Which camera?

[Gregg Bell]

Hi
Thanks Gregg for such a wide interpretation. From all that I have read so far, Nikon D700 seems to be my favourite (if the price wouldn't be so high I would probably go for that one straight away).

As it goes for what I like to photograph is like that. I like to take my camera everywhere I go. What means, when going to city I will take photos of architecture, city in night (this is why I would like a camera that produces (relatively) good pics at higher ISO); when going in parks (what is my favourite) I will take landscapes and of course wildlife (you wrote landscapes and wildlife are in contradiction, but from my point of view those two fields are actually very closely linked).

I cannot say I really know what I am doing with my camera (I am still learning), but I almost never (except in the case of sunset, and sometimes with sport) use scene modes (I usually use AV or Manual settings).

Sandra

hey Liza,

I know you have your heart set on the D700, but throwing your money away on that camera, and not having enough for at least one decent lens is like buying a Ferrari without the engine. Plus when you start talking about the D700, you're talking about more expensive lenses. Not that I'm saying thats a bad thing, but you're do sound like you don't have the money to get the lenses suitable for this Bad boy. Buying cheap lenses will like fitting a ford fiesta's engine into your ferrari.

Now Im not slagging off the cheaper lenses, some of them are good. However If you want an All-round lens thats versatile, you don't have the 17-55mm option going with the D700. The 24-70mm would be the ideal choice, but you're looking at $2500 for that. Do you have $5500 to spare?

The D700 is a great camera, but eventually it too will become antiquated eventually. There's no denying that with full-frame the lenses are expensive. There's no $210 18-55mm lens, because thats only for DX. Infact before 2007, all Nikon made was DX dSLRs. If you want a good camera that is cheaper, I think the Nikon D300s could be the one. it's cheaper, and this gives you leeway for a good lens.

As for the High ISO's the only time I think you really would want them, is for sports at night, thats the idea, why the D3s has 105,000 or whatever it is. so you can capture football in the worse conditions. If the object isn't moving then Darren's right using low ISO's is better. This photo was taken at ISO 100 with a 30 second shutter speed.

Well it all depends on what kind of wildlife you plan to photograph. if its Tigers, cheetahs, polar bears, panda's, even dogs. On a full-Frame camera you will want a 200-400mm VR or an 80-400mm. For Canon you will need the 100-400mm L. They are wildlife lenses, used for capturing animals, and also used for sports. If you choose the D300s you could look at cheaper alternatives, like the 80-200mm, or just get the 80-400mm, that way you could photograph birds as well. If you mean bugs, and insects than thats Macro, which would require you getting a Macro lens.

The reason why I say its a contradiction is because when it comes to lenses, landscapes, and wildife are at different ends of the spectrum. Getting a lens that does both is very hard, you end up losing on quality in order to achieve this feat. The lens would end up being so big, you would feel like your mounting a bazooka onto camera.

Landscape lenses are usually 10-20mm for DX, and 14-35mm or there abouts on full-frame. Wildlife on DX is about 100 - 400mm for full frame its about 200mm - 800mm. They're different ends of the lens choices you see.

If you were to get the D700 then maybe look at this setup...

Full-Frame system
Camera: D700 $3000
All-rounder: 24-70mm $2,500
Landscape: 14-24mm $2,300
Wildlife: 80-400mm $2,000

so thats what? about $7,500 -7,800.

DX system
Camera: D300s $1900
All-Rounder: 24-70mm $2,500 OR 17-55mm $1,500
Landscape: 10-20mm $650 OR 12 - 24mm $1,400
Wildlife: 80-200mm $1,300 OR 80-400mm $2,000

so even the most expensive option of two lenses is $6400. Ideally lets say you have 24-70mm and a 12-24mm thats $3,900. Even if you were on a budget, you could get the sigma 10-20mm and a nikkor 17-55mm and thats only $2,100 - less then the 24-70mm! and then you can get a D300s for $1900; totaling to $4000.

