Looking to buy my next camera: DSLR

[nomix]

I did not recommend a camera because I own one, everyone here I've seen here has either a Canon or a Nikon. Every review I've read for entry-level DSLRs has compared Canon and Nikon. Every camera store I went to only offered me Canon and Nikon as my best bet.

And you're recommending him D3s and Sony A900s? You do realize his budget is $500? I didn't say the D60 or Rebel XSi are the best DSLRs money can buy.

Do you really think I was seriously recommending the OP buying a D3 or an a900? What I was saying was that it's extremely hard, really impossible, to say that one camera is better than another. There are cameras that work better for special needs, and then you can say that the D3 is better than the a900 if you do sports, a lot better actually, and you can say that the a900 is better if you do landscapes, a lot better actually.

You can't say that one of the two are better than the other, it depends on your use.

What I was trying to explain, is that even if Canon and Nikon today hold a very large part of the market, it's not important. What's important is if the camera you get for your money will deliver, and in the price bracket we're talking about, all cameras will deliver. They're all good, no matter what brand we are talking about. Therefore, constraining oneself to just one brand is not doing oneself any favors.

The only thing that should limit what you'll look into is price. Some cameras cost more than others. Therefore, our OP can't look into the D3 or the a900, as they're to expensive. But any camera in his/hers price bracket will work like a charm and please him/her.

Go for the camera that fits your hand, and you will be happy.

Personally, the only one I'd seriously stay away from is Olympus, as they use a smaller sensor than other DSLRs. This will result in poorer noise performance and there far fewer lenses available for it as the 4/3rds sensor system as it is a relatively new standard.

I realize you're free to say what you want, but I do take my right to opose what you say.

1. The sensor is smaller. So is the sensor used by Canon compared to Nikon, Pentax and Sony. In real life, the difference is not much to talk about, and with sensor technology improving all the time, it's becomming less of an issue every year. If we're really honest, the 50D has about the same pixel density as the E-3, as one example.

Fourthirds limits you somewhat when it comes to resolution, right now it's 10mp to Canon's 15, but who -needs- 15mp?

2. There aren't too many lenses available for fourthirds, that's right. But you can pick up any fourthirds lens and get a superb lens. Just saying, why do you need lots of mediocre lenses when you get a nice, although limited, selection of superb lenses?

Yes, there's great lenses for both Canon and Nikon, and there are a lot of them. But hand on heart, are they all good? No, they are not.

Last but not least. Am I an Olympus fanboy? I use Olympus, but I hazard to say 'no'. I've yet to use a camera that doesn't please me (the D40 irritates me, but that's another matter), I'm getting a 5D next year when they're dirt cheap, I love the AF and high ISO performance of the FX Nikons etc. In short, no, I'm not a fanboy. But I am a very big fan of reason.

No harm intended.

That said, I read that the Canon 5D is the sharpest camera you can get for landscapes, as DSLRs go.

My heart beats for the 5D, but you really do get a long way with 'just' 10mp. Even with 6mp.

 

[the infinite jar]

The accessories argument gets brought out a lot as the reason to choose a Canikon, but it just doesn't add up. Any accessory you can find for your Canikon, I can find for my Pentax, and it's usually cheaper.
Pentax represents a great value to everyone that's not a professional. The K20D is compared with the D300 all the time when it is hundreds of dollars cheaper. Olympus and Sony also offer fantastic cameras and lenses. I'm not saying nobody should buy a Canikon, but there's more than just them out there.

 

[BerserkerCatSplat]

The accessories argument gets brought out a lot as the reason to choose a Canikon, but it just doesn't add up. Any accessory you can find for your Canikon, I can find for my Pentax, and it's usually cheaper.

Wireless flash system? GPS tagging unit? Wireless tethering unit? Pentax is a good system, but Canikon has many accessories unavailable to other companies.

 

[marcos_eirik]

I have had an Olympus E410 for about four months now, and I'm really pleased with it; Very user friendly and gives you good pictures. In the beginning I didn't really know how to use it, but I have got steadily better. Yesterday I got my new lens as well, looks kind of massive on that camera...

