Camera advice please.....

[PAC]

I think either the Nikon or Cannon will serve you well. The real old manual lenses will still work. However the auto settings and metering, and anti shake will not be available. Making the camera MANUAL. But those lenses are a lot less money and useful for tripod work. Personally I enjoyed macro photography best. With the older faster lenses, you can get much more depth of field. Just something to consider. You can get a lot of money invested. Sorta like bass guitars.

Paul

 

[uOpt]

With your preference and experience you should consider going with a bigger sensor than the usual 1.6x crop and a prime lens.

With $600 budget that's getting cozy but doable. A 1D Mk II or a 5D Mk 1 for a body. A 50mm f/1.4 of some sort, or better a 35mm if you have the 1D (which is 1.3x crop).

Not exactly point and shoot, but if you just pile up a bunch of cheap zoom lenses to "cover all focal lengths" and use a 1.6x crop sensor you will only get the advantages of a DSLR that are not related to image quality.

 

[two fingers]

All the conflicting information and opinions on the interwebs about cameras is driving me NUTS!


It's like THIS crowd talking about a bass!



...... or a pedal...... or an amp...... or a bassist...... or a band..... or a crazy ex girlfriend...... or.......

 

[Dave W]

Yep. Much like a bass, the best thing to do first is go to a store and hold them in your hand and play with the menu. You may find that you absolutely hate one and the other is so intuitive that you already know what you're doing.

As for the comment above you: Finding a 5D Mk 1 for $600 isn't tough, but that leaves no room for a lens.

I'd also say it depends on what he plans on shooting. It's a great camera (I want one) but it's autofocus system and burst rate isn't the greatest. If sports or other fast moving things are in the plans there are probably better options out there.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Basically, if you're getting a modern DSLR within a given price range, they are all going to perform pretty much the same.

Some models might have extra features which you prefer (worth keeping an eye on). For instance, I have a Canon 60D - I liked the idea of the flip out screen and it's pretty good recording ability.

Image quality is going to be stinkingly good on most modern DSLRs, I'm sure there are some dud models out there, but they'll be few and far between. People will review and compare image quality, but the nuances in difference are going to be tiny and the lenses you use are going to be the biggest influence. Then, regardless of the big brands, they all make stinkingly good lenses!

If you were an out and out pro, you might notice the difference in image quality more, but even then nobody is going to look at a printed picture and go "aha! That was a Canon/Nikon/Pentax/etc." .

One thing I will add, and I'm not sure if anyone else has said yet. But go in and try the cameras out, see how the weight feels, see how the build feels and see how it sits in your hands. Even though DSLRs all look pretty much the same, some are surprisingly bigger than others and some are small enough to feel like toys. The button placement is also something to take into consideration when holding onto one in a shop, some will just feel more intuitive than others.

Edit - crap, beaten to the post with the last points!

 

[PAC]

All the conflicting information and opinions on the interwebs about cameras is driving me NUTS!


It's like THIS crowd talking about a bass!



...... or a pedal...... or an amp...... or a bassist...... or a band..... or a crazy ex girlfriend...... or.......

What is the best camera too use for a heavy metal band?

Paul

 

[Rob22315]

I really like mirrorless with interchangeable lenses. I cannot put a DSLR up to my eye anymore, even for my kids sports.

Ken Rockwell is one of the worst things to happen to photography IMHO. I find a noticeable difference in my Pentax K01 vs the 6 Mp offerings from a couple of years ago despite what he says.

A better photo gear site is dpreview.com if you really want to dig into the details of buying a camera although it has the same polarized opinions as any other internet forum.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

DigitalRev:
http://www.youtube.com/user/DigitalRevCom

Is quite good (and funny) for reviews too.

The tech has certainly come a long way since the early 00's when it comes to sensors and modern sensors are excellent. Though I do think the massive resolution is pretty much overkill (but I still like to print pictures). I dare say, the big resolution has been useful for printing a few posters are a fairly high DPI.

 

[Dave W]

Edit - crap, beaten to the post with the last points!

You said it better than I did though.

 

[cleary]

The price is more than I was hoping to spend (depending on the package almost twice as much) but the OM-D EM-5 looks to be a hot little camera. And by most reviews the frame is just built better (dust proof, splash proof, etc) than the competitors. I am going to scout out the deals and keep researching between M43 and DSLR formats. But this is getting kind of interesting.

Thanks to all so far!

The reason I suggested the em5 is because olympus have just released the om-d em1 and I reckon the secondhand market should be getting a bit of extra supply (hence cheaper).

Somebody suggested the 5D mk1, while you get a few bonuses of the full frame sensor (shallower depth of field for equivalent aperture), it's still really big, the lens' are big, the autofocus is slow, and your lens choice is limited to a subset of canon lens that support that size sensor.
Unfortunately the autofocus is still poor on the 5D mk2 and the eos-m.
For your requirements, I would not be recommending any of those bodies.

