back alley
IMAGES
this started out as a 'whim' question so no budget attached...but if for me it would have to be as low as possible...
what's the 'best' used ff dslr?
- Thread starter back alley
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 73
- Views 10K
this started out as a 'whim' question so no budget attached...but if for me it would have to be as low as possible...
KevinS
Established
My Canon 5D has been great and has lasted for many years (I bought it used). 12MP is plenty for my uses, but I had to get used to the dust issue when I went digital. Shooting at the widest aperture that will do helps, but since I do a lot of landscapes I spend too much time removing spots. A 6D would be my choice if it was in the budget. Wide lenses are a question as well. I'm pretty sure Canon's 24-70 f/4 will do, but I'm trying to decide if mirrorless is my future before buying that. Right now I lean toward adding the 24-70 and forgetting Compact System. If you want better wide angle choices, Nikon might be the answer. I'm not ready to change over as I like my Canon telephotos.
chrishayton
Well-known
I work as a used camera dealer so always playing with the older models. The D700 is the best buy. Image quality is excellent even now. Files are lovely. The build is top notch and the AF is top of the range. The Canon 5D is still damn good although left behind in low light. However the files in low light are rich and detailed. Plus is light!
If you want to go crazy the 1DsII is now available for under £500 ($800 I guess). Incredible build and again top of the line AF. Its just big heavy and the batteries are a pain not being lithium. It was the camera that changed a huge amount of pros minds on shooting digital vs film.
If you want to go crazy the 1DsII is now available for under £500 ($800 I guess). Incredible build and again top of the line AF. Its just big heavy and the batteries are a pain not being lithium. It was the camera that changed a huge amount of pros minds on shooting digital vs film.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
True. But for the most part, the cameras still can cut it. And in shoots that push its limits, simply use a flash wisely and it'll be okay.
My go-to camera is a Nikon D700 with Tokina AT-X Pro 2.8/28-70mm. The Nikon sensor or software has a tendency to over brighten reds in the SOOC images. But, the Tokina AT-X Pro lenses are a bit blueish cold in rendering and it smoothens things over real nice. The Tokina is all metal, firm gripping and true glass, and as such tougher than the (much more expensive) Nikkor 2.8/24-70mm. The D700 is much nicer in its rendering than the D600, which I had and sold to get a D700. IMHO, the D600 & D800 rendering is pretty similar and I find it kind of 'flat' in skin tones and portraiture. But it might just have been my way of post processing that did this. With the D700, there's more dynamic rendering.
Cheapest used D700 I recently saw was EUR 550 😱 and that isn't a big number, I say! The Tokina second-hand can be had for EUR 275-350. The model without the hood mount (filter threads only) is the type-1 lens and is a 100% Angenieux design. It is stellar, I love mine.
Most color pictures on my website were shot with either the Tokina 2.8/28-70mm AT-X Pro, the 2.8/80-200mm AT-X Pro (again tougher than the Nikkor counterpart, and heavier too!) or the Tokina 3.5-4.5/20-35mm AT-X, a '90s lens which actually is sharper than the modern AT-X Pro brother.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
A pair of primes vs a zoom ... two very different scenarios. You'd want to pick different cameras to get the best out of one or the other.
The reason to focus on the lenses rather than the body first is that if you're buying an SLR, the most important thing is to have the lenses that work best with it. Optical viewfinders are not as versatile as an EVF: SLRs need lenses which support open-aperture metering to focus and meter best.
So why did you pluck this question from the ether?
For me, I'm more comfortable with Nikon lenses than any other lens line for which there are current digital bodies which support the lens mount, so I'd look into which Nikon DSLR would work best with the lenses I have. Since all of my Nikon mount lenses are manual focus, I wouldn't worry about any of the bodies' AF abilities. Two of my Nikkor lenses are pre-AI models, which on even most of the high-end Nikon bodies means I need to have the lenses modified for AI meter coupling or they simply won't mount or meter properly except for a very small number of Nikon bodies.
So ... I searched on "which Nikon DSLR bodies can be used with pre-AI lenses?"
http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Learn-An...g-legacy-nikkor-lenses-with-the-nikon-df.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_F-mount#Compatible_lenses
http://www.bythom.com/lensacronyms.htm
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-153.html
http://photo.net/modern-film-cameras-forum/00b12f
http://www.aiconversions.com/compatibilitytable.htm
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6287665194/understanding-old-nikon-lenses-ai-ai-s-af-and-af-s
http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility
This can be a nice day of reading technical minutiae.