With the new lens

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

What I was trying to explain, is that even if Canon and Nikon today hold a very large part of the market, it's not important. What's important is if the camera you get for your money will deliver, and in the price bracket we're talking about, all cameras will deliver. They're all good, no matter what brand we are talking about. Therefore, constraining oneself to just one brand is not doing oneself any favors.

There's also the factor of how a camera is rated. Certain cameras (yes, some models of Nikon and Canon in that bunch) are rated for more frames than others. Not saying that all other brands are rated poorly and it's a bit harder to rate the durability of digital cameras but there is something to be said for buying a camera that's rated at 30,000 frames vs. 3000 frames.

The rating system is become a bit more promoted, since the megapixel wars have died down some, but I think it's just as important. Personally, I'd rather have a camera that has a bit of a lower resolution but is rated higher than one with all of the stops pulled out that's going to die 2000 frames into it. Doesn't matter how it feels in my hand, if it's going to die three months after I pay for it, sort of a thing. I tolerate crap gear that works and keeps working, since I need it to work more than I need all the latest "who ha" whatever dweeb at the manufacturers thinks is important this week.

Just maybe another factor to consider, that's all.

 

[the infinite jar]

Wireless flash system? GPS tagging unit? Wireless tethering unit? Pentax is a good system, but Canikon has many accessories unavailable to other companies.

You'll notice later on in the post I said non-professional. (Although I believe I can do a wireless flash.)
My point was that for everyone below the top 2% of the photography market, you'll be able to find almost anything you need in any one of the major systems out there.

 

[Top Geek]

1. The sensor is smaller. So is the sensor used by Canon compared to Nikon, Pentax and Sony. In real life, the difference is not much to talk about...

Oh, yes it is. With smaller sensors, you won't be getting the same sort of insanely narrow depths of field as a 35mm. 1.5 and 1.6 crops are much more similar to a 35mm frame, though still noticeably different. Is there such a lens as a 25/0.9 for the 4/3rds system to get you the same effect as a cheap 50/1.8 for 35mm? I doubt it. Even if there was, it would be beyond affordable reach of the types of people who buy into a 4/3rds system anyway.

The Sigma 30/1.4 will achieve nearly the same effect on 1.5 or 1.6 crop as a 50/1.8 on digital (technically, it needs to be 33/1.2 to be exact, but it's pretty close).

I suppose that if you don't plan to use DOF as an artistic tool, that's OK, but I do, and I do it a lot.

Fourthirds limits you somewhat when it comes to resolution, right now it's 10mp to Canon's 15, but who -needs- 15mp?

Agreed. Still, the same number of pixels on a bigger sensor will ultimately achieve better image quality and less noise.

Mischief007, consider reading Thom Hogan's 2009 Predictions. I'm saying any of this is written in stone, but consider that Nikon and Canon are the biggest names by a long shot and been around a long time. They have a big base of accessories and equipment and an even bigger base customer. They aren't going anywhere.

I don't have the same confidence in any of the other names. I would hate to have a collection of bodies, lenses and accessories of a particular brand only to find myself up a proverbial river of excrement in a native American water vessel without any means of propulsion (viewers of a certain uber-nerdy TV show, you may now laugh hysterically ). Additionally, Sony has a habit of getting into a market only to back out in a few years without giving it a chance to mature. I try to stay away from everything Sony these days anyway.

As a camera, I'm sure any of these other brands are fine. As a system, however, they fall short compared to Canon and Nikon.

Not saying that all other brands are rated poorly and it's a bit harder to rate the durability of digital cameras but there is something to be said for buying a camera that's rated at 30,000 frames vs. 3000 frames.

Assuming that, by "frames", you mean "shutter actuations", those are both very low numbers. None of the entry level cameras are rated, only the higher end models like the D200 and up, and those are usually tested to 150,000 or 300,000 actuations. Even so, the entry level models should easily last 50,000 to 100,000 actuations or longer.

Besides, that's just motivation to make sure all your photos are good ones because every shot brings you one step closer to the cameras death

 

[carolsLittleWorld]

Assuming that, by "frames", you mean "shutter actuations", those are both very low numbers.

I was using those numbers as an example, they are not actual numbers for any camera as far as I know.

