Grudgingly moving to digital SLR. Advice on camera? [View All]

[Deep13]

Even I must admit that digital has it in spades over 35mm. No airport x-ray damage. No lugging film around or changing reels. No being stuck with one kind of film until the roll is finished. No scratched negatives. No printing errors. No more waiting until development to discover the subject closed her eyes.

The old camera is a Pentax SP-1000 (screw-mount lenses) with a busted light meter. I have a 50mm normal lens, a 80-200 three-ring macro-zoom and a 28mm wide angle plus a shitload of filters. There is no hot shoe, but an aftermarket shoe that plugs into the X socket usually works. It all works just fine. I also have a Minolta Weathermatic which will not be retired as it is the only waterproof camera that I have, airport x-ray or not. And lastly, I have a Kodak Signet 40 range-finder from the 1950s that is a really cool camera with a very sharp lense.

Well, a few years ago we bought a Nikon Coolpix, forgot the model number, but it is tiny has a 3x zoom and makes 5.1 Megapixel images. It does really well, but has some limitations. Its low-light potential is not great. The wide-angle is not very wide and the telephoto is not very long. Plus there is that annoying shutter delay. For candid photos it does two things I don't like. First, the AF illuminator alerts the subject to the fact that a photo is about to be made causing the shot to re-compose itself. Second the delay means I pretty much missed my chance. I don't like to take posed pictures.

I want something that can replace the SLRs, take images at least as good and act like a film camera with its instant shutter. Low light capability is a real plus as is the ability to focus manually in low light. Another plus would be the ability to shoot B&W. I am leaning towards the Canon 30D (8+ Mp). At $1300 from Costco it is a pretty big bite. I'm not as avid as I used to be. My pictures more consist mostly of landscapes, esp. on vacation, political events and still lifes. Still, I only want one DSLR and I want it to be at least as good as my film cameras and a step up from that Coolpix. I am impressed with reports of the 30D's reliability and lack of noise in low light. I also like the spot meter. Also, it seems to do everything I want. Many rate the Nikon D200 higher with 10+ Mp and something about internal seals. I heard they are geared towards RAW rather than JPEG which might reduce its convenience. At $2K I would be retiscent to part with the cash. Sony has a new one coming out called Alpha, but reports show it has a lot of noise and it has a non-standard hot-shoe. On the other end of the cost scale, Pentax makes a 6.? Mp D100. The resolution is lower than the others (not much better than the Coolpix) and is, therefore, comparable with 35mm. It does have built in image stabilization and optional sensitivity up to iso 3200 (don't know how noisy that is.) It's $600 and, for what it is worth, can be used with my Pentax S lenses and my wife's Tameron lenses with adapters. (That is not that much of a selling point because of the magnification difference between 35mm and digital.)

So, I'm leaning towards the Canon 30D and want to know what others think. Any thoughts?