If you're like most beginning 35mm SLR users, there probably isn't a
specific lens that you want that's only available for one brand of
camera. If you elect to go with a 28-80 zoom - or even a 28-200 - you
have your run of camera brands. And if the brand you want doesn't make
the lens you want, you can often find a nice Tamron, Sigma, or other
third-party lens to meet your need.
One of the first questions I would ask someone looking at SLRs is,
"Do you have friends or family members with an SLR? If so, would you be
able to borrow lenses from them?" Not only might this provide access to
lenses you don't yet own (and may never own), it also provides someone
familiar with SLR photography and the brand you're looking at. It's as
good a reason as any to look at a particular brand.
I don't put any stock in Consumer Reports for consumer goods
like cameras, computers, or stereos. Over the years that I've worked in
various consumer fields, I've found their advice often diverges from
those who work in those fields and know the product intimately. Better
to read Popular Photography, Photographic, and other photo
magazines where serious photographers are taking a hard look at camera
gear - and, of course, do some research on the Web.
Bias
Don't let anyone tell you that they're not biased. We all are; it's
human nature. I've used Minoltas and believe their discontinued X-700
was one of the finest manual focus SLRs ever. Their Maxxum 7000 and
9000 were also excellent, but their current entry-level offerings seem
less robust than the old classics. That said, I think that most
entry-level SLRs are built down to a price point and not designed for
the kind of heavy use that entry-level models were meant for in the
1960s and 1970s.
I nearly bought a Pentax KX
once, right after the model was discontinued. Too late - the store was
sold out. I've traditionally seen Pentax as a good choice in consumer
SLRs, but I've never owned one.
I've never owned a Canon film camera and only been tempted by one,
the A-1. This was the first SLR to offer program exposure. I am pretty
impressed with the EOS Elan 7, though. I think I'd pick it over Nikon's
N80, although I'd rather have the Maxxum 7 than either.
I shot Nikon for several years. I didn't shoot Nikon because it was
"the pro's brand." I don't shoot it because Nikon makes the best
cameras - although there's no denying that they make very good
equipment. No, I used Nikon because I love working with an 85mm lens,
and Nikon's 85/1.8 was half the price of Minolta's, Canon's, or
Pentax's 85/1.4 (not to mention Nikon's - those 85/1.4s are simply
expensive lenses). Beyond that lens, I was very happy with my Tamrons
and a Vivitar Series I 19-35. (Since writing this series of articles, I
have abandoned film in favor of digital photography.)
The Levels
Like most things in life, cameras come in different quality and
price levels. We were seeing some nicely featured budget SLRs circa
2002 (like the US$300 including zoom Nikon N55 and Minolta Maxxum 4),
but most buyers ended up at the entry level, which included US$350-400
models like the Canon Rebel 2000, Nikon N65, and Minolta Maxxum 5. All
of these prices include a "standard" 28-80 zoom, although you can
usually buy just the body and choose a different lens - something I
recommend you consider.
A step up from these are the "prosumer" or advanced amateur models.
The Canon EOS Elan 7, Nikon N80, and Minolta Maxxum 7 were good
examples of this class of camera. These are larger, heavier, and better
constructed than entry-level models. They tend to offer higher shutter
speeds, faster flash sync, and faster film advance. They often have
faster autofocus, more metering options, and other features that set
them apart as cameras for serious photographers.
Beyond this come the semi-pro and pro cameras. If you're reading
this article, that's probably not the level of hardware you're looking
at. On the other hand, if you can score a really good deal on a used
Nikon N90s, for
instance, go for it.
If you plan on using the camera heavily, take a hard look at the
advanced amateur models. These are generally built well enough for
anyone but a pro. That's important when your camera is a tool for
taking pictures; you don't want to feel that you need to treat your SLR
with kid gloves.
For casual picture takers, the entry-level and budget SLRs offer
more capabilities that you'll probably ever use. They're less robust
than the more expensive cameras, but they are excellent picture takers.
Just don't abuse the poor things.
