Camera

[nibenza]

Hello all,

I'm looking to purchase a camera. I have searched the threads and have come up with more questions than answers. Let me say that I have been a member for a while and don't think I could find a better place to get recomendations. Let me start by giving you the basis for comments.

My wife and I are a working couple that have the basic understanding of photography. I'm looking for an upper end camera that i can buy a good starter package complete, ready to go, out of the box. While we read and learn the finer points I want to set it up to point and shoot for my wife as she has less experience than I. Not saying that I'm any whiz. As we get more into it I want to be able to upgrade lens, etc. This will be our "retirement" camera.

Photoghaphs taken will be family stuff. Weddings, get togethers, etc and also outdoors, hunting, fishing, camping, traveling. Close ups to the Aurora. I'm not looking to become a professional, just extremely proficient.

Thanks for your comments.

Steve & Becky Gundersen

[Roger45]

Not enough information! Are you looking to go digital or do you want to stick with film? Do you currently have any photography equipment that you may want to use with a new system? Do you have a price range you are looking into, like a maximum you want to spend? Do you want to go strictly brand new or are you interested in used? Do you lean towards one brand name over another?

Kind of a good recent thread was the one on a $400 digital camera that I would suggest as a start. That should give you an idea to better explain your wants and desire. People on this forum tend to be nice and really like to help yet some of us may have strong opinions:rolleyes: Bring on the questions:eek:

[nibenza]

Thanks

I thought that would be the first response. I'll answer yours and look forward to more.

your first question is the best. Other than the small point and shoot digitals I've owned and had for work i haven't dealt with the upper end ones. The first comment out of my wife when we stated to discuss this was "I want film, not digital" I asked why and she has not given me a direct answer. The answer as i see it; the decent camera's we used were film, you don't have to have a computer but really need one with digital, she understands film better than digital. Bottom line is I think digital is the way to go. All you "Pros" can chime in please.

Brand new system. Starting range $1000.00 to $1500. What ever the cost afterwards depends what we decide we want. I'm willing to spend more initially to ensure we can expand as we want. Again we are not looking to become professionals, but very good.

I did look at that thread but due to our different desires I thought warrented a new thread. I will go back and reread it though, thanks

[Floyd_Davidson]

I'm looking to purchase a camera.
...
I'm looking for an upper end camera that i can buy a good starter package complete, ready to go, out of the box.
...
to set it up to point and shoot
...
This will be our "retirement" camera.
...
I'm not looking to become a professional, just extremely proficient.

Roger45 has some good points. I'll add some specific thoughts on the parts cut out and quoted above.

First, from what you have described there is little doubt that you could easily settle on a Canon, a Nikon, a Sony or a Pentax and you'd certainly be happy with it. Deciding which of those would make you slightly happier is a really tough call! Just rest assured that none of them would be "wrong".

Given that you've said an "upper end" camera, we'll need to talk about what that means. Are you more artist or more techie? Or both? To a techie, upper end might mean a professional model just because it has more technical functionality to play with. And how well healed are you? These things ain't cheap, but might be worth it if you actually do use it enough. (I used to buy film in 100 foot rolls, and the cost limitation was film. By spending a few thousand dollars on a digital camera I literally saved money and increased my output!) But upper end consumer models run up to perhaps $1400 (I'm not really sure), and prosumer models can go over $2000. Real pro models are $3000 and up.

And forget about a "retirement camera"! With film cameras, which have been a relatively mature technology for decades, it was possible to expect extremely long life. But unless you buy a top of the line pro model (and even then to some degree this applies) it is almost certain that technological advances in the next 3 years will make whatever you buy obsolete, and downright ancient in 5 years.

The accessories though, such as lenses, cases, filters, tripods, will last for decades. To the degree that you invest in lenses, you are therefore locked into using that brand of camera body in the future. That means you may want to very carefully look what is available in the way of specialty lenses that you might ever want. For example, until recently Canon had better long telephoto lenses than Nikon, but now Nikon has a rather impressive set too... but in either case that is only if you can afford a lense that costs from $5000 to $10,000! Obviously for a pro that isn't a real question, but for even the most proficient amateur it is serious bucks. Hence it might be reasonable to look at older lenses (non Auto Focus, for example) that will work with different cameras. That particular case has caused a paradox over the past few years, as most pros who needed a modern long telephoto went with Canon, but for an amateur that couldn't afford the lastest model 600mm f/4 with auto focus the older Nikon lenses were better, more available, and cost less.