The simple thing to do is to buy the Df (hardly an older, second-hand body) and just go with it. 16Mpixel, huge dynamic range, enough dials, knobs, buttons, and levers to keep any magic wurlitzer user very happy, and compatible with almost all Nikkor lenses ever made. (Yes, there are a couple it isn't compatible with, notably a couple of the very old lenses that will ONLY work with a Nikon F due to mirror lock up and mirror box integration of the lens' physical shape.)
My old DSLR is an Olympus E-1, manufactured in October 2003. Still working perfectly. I got it for around $300 in 2008. FourThirds format, 5 whole Mpixels, slower to write a file to the card than I am to dance a jig, yet still makes some of the most beautiful photos I've seen out of any camera. Modern raw conversion technology has improved its performance at elevated ISO settings ... I can now use ISO 1600 easily, and can get away with ISO 3200 in a pinch. I have three excellent lenses for it: ZD 11-22/2.8-3.5, ZD 35mm f/3.5 Macro, ZD 50-200/2.8-3.5 + EC-14. I see little point to selling it ...
G
burancap
Veteran
Best or best-bang-for-the-buck? The latter, Canon 5Dc without a doubt. If you shop carefully, you should be able to find one and a 50/1.8 for under $600USD.
Noll
Well-known
I've been thinking about the a850/900 cameras lately too. They are selling around 800-900 usd these days. Doesnt seem like much else comes close in full-frame land.
Pioneer
Veteran
I might try the Nikon DF, only because it is the only one that is even remotely interesting to me. But to be honest, I really am not interested in a full frame dSLR. If money were no object I would pick the Pentax 645Z or the Leica S. If I am going to pack something that big and bulky I may as well make it worth it.
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I'd say the Nikon D3. It is the most flexible and most capable of the full frame offerings that are now discontinued. Battery life is pretty much the best you can get aside from the old D2H/s. They meter and have full function with every Nikon lens from the AI period until the current lineup. The last Nikon camera this flexible was the F4.
Canons are nice but they are "hobbled" by not being able to use FD/FL lenses. Yes, I'm griping over something that is almost a 30 year old issue which has been passed by most folks by now. Personally, I don't like being limited to autofocus and a very few boutique manual focus lenses without using a band-aid of an adapter and lenses from another brand.
Phil Forrest
Canons are nice but they are "hobbled" by not being able to use FD/FL lenses. Yes, I'm griping over something that is almost a 30 year old issue which has been passed by most folks by now. Personally, I don't like being limited to autofocus and a very few boutique manual focus lenses without using a band-aid of an adapter and lenses from another brand.
Phil Forrest
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I agree. For what I shoot, the Sony A7 makes a very nice replacement for an older DSLR, costs a pittance used (under $1000 now that the A7II is out), and with mount adapters can be used with nearly any SLR lenses you want to name. The body is pleasantly compact (about the size of a Nikon FM), the sensor is excellent, the viewfinder is very good, and it's got just enough customizability to work well with older, manual-focus lenses. And it can capture movies pretty well too.
FF on a budget... ;-)
G
sc_rufctr
Leica nuts
I love my Canon 1Ds Mark 11... Great IQ with lots of dynamic range and it's built like a tank.
The 16mp sensor is very under rated because it can do just about anything.
The view finder is extraordinary which certainly rivals the best from Leica and you can get different focusing screens.
... and they're getting really cheap. 😀
The 16mp sensor is very under rated because it can do just about anything.
The view finder is extraordinary which certainly rivals the best from Leica and you can get different focusing screens.
... and they're getting really cheap. 😀
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Never heard of portrait photographers?
Picture taken with 5DC in far from ideal light situation.
I choose it to show how I feel about our conversation 🙂
Picture taken with 5DC in far from ideal light situation.
I choose it to show how I feel about our conversation 🙂
f16sunshine
Moderator
Dude... no offense but, Knowing the gear you use,.. I don't think you are remotely qualified to understand what the "best bang for the buck" is in this case 😛
The 5Dc is a great option. It does have a unique rendering. Sort of pastel colors compared to later DSLR offerings.
I used one for years and am still longing for that look in my images at times.
It's supposed "poor IQ" is quite frankly lovely. It's an easy best bang for the buck!
hamradio
Well-known
It's been said a million times in this thread, but it's awfully hard to go wrong with the old 5D 'mk1.' I've had one for a couple years–picked it up for under $400, and it's been nothing but great. Back when I bought it, I wanted to get into a FF dslr as cheaply as possible. It was basically this or a D700, which was over $1300 or so at the time. I ditched my AF Nikon lenses and grabbed the 5D along with a Nikon F adapter form eBay.
Strong points for me:
-Pretty decent high ISO performance for such an old camera. 1600 works, 800 looks great. I never shoot film at 1600 anyway, so the lack of anything higher (the expanded ISO H––a sort of forced 3200––is acceptable in a pinch) doesn't bug me.
