well as their consumer line the E-4*0, E-5*0, and E-6*0. They use a four/thirds sized senor (read smaller than the APS-C/DX size that most others use), that they along with a consortium of others developed several years ago. There are pluses and minus to this sensor type (again-more on that later).
  

Now that that that's out of the way, let me get to the factors that led me to the models that I targeted:

1. Of course, with ANY regular person (meaning married adult) with a regular job, you have a budget that's reasonable and I'll construe that to mean around $1000 total. Why would the "Frugal Propellerhead" set this amount when you can run right out and buy the basic Canon or Nikon for $500-700, spend another $100 or so on accessories and call it good after spending $600-800? Remember one of my most important rules of Frugality is that you have to plan head AND some times spend a little more in the beginning to be frugal in-the-long-run. In this case, the most basic model is rarely a good investment over time! Yes, it will take wonderful pictures for a relatively long time and the AVERAGE consumer will be quite happy with it over it's life-span, but THIS BLOG IS NOT FOR THE AVERAGE CONSUMER....IT'S FOR THE TECHNO-GEEK ON A BUDGET!!! Therefore, I'm going to assume that I'm writing this for someone like me and will probably get somewhat immersed in the hobby; if not, read somebody elses' blog.
2. I've already stated that the minimum sensor resolution that I was able to come up with that worked for me was 6 mega-pixel, so I won't get into that again other than to say- if you have a bigger budget, then ramp this number up. So I'll use this as the reference point when I begin to talk about specific models later.
3. Primary use/function was the main reason that led me to decide I had to get a DSLR to start with, so let me elaborate. I'd say that 75-85% of the time, I shoot people and most of that being my children, ages 4 and 7. For anyone who's had to try to shoot their own family pictures with more than one small child, to say that your windows of opportunity are small is simply an understatement. You factor in that my 4-year old is rarely if ever still, then let's just say that our 2-3 trips a year to document our little family's progress through life can be a chore with the best of equipment. So it became obvious to me that the Nikon Coolpix 8800 wasn't going to cut it. I needed something that was affordable (meaning about the same cost), but MUCH faster in operation. This leads to a couple of other factors that integrated into the decision making process; a rather sophisticated flash system so I can control constantly changing lighting conditions and a all-in-one lens so I wouldn't miss opportunities while changing lenses. This also has the benefit of limiting the amount of exposure to dust, etc. to my sensor as well. This also leads to the necessity of shooting virtually all my photo "hand-held" which leads to the need for Vibration Reduction (Nikon), Image Stabilization (Canon) or whatever the company calls this amazing piece of technology. When I get time, I'll probably write an entire post on how this has effected my photography alone. In the meantime, let just say that it's give you a FAR greater percentage of usable images when shooting pictures hand-held.
   

So it came down to this: I needed a lens that coverage a huge range with built-in VR/IS (if Nikon or Canon), I needed a camera that had at least 6Mp resolution that had better than low-end features and build-quality, in a system that I could live with for a long time. Now to my own personal quirks that factored into the decision-making process:

• I'm a collector as well as a user (history teacher, remember?). Therefore, a camera with the ability to get me into an established system with a lot of "stuff" out there is a plus. On the down-side, this also tends to drive the prices of these brands up somewhat.
• I'm as much of a computer nerd as photo nerd, so I don't need the camera to do a lot in terms of processing abilities.
  
• I had a several compact flash cards on hand so if I could get a camera that used those (as opposed to XD or SD memory) that would be a plus. This is not insignificant as this seems since these things can run $100 or more for a couple right off the bat.
• I like cameras to be a little on the "beefy" side, especially when using a bigger lens (like the 18-200mm that I planned on buying). I always felt that they balanced a little better, and I have a personal quirk that stemmed from my left-eye dominance. Let me explain. Back in the old days when you had a film winding lever on 35mm cameras virtually all of them had that lever on the right side (Asian cultures tend to be VERY right-handed), meaning that if I had my left eye to the viewfinder, the wind-lever would pretty much be against my right eye. Further more, the during the late 60's and early 70's cameras develop the internal meter feature which was turned on and off by having that wind-lever stand off from the back a little as a switch, this was further exacerbated by me being a glasses wearer, so you can imagine the problem. So, whenever possible, I used cameras that had a motor drive or electronic film winder option. This kept the lever from poking me in the right eye, gave the camera more heft and better balance when using large lenses as well as often having a grip to make holding the camera more comfortable over long periods (this is now pretty much become standard on all modern SLRs giving the large battery a place to live. So, in summary; I got used to using bigger cameras.

That's all I've got in me this morning, so I'll wrap it up.