Which DSLR?

[j.scooter]

After thinking I could do without a DSLR I recently sold my Sony Full Frame. After a few weeks I am reconsidering....

I tried to sell a couple things on craigslist and my only digital camera (until the Xpro1 ships) is a Nex3. I can unequivocally state the Nex3 and 16mm really SUCKS for product photography 😀😀
That and I like to dable in off camera lighting and shoot mostly portraits.

I have been with Minolta/Sony for quite a while and have not been paying much attention to offerings from other manufacturers. This is were you come in.😉

I am not looking to make a huge investment as this won't be my main camera. I will probably end up with the equivalent of 50mm, 85mm and a 100ish macro.

Here is my DSLR needs:
1. Maximum price for the body $1000
2. something other than Minolta/Sony. I want to broaden my horizons.
3. Bright veiwfinder as close to 100% coverage
4. Something Reliable with decent ergos

Here is what I don't need:
1. ISO up to 126,000, decent files up to 1600 is good enough
2. 20 Fps, I will never use it, 3fs is more than enough
3. Lightning fast AF or more than 3 focus points
4. The latest and greatest on the market

I did a bit of looking today and the Canon 5D looked a little interesting as well as the Nikon D7000 (the D700 would be nice but out of my budget).

Is there anything else I should consider?

Thanks
James

 

[sojournerphoto]

Full frame - Canon 5D 1 or 2

APS-C Pentax K5 - has a 100% viewfinder, is weather sealed and great dynamic range.

All could be superceded soon, but will all make lovely pictures

 

[rxmd]

At $1000 max for the body I'd just get a used 5D. Full frame is simply very nice, the ergonomics are good, if basic (not a camera with 35 autofocus points and a light show going off in the finder), and the viewfinder is very good for DSLR standards.

 

[mfunnell]

At $1000 max for the body I'd just get a used 5D. Full frame is simply very nice, the ergonomics are good, if basic (not a camera with 35 autofocus points and a light show going off in the finder), and the viewfinder is very good for DSLR standards.

+1 I have an original 5D and use it all the time as my primary SLR body (I have an APS-C body as well, mostly for long-lens wildlife shots). I get results I like from my 5D up to ISO1600 and it's even acceptable if pushed to 3200 (which I seldom do) and post-processed with care. It's files print nicely to 13"x19" (which is as large as I can print). The D700 is no-doubt better but, as you say, that's outside your budget.

...Mike

 

[Contarama]

This may be a little bit lower level than you want to go but I just paid $370 at KEH for a Ex+ (which was basically mint just over 5K accuations) Nikon D5000. It has the same sensor as the higher priced D90 and it is compatible with ANY Nikon F mount lens ever made. It works very nicely with my F2...I get the best of both worlds and get to use the same lenses on both bodies.

 

[ssmc]

FF = 5D in this price range, no question, done and dusted!

APS-C... well... depending what you intend to shoot (in terms of lens selection) you might look at a low-mileage Nikon D300 or D300s as an alternative to the D7000. Or a Canon 60D which sells brand new for well under a grand; the AF system only has 9 points so there are less options for setup and use, and it has a nifty tilt/swivel monitor which could be helpful for your intended use. Factory MF focusing screens are available for the 60D which expands your lens options. Its main disadvantage compared to the D300/s is a slightly cropped VF - 96% vs. 100% (and a lower frame-rate which you already said is not important). Compared to the D300 and 7D it lacks AF micro-adjust which may mean getting your lenses calibrated to the body at Canon. This may or may not be a big deal depending where you live.

Ergonomically I find the Nikons more "natural" but it didn't take long to re-train my right hand for the 7D so as not to get blisters on the first knuckle of my middle finger. The 60D is smaller and lighter than either but with equal image quality.

To get the very best RAW conversions from Nikon you'll need to budget for Capture NX2. Canon includes their Digital Photo Professional (DPP) converter with all their DSLRs and like NX2 it does a noticeably better job than ACR (again, IMO).

Hope this helps
Scott

 

[gavinlg]

Canon 5d. I prefer it to the d700. Worlds better than crop DSLRs.

 

[russelljtdyer]

Get Growth Potential

Get Growth Potential

I recommend you get a system you can grow into, such as a Canon EOS camera. I own a Canon EOS 5D, Mark II. If you don't or can't spend that much money, if you at least get any EOS model, you can then use the Zeiss ZE lenses. I like very much and prefer the Zeiss lenses. Of course, you could get one of the other cameras for which Zeiss makes lenses. However, I think the market is bigger for buying and selling the ZE lenses, the one's for the Canon EOS system.

I have now a Zeiss ZE Distagon T* f/2.8 21mm (spectacular photos, great color and very wide), a Zeiss ZE Planar T* f/1.4 50mm lens (just got it, but very natural colors and small), and a Zeiss ZE Planar T* f/1.4 85mm (also an excellent lens with vivid colors). As you can see, I've gone all Zeiss. I've provided shots with each of these three lenses and the Canon 5D, II. Incidentally, these lenses are all manual focus only. The Canon EOS cameras give you focus confirmation, though. I replaced my focusing screen with a split circle image and micro-prism color type from BrightScreens to be able to focus easily and better than with auto-focus.