It may require more clairvoyance than is reasonable, but if you can tell which directions you are most likely to go, that is the sort of thing that will make life more fun in the future as you expand your kit.

As for setting it to point and shoot mode: They all do that nicely! It's when you want to fool with something directly that the little computer and all the buttons and menu options start being a real hassle! :-)

DSLR's are a wonderful tool to use in becoming a proficient photographer. Way back in the good ol' days, when I had a memory... it never lasted long enough for me to remember what I'd done when I actually had the negatives in hand. Today, well, I suffer greatly from CRS (Can't Remember Sh*t) syndrome, but I can see most of what the picture is right on the camera (Okay, so mine has one of the best LCD displays on the market.), and if that isn't good enough it will pleasantly record a voice message for each image if I like... But usually even I can remember enough as I go from shooting to viewing on a fullscreen monitor. The resulting rapid feedback loop is a great learning tool. And since the "film" is so cheap, experimenting wastes only your time but not your money.

How much do you think you'd be willing to spend on a camera body and one lens? And just how expensive is over the line for a "top of the line" camera?

[danattherock]

Many ways to skin a cat, but to help with your search initially, my suggestions are below.

All items are from B&H Photo/Video website....

Canon 40D with 17-85 or 28-135 "kit" lens $1,000-1,200
Bogen Manfrotto tripod in the $150-200 range
High quality circular polarizer $100-150
Canon cable shutter release $40
Photoshop Elements 7.0 $80
Scott Kelbys book for Elements 7.0 $30
"Digital Field Guide" for Canon 40D (book) $20
Lowepro camera case/backpack $40-100


This would be in the $1,600-1,700 range and would make a great starter set up for someone with a sincere interest in photography. Over time you could add a few high quality lenses as your needs/interest dictate.

Just food for thought.

[nibenza]

Bedtime

I'll answer a couple of questions before i have to put the house, dogs, cats and wife to bed.

I'm looking at being more artist, not techie.

I'm willing to pay $1500 plus for a starter body and lens. When technology outraces me in the future I am financially able to adjust. I won't be chasing any upgrades monthly. That's what I'm looking for in opinions, what I can purchase now that has lasting qualities and upgrades. Don't jump on me, I know the answers are infinite. Remember I'm not looking to become a professional.

If you were relatively financially set, were a beginner, wanted to learn to be a good photographer but yet not make it a living at it, were technology savvy but didn't want it to rent more space in your brain than is necessary, wanted the best bang for your your buck but yet had the money to expand as you wanted to??

Thanks for the suggestions,

SRG

[Sierra Hotel]

SRG, you've received some great feedback from some pretty talented photographers. Let one of the lesser talented guys pipe in . . .

Floyd hit the nail on the head when he talked about camera bodies becoming throw aways, but the lenses are the real investment. For that reason, I chose Nikon, because I can use their legacy lenses and get AF and metering on my camera body (not all Nikons are that way, I believe it starts with the D80, which is what I started on. I can use everything now on my D300). So when I start looking for my next lens (sadly, I'm afflicted with a terminal case of NAS - Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) I usually research lenses that were top of the line 20 years ago - the quality of the glass is still superb, and you save hundreds (if not thousands). As Floyd said, however, you can't make a wrong choice by going Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony and so on. I was an old Minolta film guy before I switched to digital just two years ago . . . Play with each and find a model/kit that fits in your budget range and pull the trigger. Enjoy!

[Floyd_Davidson]

The answer as i see it; the decent camera's we used were film, you don't have to have a computer but really need one with digital, she understands film better than digital. Bottom line is I think digital is the way to go. All you "Pros" can chime in please.

Digital is the only way to go. Film can be fun, and there are certainly reasonable reasons to use it. But for what you have described film is not even close to digital.

Brand new system. Starting range $1000.00 to $1500. What ever the cost afterwards depends what we decide we want. I'm willing to spend more initially to ensure we can expand as we want.

BH Photo is a good place to get a solid base for comparison with prices. It may or may not be where you'd want to buy. If you are good at eBay, it can definitely provide some bargains (or cost you half an arm and a leg on the wrong day too). KEH.com is another good place, particularly if you are interested in used equipment. Just keep in mind that you do basically get what you pay for... a higher priced camera is probably a better camera.