-Compatibility with a ridiculous amount of legacy lenses. Nikon F, M42, Exakta, etc. I didn't even have any native EF mount lenses when I bought the camera.
-Ability to use the fantastic Canon STM 40mm 2.8. Killer pancake lens for $130. My copy rarely ever leaves the camera.
-Surprisingly durable body. Mine looked like hell when I bought it, and it now looks even worse. It's not weather-sealed, but spent hours getting blasted with wave spray on a cold, rainy, windy day, and suffered no adverse effects.
-Great control and menu layout. Much better and simpler than a D700, I think.
-Nice raw files. Lots of room to play around with stuff, and the colors come out nicely.
Weak points:
-Manual focusing is so-so. I even have the better screen, and it still sucks on a 1.4 lens. I got an M42 adapter with focus confirm, spent half an hour doing micro focus adjustments, and now everything works much, much better. I'll probably get a Nikon adapter with the same chip.
-Apparently some type of mirror issue...it falls out or something? Mine has been making an unsavory sound in the cold for a while that seems associated with the mirror, but nothing bad has happened so far. Canon might still be warrantying it?
When this camera dies, I'll probably either buy another one, or an A7. I've used an A7 off and on too, but prefer the ergonomics of the 5D. I don't really have any desire to throw money at a 5d2 or 5d3.
iso800, CV Ultron 40/2
iso200, Nikkor-O 35/2
iso400, Canon 40/2.8 STM
Strong points for me:
-Pretty decent high ISO performance for such an old camera. 1600 works, 800 looks great. I never shoot film at 1600 anyway, so the lack of anything higher (the expanded ISO H––a sort of forced 3200––is acceptable in a pinch) doesn't bug me.
-Compatibility with a ridiculous amount of legacy lenses. Nikon F, M42, Exakta, etc. I didn't even have any native EF mount lenses when I bought the camera.
-Ability to use the fantastic Canon STM 40mm 2.8. Killer pancake lens for $130. My copy rarely ever leaves the camera.
-Surprisingly durable body. Mine looked like hell when I bought it, and it now looks even worse. It's not weather-sealed, but spent hours getting blasted with wave spray on a cold, rainy, windy day, and suffered no adverse effects.
-Great control and menu layout. Much better and simpler than a D700, I think.
-Nice raw files. Lots of room to play around with stuff, and the colors come out nicely.
Weak points:
-Manual focusing is so-so. I even have the better screen, and it still sucks on a 1.4 lens. I got an M42 adapter with focus confirm, spent half an hour doing micro focus adjustments, and now everything works much, much better. I'll probably get a Nikon adapter with the same chip.
-Apparently some type of mirror issue...it falls out or something? Mine has been making an unsavory sound in the cold for a while that seems associated with the mirror, but nothing bad has happened so far. Canon might still be warrantying it?
When this camera dies, I'll probably either buy another one, or an A7. I've used an A7 off and on too, but prefer the ergonomics of the 5D. I don't really have any desire to throw money at a 5d2 or 5d3.
iso800, CV Ultron 40/2
iso200, Nikkor-O 35/2
iso400, Canon 40/2.8 STM
Pioneer
Veteran
The original Canon 5D is the only Canon I kept from my original kit. Its sensor is still perfect for portrait work. No sense in tossing out a perfectly good portrait option.
gavinlg
Veteran
The 5d mk1 is easily the best value. IQ is still world class, and the canon L lenses are still the best in SLR world.
There aren't really that many options...none of which are poor.
Flip a coin? 🙂
Flip a coin? 🙂
jarski
Veteran
IMO Canons do equal job in all light conditions to Nikon et al. its more question how controls fit to hand and other subjective preferences.
back alley
IMAGES
what started this line of thinking was reading elsewhere on the net about the need or lack of need for a ff camera...i started daydreaming and the thought of an old dslr popped into my addled brain...i doubt that i would ever go the dslr route, old or new, quite frankly but it was fun to daydream a bit.
i'm pretty sure that if i ever won a lottery the first bit of gear that i would pick up would be an m9 or monochrom.
i miss rangefinders but not sure if i could manually focus anymore, my eyes are getting worse but i would like to try full frame just to see what pics taken by me in ff would look like.
i'm pretty sure that if i ever won a lottery the first bit of gear that i would pick up would be an m9 or monochrom.
i miss rangefinders but not sure if i could manually focus anymore, my eyes are getting worse but i would like to try full frame just to see what pics taken by me in ff would look like.
jky
Well-known
Canon 6D. Small-ish, great handling, quiet shutter, nice files. Pair that with the 40mm pancake and it easily fits in a man-bag.