[cupic]

This is a safe question,but the only answer that can be given is what has been said above
1.Go to a shop
2.Feel
3.Does it handle well /do you like it?
4.Ask questions(that's why your here +1)see the opinion of others to see if problems arises
5.Mind up your mind base on the above question
6.Buy shot and enjoy

cheers

[mcmahong]

OMG Liza, I hope you can handle all of these answers to your question!!

I recently went through exactly the same process as you... I even made up a spreadsheet to look at pros and cons. In the end, I chose a Canon 50D with 18-200mm kit lens (because I wanted an all-rounder lens that I could use in many different situations while I got used to the DSLR functions). I also bought a 100mm macro and a 50mm f/1.8 prime, but only because it is so cheap (about $150). Technically, the 18-200mm is optically not as great as tighter-zoom or prime lenses BUT it is still great for beginners and you'll still produce stunning photos. It is great as a travel lens, especially if you intend going for long treks and only want to carry the camera and no additional lenses.

In hindsight, I've realised all my stressing over camera specs was in vain.

If you are just starting out like me, than the main consideration is just how the camera feels in your hands, and how much you like the controls. With the Canon 50D, I quite liked the spinning control wheel for browsing through photos (I hate having to button-push my way through all of my shots).

Whatever you buy, you will grow to enjoy and won't regret it. Even if you decide later that you would have preferred something else, you can always sell and upgrade and it won't cost you as much as what it does when you first started up.

Just be aware that some lenses cannot be used on full-frame bodies (such as the 18-200), but are designed for cropped frame bodies only. If you buy a 5D, you will be limited to the more professional range of lenses.

[mikec]

The other thing besides the ergonomics of the body / controls is to test browsing through the cameras menus. I use works D90 sometimes (and also have used some friends D40's) and I find Nikon very strange to use coming from Canon and I've had a play with quite a few Canon's now and they all seem to have had more intuitive menus to me than Nikon's. But my mates swear the Nikon menu system is much nicer to use, go figure.

Also I agree to buy better lenses than body at first, lenses is where most of your money will end up sitting in the future.

[bigdazzler]

The other thing besides the ergonomics of the body / controls is to test browsing through the cameras menus. I use works D90 sometimes (and also have used some friends D40's) and I find Nikon very strange to use coming from Canon and I've had a play with quite a few Canon's now and they all seem to have had more intuitive menus to me than Nikon's. But my mates swear the Nikon menu system is much nicer to use, go figure.

100% agree ... That is probably the main reason I went with Sony when I started out. IMO their menus are miles ahead of the other two in terms of quick and easy navigation and user friendliness. They are very very easy to use.

[TheGuru]

I tested the D90 and JB Hi-Fi and really liked it but decided to save myself tons of money and buy the Canon instead. So far I've been happy. The best thing you can do is search the camera groups on Flickr to see if they're capable of taking the photos you dream of one-day taking yourself then go out and buy the cheapest one that will do this.

[bigdazzler]

The best thing you can do is search the camera groups on Flickr to see if they're capable of taking the photos you dream of one-day taking yourself then go out and buy the cheapest one that will do this.

wrong wrong wrong ... Photography is 10% gear, 20% light, 70% photographer.

[TheGuru]

Photography is 10% gear, 20% light, 70% photographer.

I agree, I think I was misunderstood though when you said I was wrong because I'm trying to make the point that unless the op requires a more expensive camera then the op may take the same photos with a cheaper one. Perhaps dream was the wrong word.

[bigdazzler]

I agree, I think I was misunderstood though when you said I was wrong because I'm trying to make the point that unless the op requires a more expensive camera then the op may take the same photos with a cheaper one

Ahhh misunderstanding indeed .. That makes much more sense. Many apologies, I think I read it the other way.

EDIT: Some great work on your site there Guru. HDR not really my thing but theres some really great stuff there ..

[TheGuru]

Ahhh misunderstanding indeed .. That makes much more sense. Many apologies, I think I read it the other way.

EDIT: Some great work on your site there Guru. HDR not really my thing but theres some really great stuff there ..