From BH Photo:
Canon EOS 40D body $ 890 (used $750)
Canon EOS 40D + 18-55mm lens $1050
Canon EOS 50D body $1150 (used $1050)
Canon EOS 50D + 28-135mm $1350
Canon EOS Rebel XSi (450D) with 18-55mm $945

Fujifilm S5 Pro body $900

Nikon D300 body $1700
Nikon D80 + 18-55mm $820
Nikon D90 body $890 (used $800)
Nikon D90 + 18-105mm $1150
Nikon D90 + 18-200mm $1580

Pentax K20D $800
Pentax K20D + 18-55mm ($879)

Sony Alpha A350 + 18-705mm $800
Sony Alpha A700 body $1000
Sony Alpha A700 + 18-70mm $1099

Note that I've only listed one camera with a "superzoom". I generally don't care for them, but the Nikon 18-200mm is by far the best and if you are inclined to want a one lens does all, go Nikon.

Generally it appears to be a toss up between a Nikon D90 or a Canon 40D or 50D (I'll let the Canon folks tell you which does what). But, there's a real hitch to that which might be one you can take advantage of.

If you are willing to shop around, or to buy used, or to spend just a hair more... the Nikon D300 can be had new for under $1400 with at least one lens. It is a "prosumer" model, which is this case means it beats the others hands down running away. The prices are low because Nikon came out with the D3 at the same time and then with the D700 (both of which are fullframe sized sensors).

Another possibility is a used Nikon D200, which was the model that preceeded the D300. It is a real toss between that and a Canon 40D or Nikon D90, but the quality of the D200 is well above either. I doubt there exists a new D200 anymore, but the used ones go for relative peanuts.

Here's a list of used prices (all Like New) from KEH.com. Again, they are a "safe" place to buy, but likely do not have the lowest price available either. They definitely make a good price marker though.

Canon 1DS $1100
Canon 5D 1600
Nikon D90 820
Nikon D200 820
Nikon D300 1400

As you can see even the high end cameras from 3 or 4 years ago are very low priced. One result is that neither BH nor KEH lists a Nikon D2x for sale used... because they sell so fast they never have one in stock! On eBay the going rate is under $1000 for a D2x with a lens. If you don't need to shoot at ISO higher than 800... that camera just can't be beat for that price!

[Floyd_Davidson]

If you were relatively financially set, were a beginner, wanted to learn to be a good photographer but yet not make it a living at it, were technology savvy but didn't want it to rent more space in your brain than is necessary, wanted the best bang for your your buck but yet had the money to expand as you wanted to??

Honest answer, to what I would do... probably in the order I would consider them:

Nikon D3
Nikon D700
Canon 5D II
Nikon D300

I wouldn't personally even look at a Canon 40D or a Nikon D90.

[nibenza]

Thanks

You have given me a lot to research. Keep em coming.

[danattherock]

I wouldn't personally even look at a Canon 40D or a Nikon D90.

Nikon and Canon both have some great cameras. Just avoid the bias we all show. Everyone wants to think that they have what is best. Nikon or Canon will make you happy. When you get past these two, lens selection drops significantly.

I would take the opinion of people that have actually owned a Canon 40D over someone that has not.

Below are 548 reviews of people that actually own the Canon 40D. It is an amazing camera.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...l.html#reviews





.

[Floyd_Davidson]

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...l.html#reviews

Lets put your list of 548 into perspective. Here are two lists, first is the number (including various for option kits) of "reviews":

Canon EOS 40D ...593
Nikon D300............553
Canon XSi..............413
Nikon D90..............304
Canon EOS 50D.....297
Nikon D700.............218
Nikon D3.................144
Canon 5DII..............124
Canon 1DIII...............82
Canon 1DsIII.............59
Nikon D3x...................8

As you can see, your Canon 40D is indeed at the top of that list. It is also true that all of the best cameras are at the bottom of that list!

Here's another list, this time based on BH Photo's price tags for the body only:

Nikon D3x.....$8000
Canon 1DsIII...7000
Canon 1DIII.....4845
Nikon D3.........4350
Canon 5DII......2700
Nikon D700......2700
Nikon D300......1800
Canon 50D......1150
Nikon D90..........990
Canon 40D.........990
Canon XSi..........589

In that list you'll notice that quality is at the top, and the 40D is near the bottom.

