Figment1986 said:
I was comending on Photo dave.. (I remember when cameras used to take bad photos and people would buy that camera due to it was CHEAP!!!!... Now that better camera are getting cheaper.. more people have better shots...)
Heres the thing... cost has little to do with it. For the most part, i can get the results i want from anything - even a small disposable camera. So its not the camera, its who's taknig the picture. I really recommend the National Geographic Field Guide for Photography (2nd Edition). Great beginner/intermediate book.
The cameras i use allow for absolute flexability. Complete Manual or Complete Automatic. Mainly, its about speed and quality. Frame rates on my film cameras upwards of 5 frames a second and the digital goes 3 frames a second. (Kinda slow for me... but when i got it, twas fast for a digital). Theyre professional and when you get to the Nikon/Canon argument, youre splitting hairs that the average person wont notice.
Prosumer wise..... Ive used the Digital Rebel and Ive used the D70. I'll take the D70. But its splitting hairs, theres no major difference between the two. Knowing lenses, you can put whatever you want on and volia, you get what you want. Its about composition and knowing the relationships between apature/shutter speed and how much you want in focus.
The expensive part are the lenses.... and all those little accessories. Flashes, super clamps, radio slaves, tripods, bags, tape, etc, they all add up.
Anyhow.....
If i were buying stuff now I'd go:
Digital:
Pro - 1D mark 2 or D2X
Prosumer - D70 or Digital Rebel
Point and Shoot - Canon Powershot G5 or ... whatever Speck is Using. Almost a digital leica.
Film: (whatever that is)
Pro - F5, F100 or EOS-1v
Prosumer - N75
Point and shoot - Dont waste your money......