Brands and Models
Pentax
Always a good choice in the amateur market, Pentax never made
inroads into the pro market. The company makes excellent consumer
models, but since the advent of autofocus, they've moved to the back of
the pack among the four major brands. To make matters worse, some
independently made lenses are available for Nikon, Canon, and Minolta,
but not Pentax.
One other drawback of Pentax AF SLRs is the prohibitive cost of
their 50mm f/1.7 normal lens. If you want an inexpensive lens for low
light photography, you'll pay about $135 (current price from B&H)
for the Pentax lens - but only $94, $75, and $80 for Nikon, Canon, and
Minolta respectively.
Two strikes. The one nice thing Pentax does have for traditionalists
is the ZX-5n, which includes an old fashioned shutter speed dial. Call
me old fashioned, but I really like that feature.
Canon
The most widely advertised brand is also the second most popular
among pros. The Rebel practically sells itself. That's a good thing,
because most of the people behind the counter aren't shooting or
pushing Canon.
Canon does things its own way, much like Apple does in the realm of
computers. This has its pros and cons, but the pro is that Canon has
tended toward innovation and quality (like Apple). The con is that
sometimes those very innovations drive up the price of the camera or
accessories and make the brand less desirable.
Canon makes some phenomenal high-end optics and very impressive pro
cameras. From the midrange on up, I'm very impressed. On the bottom,
I'm not overly impressed with the Rebel 2000. It has very quick
autofocus, but the range of features for the money pales in comparison
to the Maxxum 5.
Minolta Maxxum
Minolta pioneered the AF system SLR with the
Maxxum 7000 in 1985. I've been generally impressed with the Maxxum
line, although some of the lower cost models don't seem to hold up as
well as anyone would like. Of course, that generally goes for low cost
items.
I'd take the Maxxum 7 over the Canon EOS Elan 7, and either over the
Nikon N80. I think the performance and handling for the Maxxum 7 is
second to none in the midrange. I also see the Maxxum 5 as offering the
best camera value on the low end, although that's subject to change as
new models are introduced.
NOTE: Since writing this, Minolta merged with Konica, and the
Konica-Minolta company sold off its entire photographic business. The
Sony Alpha digital SLRs use the same lenses as the Minolta Maxxum. Sony
does not make film cameras.
Nikon
Nikon built its reputation in the trenches and on the streets during
the 1960s. The Nikon F was a full system camera with about 40 lenses to
choose from, several different viewfinders, and even a motor drive.
Nikon still dominates the pro market, despite the fact that Canon and
Minolta make some excellent pro cameras. Why? Because once you own
enough lenses, you don't want to switch systems.
Nikon has at times lagged a bit in technology, has made a few
unimpressive consumer models that were designed to be cheap, and made a
nice range of models for every level of photographer (when this was
written in 2002). Their N65 was my second choice (behind the Maxxum 5)
at the entry level, and their F100 was a worthy successor to the
N90s I owned and
loved.
Nikon still makes a couple manual focus cameras (the FM-10 and F6).
The new N55 looks like a winner on the low end, although we'll have to
see how it compares with Minolta's Maxxum 4. The one place I feel Nikon
is less than impressive is the midrange - the N80 doesn't stand out in
comparison with the Maxxum 7 and the EOS Elan 7. Not that it's a bad
camera. It just seems pedestrian compared to the others.
Leica, Contax, and Sigma
Leica hasn't gone AF yet, but it's bound to happen some day.
Contax is new to the AF world and has a very limited selection of
lenses. To compound matters, none of the independents are making lenses
in the Contax AF mount. Carl Zeiss may make some of the world's finest
lenses, but unless you plan on making huge enlargements from fine
grained film, you may never see the difference.
I don't know what Sigma was thinking when they decided to produce an
AF SLR with their own unique lens mount. The cameras seem decent, but
Sigma SLR owners are limited to Sigma lenses. I don't expect to see
Tamron, Tokina, or anyone else ever produce a lens for their
competitor's camera.
Next: Pros and Cons of Built-in Flash