Thanks! it's much appreciated

[liza]

Thanks again for every suggestion. Although all of those comments are useful are as well a bit confusing . Anyway it seems like I'll decide for lower price range camera (either Canon 50d or Nikon 90d or I was just looking at Pentax k-7) and rather invest more in lenses, like suggested. It seems like all of those cameras will do the job (at least for my needs). According to your advices I don't see a point in spending so much many for camera since I probably wont do professional photography.

[0Z320]

Thanks again for every suggestion. Although all of those comments are useful are as well a bit confusing . Anyway it seems like I'll decide for lower price range camera (either Canon 50d or Nikon 90d or I was just looking at Pentax k-7) and rather invest more in lenses, like suggested. It seems like all of those cameras will do the job (at least for my needs). According to your advices I don't see a point in spending so much many for camera since I probably wont do professional photography.

Hi guys,

I'm currently also deciding which SLR to purchase and have also been eying the Canon 50D. I have been reading every magazine article I can get my hands on and from what i have read, the 50D is not that great of an advancement from the 40D (i.e. the 50D has a better LCD screen, 15.1mp and a buffer upgrade).

In addition to this, the 50D came out in the 4th qtr of 2008 and I am afraid that Canon might introduce a replacement in the next 12 months (I'm not the person who likes buying something over 1k that will soon become replaced).

I have been trawling internet sites and I can get the Canon 7D body (which has recently come out) for $1650.00 compared to the 50D body which is $1100.00

My lens of choice is the Canon L series EF 17-40mm from DWI (for now...) which is approx $900.00

I'm having second thoughts about the 50D, but what I wanted to ask you guys is will the 7D be too complicated for a beginner like myself? I've read a few comments from people on the forum with this camera and I have picked up that this camera has a LOT of features.

If you were in the same position as me, would you spend and extra $550 for a newer camera?

My aim is to buy quality gear for the long term and I love taking pictures of cars and landscapes and have used a Pentax K 20 on occasions. Budget is around the $2500 mark.

Any feedback would be more than welcome.

0Z320

[Ozzi Paul]

There is a lot of good info here but I have not seen a mention of the "other" lens manufacturers. Sigma, Tamron & Tokina all make some very good lenses at a much cheaper price than the "name" brands. Some of them are just as good as the brand name equivilents to. Some people prefer to stick with the one brand but there is nothing wrong with using an off brand lens. Sticking to the one brand of camera and lens doesn't mean you are a better photographer.

[ravescar]

7D over 50D IMO as it is gaining rave review, but if faced with this choice I would just probably try to pick up an 40D 2nd hand for cheap, and spend the rest on getting decent lens/flash.

7D although new and great, would eventually become obsolete too, but good glass stay for life.

Have you ever used a DSLR before?

[0Z320]

7D over 50D IMO as it is gaining rave review, but if faced with this choice I would just probably try to pick up an 40D 2nd hand for cheap, and spend the rest on getting decent lens/flash.

7D although new and great, would eventually become obsolete too, but good glass stay for life.

Have you ever used a DSLR before?

Yeah, I'm moving forward from a Pentax k20d.

I ended up choosing the 50D becuase the 7D is a bit too advanced for me.

I guess it was a good thing, I ended up buying 3 L series which hurt my my backpocket

[Tildababy]

I started out nearly 4 years ago with a Canon 350D with the twin lens kit. I have just bought my first L series lens (24-70mm f2/8) and I still have the 350D body. I will be upgrading to a 40/50D body soon but at this stage I would rather save my money for additional lenses than spend a fortune on a 5DMkII or the like.

The main reason for my upgrade is to have a larger camera for the L series lenses as the 350D is a small body to hold once you start using heavier lenses. I have used my friends 40D and it helped me to balance the lens much more easily than I can with my 350D body.

I would only be looking at the more expensive end of the line IF my photography ever got to a standard where I was making enough money to cover the costs. In this instance where you are upgrading to a DSLR to improve your photography....why spend a fortune. If you don't follow through or lose your passion...then you haven't outlaid a ridiculous amount of money. OR if you do become more passionate...you will have more money left over for lens purchases!

Good luck!

Tilda