None of the entry level cameras are rated, only the higher end models like the D200 and up, and those are usually tested to 150,000 or 300,000 actuations.

I've seen ratings for the Canon Rebel XTi and the XSi as well as the 50D. Not sure if those fall under your classification as "higher end models" though. The frame ratings are also become more popular now, and will be more widely available, since the megapixels don't matter as much anymore. (It used to be that digital cameras became outdated less than one year after you purchased them. Making them last 5 or even 10 years was a bit pointless in that situation. My point was that this is changing now, and people are starting to pay more attention to things like durability and how long it will hold up under normal wear and tear, since we no longer have to buy a new one every 10 minutes.)

Besides, that's just motivation to make sure all your photos are good ones because every shot brings you one step closer to the cameras death

I think it's an important factor when considering the cost, even the initial cost. Somebody might opt to spend a bit more for a higher rated camera but get a camera that will last much longer, making it cheaper to own and operate over the lifetime of the device. Yes, it's true, every digital camera will die eventually and every shot does bring you one step closer to the camera's death but, for some brands, it seems that path is very short. There's not really a good way to tell from holding it or looking at accessories how long a camera will last. For most people camera shopping, that boils down to "brand reputation" and that's what puts a lot of people (even people who know nothing about cameras) into the Canon/Nikon camp.

I'm not saying this is justified. There might be Sony, Pentax, or whatever cameras rated just as highly, my point is that, for a long time Canon/Nikon have had higher rated cameras or have provided cameras with a higher rating as part of their offerings. This attracts pros and heavy shooters who, in turn, want accessories, better lenses, etc. and also attracts beginners because they want to own a low-end variant from the same manufacturer. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way. But, my point was, somebody looking at getting a camera might want to consider it. It's just another factor to consider, that's all, and it sort of explains the "why does everybody always recommend Canon/Nikon?" question.

 

[nomix]

There's also the factor of how a camera is rated. Certain cameras (yes, some models of Nikon and Canon in that bunch) are rated for more frames than others. Not saying that all other brands are rated poorly and it's a bit harder to rate the durability of digital cameras but there is something to be said for buying a camera that's rated at 30,000 frames vs. 3000 frames.

The Canon 50D is rated at 100 000 frames, while the E-3 is rated at 150 000, if I'm not mistaken. And I might be.

In the end, it's not a big deal, at least not in the beginner market where almost all cameras are rated at 50 000 frames.

Oh, yes it is. With smaller sensors, you won't be getting the same sort of insanely narrow depths of field as a 35mm. 1.5 and 1.6 crops are much more similar to a 35mm frame, though still noticeably different. Is there such a lens as a 25/0.9 for the 4/3rds system to get you the same effect as a cheap 50/1.8 for 35mm? I doubt it. Even if there was, it would be beyond affordable reach of the types of people who buy into a 4/3rds system anyway.

No, there is not. And please keep in mind that I am not without knowledge of the DOF 'issue'. I've spent two days running around the French town Perpignan with a 5D and a 50/1.2L. I know what you're on about, and I do shoot film. Still, we're not really talking about 35mm/FF, we're talking about 1.5/1.6x crop. An the difference between those and fourthirds is rather minute. You can still get very nice and shallow DOF with fourthirds, so unless you spend all day taking traditional portraits with woods in the background, I really don't think it's something to rave much about.

I suppose that if you don't plan to use DOF as an artistic tool, that's OK, but I do, and I do it a lot.

So do I. I use it several times a day, tbh, and the fourthirds standard has not limited me much.

What I do notice when using my E-3 compared to a full frame camera is that I've got more DOF when I need it. For practical purposes, you'll need to stop down and up the ISO with a full frame camera. Again, it's just me. I like the DOF I get, and I know from personal experience that I can limit it when needed.

Agreed. Still, the same number of pixels on a bigger sensor will ultimately achieve better image quality and less noise.

No doubt. But we will get to a point where that's just of academic interest, while there's really and argument for more pixels on bigger sensors, and in practice, I think that will be the deal for years to come. We need some sense from the producers of cameras.

The megapixel race will end, so I'm not worrying.