To be honest, virtually all of the consumer models from every manufacturer are expensive toys. If you want a tool, at least buy a prosumer model, but frankly the pro models outclass even those by a considerable distance. Not that everyone needs or can even use a such a tool. The OP has given two contradicting indications in that respect, and I would not presume to know which is more important (though clearly a third, the price tag, put him only on the edge of being able to go with a pro model). First, he wants a camera that will last for quite some time. That would tend to suggest at least a prosumer model. On the other hand, he is relatively a beginner and is an artist rather more than a techie. It could be twice as long as even a pro model would last before he might have an interest in the extra facilities it offers (and would suffer all the excess complexity in the mean time).

That does suggest the Nikon D300 and the Canon 5DII as being about the right class of camera. But he can only get one of them for under his price ceiling, and that may take some shopping.

[Jim Strutz]

I have a Canon 40D and a newer 50D. You can hardly tell the difference in the way the camera handles or in the image quality. There are differences, but unless you are looking for some particular feature, I would save the money and get the 40D. That's if you were going to choose one or the other, but they aren't the only choices. These cameras fit in the price-quality-feature continuum about where the Nikon D90 sits, or in the case of the 50D, somewhere between the D90 and D300. These are all good choices depending on how much you want to spend on a camera body.

If you're just starting out though, I would recommend less camera body and more lens. As others mentioned, a camera body these days gets pretty long in the tooth after just a few short years. A lens can retain value and usefulness for decades. With that in mind, perhaps a Canon Rebel XSi, or a Nikon D60 would be a better pick for now, and spend the money to buy a better lens, or lenses for it. These cameras are very capable of providing great image quality when good lenses are attached to them.

Canon's little 18-55 IS, and 55-250 IS make a pretty good pair of lenses for about $400. Nikon has similar options. Or you can buy either Canon's or Nikon's 17-55 f/2.8 lens for about $1000 all by itself. Either one are very good, but may be more than you want to spend on one standard zoom lens. Still, they will retain much of their value for years after your camera body is tossed.

BTW, you don't need a computer to deal with a digital camera images. You can have prints made directly from a memory card easier than from film. The digital camera costs more to begin with, but saves on the cost of film & processing. And you only print the images that actually work. If you shoot much, digital is cheaper. Plus, as Floyd mentioned, you get instant feedback with digital. You can see right away if it worked or if you need to make adjustments and shoot it again. And for most uses, high quality digital cameras provide better image quality that the usual color negative film.

[danattherock]

Canon EOS 40D ...593
Nikon D300............553
Canon XSi..............413
Nikon D90..............304
Canon EOS 50D.....297
Nikon D700.............218
Nikon D3.................144
Canon 5DII..............124
Canon 1DIII...............82
Canon 1DsIII.............59
Nikon D3x...................8

As you can see, your Canon 40D is indeed at the top of that list. It is also true that all of the best cameras are at the bottom of that list!

Here's another list, this time based on BH Photo's price tags for the body only:

Nikon D3x.....$8000
Canon 1DsIII...7000
Canon 1DIII.....4845
Nikon D3.........4350
Canon 5DII......2700
Nikon D700......2700
Nikon D300......1800
Canon 50D......1150
Nikon D90..........990
Canon 40D.........990
Canon XSi..........589

In that list you'll notice that quality is at the top, and the 40D is near the bottom.

Floyd, you are using "quality" when you should have said "most expensive". Must have been a typo:confused:

Also, the Canon 40D is $890 rather than the $990 you quoted.

This info above proves my point exactly about what an awesome camera the Canon 40D is for the money. Read the reviews, look at what a value it is compared to other cameras costing many times more, and it is easy to see why so many people are buying them. This is what we call "bang for the buck".


He stated $1,500 for a body and lens

It would seem logical that this would guide what cameras are being suggested.



.

[Roger45]

I see that from last night you have gotten some great advice. If you have not gone to www.dpreview.com you need to go there ASAP. They have excellent reviews on all cameras and lenses. The forums are packed with all brands...I go to a NIkon d40-d90 forum that gets world wide postings (50-100) every day! Awesome site IMHO.