 

[Dave W]

Somebody suggested the 5D mk1, while you get a few bonuses of the full frame sensor (shallower depth of field for equivalent aperture), it's still really big, the lens' are big, the autofocus is slow, and your lens choice is limited to a subset of canon lens that support that size sensor.

You have the entire Canon EF range that will fit on a 5D. Nothing limiting at all.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

You have the entire Canon EF range that will fit on a 5D. Nothing limiting at all.

+1

The only lenses (of recent times, not talking of the older FD mounts etc), are the EF-S lenses. Which are a cheaper subset for crop-sensor cameras.

 

[tplyons]

...and your lens choice is limited to a subset of canon lens that support that size sensor.

Last I checked there were over 65 zoom lenses and 50 prime lenses made for that mount by Canon, let alone aftermarket lens makers like Sigma and Tokina that make quality lenses for the EF mount.

 

[throughmylens87]

If you want in depth reviews and image samples check out www.imaging-resource.com.

Personally Nikon's ergonomics have always worked best for me. I've owned (and used to sell) both Canon and Nikon DSLR's. I have lots of love for both brands but was always happier with my Nikon equipment. Sold more Canon though...

 

[cleary]

You have the entire Canon EF range that will fit on a 5D. Nothing limiting at all.

+1

The only lenses (of recent times, not talking of the older FD mounts etc), are the EF-S lenses. Which are a cheaper subset for crop-sensor cameras.

Precisely. Let's look at the OP's actual situation - he's clearly on a very tight budget, which means he's looking for cheaper lens' which points him directly at the crop sensor market, and not at the FF market.

Last I checked there were over 65 zoom lenses and 50 prime lenses made for that mount by Canon, let alone aftermarket lens makers like Sigma and Tokina that make quality lenses for the EF mount.

What's available in that range that falls in the OP's budget (inc body)?

 

[mpdd]

i've had my refurbished d300 for almost 5 years trouble free, there are cameras with more megapixels, full frame sensors, and hd video, but i really like it, it continues to be a real workhorse for art documentation, quick portraits, live bands, and product photography

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Precisely. Let's look at the OP's actual situation - he's clearly on a very tight budget, which means he's looking for cheaper lens' which points him directly at the crop sensor market, and not at the FF market.

Just because the EF-S lenses are cheaper, doesn't mean there aren't cheaper EF lenses (lots of 3rd party makers too).

Heck, my standard lens is a Canon EF 50mm f1.8, costs peanuts and is an excellent lens given the price.

 

[tplyons]

Just because the EF-S lenses are cheaper, doesn't mean there aren't cheaper EF lenses (lots of 3rd party makers too).

Heck, my standard lens is a Canon EF 50mm f1.8, costs peanuts and is an excellent lens given the price.

This is my favorite lens as well... ran me something like $75.

 

[tplyons]

Precisely. Let's look at the OP's actual situation - he's clearly on a very tight budget, which means he's looking for cheaper lens' which points him directly at the crop sensor market, and not at the FF market.

What's available in that range that falls in the OP's budget (inc body)?

If you read my previous comments, I recommended a crop-sensor frame. Now, that crop sensor frame camera can grow with you. Using EF lenses as I do, I can replace my body, and maybe one day upgrade to a FF body, while utilizing the same broad range of lenses.

On the other hand, you buy a camera with a less common lens mount, and want to upgrade to a FF DSLR one day, you're going to be buying all new glass. I love my Canon gear because it can grow with you... I paid about $650 for the kit with 18-55mm lens about five years ago, and it has grown with me since, with the addition of several nice lenses, about one a year or two.

Not saying that you have to buy it now, but there's plenty of growth in the future. The kit glass is still quite decent; at least as good as any other manufacturer in the price range.

It seems you're rather anti Canon... care to shed some light on this?

 

[cleary]

If you read my previous comments, I recommended a crop-sensor frame. Now, that crop sensor frame camera can grow with you. Using EF lenses as I do, I can replace my body, and maybe one day upgrade to a FF body, while utilizing the same broad range of lenses.
...

Fair enough - light shed below...

It seems you're rather anti Canon... care to shed some light on this?

Anti-(d)slr is closer to the mark. People see the dslr as the path to becoming a good photographer, when in reality, excellent cameras exist in smaller formats that are likely to get them on their journey quicker, due to the simple fact that they aren't big and unwieldy to carry (this goes for lens size too), so they're more likely to carry them around for fun.

People who don't live in photography land probably don't understand that the Olympus om-d range give you those mid-high level dslr features in a much more compact format. That the physics of photography imaging means they can get physically smaller lens' for bodies with physically smaller sensors that provide the same focal length as significantly larger equivalents on dslrs.
The ricoh GXR can give you all of the advantages of any size sensor even - due to it's completely different design.

Heck, there's even a bunch of excellent point and shoots that will do what the OP wants - Sony RX100, Canon S90/95/100/110.

Not anti-canon, just trying to provide some (any) alternative to the inevitable tide of "get an entry level dslr, mine's great" replies