I don't have the same confidence in any of the other names. I would hate to have a collection of bodies, lenses and accessories of a particular brand only to find myself up a proverbial river of excrement in a native American water vessel without any means of propulsion (viewers of a certain uber-nerdy TV show, you may now laugh hysterically ). Additionally, Sony has a habit of getting into a market only to back out in a few years without giving it a chance to mature. I try to stay away from everything Sony these days anyway.

- Fourthirds: Backed by Olympus and Panasonic, with the cooperation of Leica and Sigma.
Olympus spends their days making medical optics and cameras, and the dSLR business is something they do make money from, and even if they didn't it's the pride and joy of the company. Panasonic is one of the largest corporations in the world, and Sigma makes cheap and (often) cheerful lenses for all brands, making lots of money from it.

Conclusion: FourThirds won't be dying anytime soon.

- Sony: Sony is the biggest electronics firms in the world, they have more money than God, they want to get a big chunk of the market, and in the end, they will. Nuff said about Sony.

- Pentax is owned by Hoya, if I'm not mistaken. Nothing wrong with the books there. They also sell patents and bodies to Samsung, and they have more money than the Holy spirit.

I wouldn't worry about it.

As a camera, I'm sure any of these other brands are fine. As a system, however, they fall short compared to Canon and Nikon.

In which way? If you're talking primes, yes, Fourthirds is limited at the time. Pentax isn't. Are you talking cheap, cheerful high quality zooms, Olympus beats Canon any day. Are you talking long teles, Canon would probably be the way to go if you're very rich. Talking wireless flash, you got Nikon, Olympus and Sony, while you need to invest in gear to get wireless compatability with your Canon flash units. Saying you shouldn't buy a Sony because they've got a less perfect system for a high end professional shooter is a bit like saying you shouldn't buy a diesel car because it's not a racecar.

 

[Mark78]

I'm running a Pentax K200d. Love it. Couldn't ask for more options/accessories. I'm not a pro, but have been into photography for a while.

Pentax are the only ones who make a truly 'rugged' product in this price range. The K200d is water/dust resistant, made with a stainless steel chassis, whereas, the competition are all plastic. You can tell when you hold them. Canon/Nikon are much lighter and have that 'plastic' feel to them.

Just my opinion anyway. Your best bet will be to go and hold them in the shop.

 

[nomix]

The K200D is a great option. And Pentax produces some excellent glass for very reasonable prices. It's a bloody good system.

 

[SuperStalin]

AFAIK Hoya just bought Pentax, and changed its name to... well... Hoya.

 

[markryder]

The one thing I've paid close attention to when it comes to selecting a DSLR is image quality (i.e: ISO noise etc). And people can yell and shout about PENTAX and OLYMPUS as much as they want, but I'd really like to see some reviews that favours those brands over canon and nikon - because I havn't found one yet. Everything always ends up in a close race between canon and nikon, as far as I have seen atleast.

 

[nomix]

Marius, jeg anbefaler for eksempel litt lesing p? forumet hos Akam.no. Det norske fotobladet Fotografi holder internasjonal standard p? testene sine, og svenske Foto er ogs? verdt en titt.

The point is, if you look at pixel level, yes, Canon and Nikon models are better at high ISOs. No denying that. The question is, as with all other things in life, how much better. To make a car paralell, let's say you've wanted Car A for a year, then the Stig drives it around the Top Gear test track at 1.29,8s. Car B gets around the track in 1.29,2s.

Car B is clearly the fastest car, but does that make it the superior car in all ways? Not at all.

What you need to consider is that even if there are differences between brands and cameras, they are relatively minute. The differences that are more likely to bug you will always be the ergonomics and the menus that come with the camera. I for one, despise the menu system of the D40. I just hate having to go into a menu to change ISO, for instance. That one little liggle would keep me from getting a D40, which is otherwise a great camera. What about the Canon xxxD/xxxxxD range? Grip is so small it makes my hands hurt. Etcetera.

When buying a camera, go for the one that fits your hand, that will always be the best for you. What you do not need to listen to is overentusiastic users of said brands advocating their brand because they picked it and it therefore can't be anything but perfect in any way. And you find lots of those.