As a complement to these lenses, I also bought a couple of years ago a Canon EOS 33v. It was used, but in new condition for about $200--or may a good bit less (I don't remember how much I paid). That's the last film camera that Canon designed. They made the Canon 1v (or some other letter after the 1) for a few years afterwards, but 33v was designed afterwards--about seven or so years ago. Basically, the Canon 33v has fairly current technology for focusing and exposure settings. This allows me to have a modern film camera to use with my EOS lenses--or rather now, my Zeiss ZE lenses.

This photograph was taken with the Zeiss ZE Distagon T* f/2.8 21mm lens in a piazza in Verona, Italy. Notice how nicely the buildings wrap around.

I took this one last week with the Zeiss ZE Planar T* f/1.4 50mm lens--I just bought it on a recent trip to the U.S. It's taken at Cordusio in Milan, Italy. Incidentally, this flower stand and plaza were in the movie The International with Clive Owen--not a good movie, but I like that I live near a scene from a big movie.

This last photo I took of myself for Christmas with my Charlie Brown Christmas tree. It was taken with the Zeiss ZE Planar T* f/1.4 85mm lens.

So, again, on the remote chance that you eventually might put more money into your DSLR camera and might want some excellent lenses, consider a camera that will use one of the Zeiss lines of lenses. Canon and Nikon and others makes some fabulous lenses, but I like the value and results of the Zeiss lenses.

 

[Avotius]

As someone who works as a professional commercial photographer I think I can chime in here a bit.

I have a 5D and a 5Dmk2 that I use for studio work. The 5D is just a backup now, but because it is an older camera I find that it is not so good at color accuracy or dynamic range or anything else really anymore. My Olympus EP1 outclasses it in everything from white balance to dynamic range, however the images out of the EP1 are not as sharp as the ones from the Canon 5D.

The 5D mk 2 is by far a better camera, I dont know what used ones are going for but if you can spend a little more money you will be getting a far better camera. Rumblings on the horizon of a soon to be 5D mk3 will also drop mk2 prices so something to think about.

I do a lot of onsite commercial shoots, the 5D has a lot of problems balancing out colors in complex lighting situations where multiple lighting types are used, where I have not had nearly as many problems with the 5d mk 2 or my EP1 which I use for small detail shots with good result. In the studio where you can control all of the light sources its a different mater, the 5D sings there. Just something to think about.

 

[gavinlg]

I have a 5D and a 5Dmk2 that I use for studio work. The 5D is just a backup now, but because it is an older camera I find that it is not so good at color accuracy or dynamic range....

Really? I found my e-p1 severely limited in DR compared to my 5d... Especially highlight range...

 

[Avotius]

Really? I found my e-p1 severely limited in DR compared to my 5d... Especially highlight range...

In the highlights a bit yes, but on the other side of the scale, no. Not that I would suggest the op to get a m4/3 instead of a dslr, but the technology has moved on, and as you might expect an "old" camera like the 5D is still going to have some limitations compared to more recent tech.

 

[j.scooter]

Wow!
Thanks for all your feedback, it is really helpful.
I must admit that I had a look at the Pentax K5 and am really impressed with the weatherproofing. There is a Pentax rep on youtube pouring water all over the camera and lens while it is on. That type of weather proofing would be great for my and open up more uses, I always feel that there are great photo ops in the rain but am always to paranoid that my camera will get damaged. I have also seen some pretty good reviews and the 77 1.8 is supposedly really good. hmmm

The 5D still is intriguing. In my price range Full frame, zeiss lenses and it would meet my needs as I wouldn't expect any challenging lighting situations etc, just natural light or strobes.

Off to do more research...
Open to more suggestions.

Thanks again.

 

[Gid]

I found the focusing of the Pentax K5 with the 18-55WR and 35 1.2 (both inexpensive lenses) to be unreliable, especially in low light and or low contrast scenes. I was disappointed enough to return it and the lenses as faulty - this was in January, so no old firmware. There is a fair amount of internet chatter about the K5's focusing foibles, so you might want to do some in depth research on the camera.

The canon 5d is a terrific camera as long as you can live with its shortcomings. I sold mine last July and regret it to the point that I am seriously considering another - really sharp out of camera.

Good luck with your choice.

 

[Avotius]

If you are going to avoid difficult lighting situations then I think there is nothing wrong with a 5D. Those Pentax cameras are really nice too, frankly its hard to go wrong either way.

 

[Paddy C]

Note: I bought James's a850.

As it's my first DSLR, I'm not knowledgeable enough to offer wide-ranging advice. However, I took a long look at the K5 last year. It is really nice. But I found Pentax's lens lineup to be odd. A lot of strange lengths on APS-C and some of the lenses (the limited ones that everyone is interested in) are rather expensive and, from my research, not any better than what you can get from another system. I.E. they may be overrated.

 

[j.scooter]

Just found this on flickr. Taken with the Xpro1 and off camera lighting.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/74511207@N00/6914653475/sizes/l/in/photostream/


I think before I make any decision about a DSLR I will wait to see how life is with the Xpro1. Maybe I can live without a DSLR????


Thanks again for your thoughts and recommendations.