Camera People

[PFactorDave]

 I am trusting Santa to bring me a Cannon EOS 5D MkII body (I'll work overtime for the lenses   ). I am hoping that my 20 year old lenses will give me the same full frame 35mm service on the EOS 5D MkII as they have done

You'll love the 5D, that's the body I am using for weddings and portrait work these days.  I love it.   Then for sports/action I'm shooting with an EOS1D Mk3 (the 10mp 10fps version).

I'm thinking about getting the wi-fi transmitter vertical grip for my 5D, but the reviews on it seem a bit mixed.  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590439-REG/Canon_2806B002_WFT_E4A_Wireless_File_Transmitter.html

And you will get full frame from the 5D, like you are used to with your film camera.

[saggs]

Lute,

Yeah getting back on topic, (sorry if I went off yesterday, I have the flu and it makes me cranky)

Out of the 2 cameras you mentioned I would definitely go with the Nikon.  Olympus now uses a 4/3 or four thirds sensor format, which is smaller then all the aps-c SLRS like Canon Rebels and Nikon D3000, D40.  The only advantage I see in Olys smaller sensor is it let's them build smaller bodies.

Like Dave said what lens or lenses you get really depends on what you photograph.  I like to do wildlife and landscapes, so I have some telephoto zooms for wildlife, and some wide angle primes for landscapes, and only one standard zoom for everything in between.  I've thought about getting into macro to, and that would mean more lenses.  With digital bodies, they become dated by newer better technology every few years to, so if you want to keep up with the latest you'll be buying a new camera every few years.  While a good lens will last a lifetime.

Don't count out film either, I still shoot a lot of landscapes with a Pentax 6x7 body and Velvia 50 film.  I got my 6x7 setup about 8 yrs ago with 3 lenses for under $1,200, heck of a deal considering digital backs in that size are $30,000+.  So if you really want to save money up front consider a used 35mm SLR, with everyone going digital they can be had for dirt cheap.

[saggs]

You'll love the 5D, that's the body I am using for weddings and portrait work these days.  I love it.   Then for sports/action I'm shooting with an EOS1D Mk3 (the 10mp 10fps version).

I'm thinking about getting the wi-fi transmitter vertical grip for my 5D, but the reviews on it seem a bit mixed.  http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590439-REG/Canon_2806B002_WFT_E4A_Wireless_File_Transmitter.html

And you will get full frame from the 5D, like you are used to with your film camera.

Dave are you gonna get the 1D mkIV so you can take pictures in the dark?

ISO 102,400 blows my mind, amazing stuff!

I recently went full frame with the Sony A900, love it, my wide primes are actually wide again.  My favorite thing is the FF viewfinder though, I'd almost forgotten how dim and tiny most crop VF are, till I looked into that big bright VF.

[PFactorDave]

Dave are you gonna get the 1D mkIV so you can take pictures in the dark?

ISO 102,400 blows my mind, amazing stuff!

I recently went full frame with the Sony A900, love it, my wide primes are actually wide again.  My favorite thing is the FF viewfinder though, I'd almost forgotten how dim and tiny most crop VF are, till I looked into that big bright VF.

I'm going to wait until the Mk4 has been out for awhile before I pony up for one.  Honestly, I don't have much of a need for a Mk4 right now...  So, I probably won't grab one right away.

[WMLute]

Thanks for all the info.

I am just gonna link her to this thread so she can read it herself.

I appreciate all the time y'all spent helping me out here.

[PFactorDave]

Thanks for all the info.

I am just gonna link her to this thread so she can read it herself.

I appreciate all the time y'all spent helping me out here.

She is more then welcome to contact me to ask any questions she may have.

[GFShill]

Go with a Nikon or Canon and you'll have more options and more convenience when shopping for new toys to mount on the body, like flashes and better lenses. Of course, you'll pay for that convenience by going Nikon or Canon, but in the long run it'll be worth it just because of the upgrade path that's available.

I went Pentax way back in college when I bought a fulyl-manual Pentax K-mount 35mm SLR for a photog class back in 87 and stayed Pentax up to my K10d I bought 2 years ago because I could use the lenses (with limited functionality).  Because of the difficulty in finding newer Pentax lenses in stores, I only carry two lenses with me on "photo safaris": the zoom that came with the kit, and a 100mm-300mm Tamron I use for air shows and action photography that I carried over from the Pentax film camera I had used previously. My older Pentax lenses work well enough if I really need another lens and don't mind not having AF capability, but those two are the backbone of my quiver.

Like PFactorDave said, once you start with a brand's mounting system, you're pretty much married to it.

[saggs]

Go with a Nikon or Canon and you'll have more options and more convenience when shopping for new toys to mount on the body, like flashes and better lenses. Of course, you'll pay for that convenience by going Nikon or Canon, but in the long run it'll be worth it just because of the upgrade path that's available.

In today's age of interweb shopping I think this argument is BS.  Go to B&H or Adorama or KEH and you can find anything by any manufacturer, new and used, and have it shipped to your door in 3 days with no sales tax.  It just bugs me when people say you have to go with Canon or Nikon or life will be so difficult.  By all means if Canon or Nikon has what you want, then go with it, but don't be scared of Sony or Pentax either if they have what you want.

Once again, tell me what lens, or flash system an amateur could want, and afford, that you can't get with Sony or Pentax?  Aside from the reeaaalllly long, fast $6k+ telephoto (although you can still find some Minolta 600mm f4's around) and some T&S lenses they've got it covered as well as Canon or Nikon.  

I started out with a Minolta Maxxum 9000 (first ever autofocus SLR) and have grown with Minolta/Sony ever since.  I liked Minolta back then because I felt they had the best ergonomics, and my buddy had it too, so we could swap lenses.  (and I still think the Maxxum 7 is the best film camera ever made) Besides a few scary months after Minolta sold out and before Sony made a serious DSLR, everything has been great.  Sony/Minolta has always had what I want (most recently a full frame 24 MP body for less then $2000), in body image stabilization, and lots of great old Minolta (and new Carl Zeiss) glass.  That said I could be just as happy with a Nikon system, the aforementioned buddy now shoots Nikon, as he got tired of waiting for a Minolta digital before the 7D.

Recently Sony (and to a lesser degree Nikon) have been eating away at Canon's SLR majority market share, I think this is a great thing for users of all brands, more competition = more innovation and lower prices for everybody.

BUT Sony doesn't have a 10fps camera, or a great low light camera or video, or a 800mm f5.6 lens, (someday they might)  So if you want those features go with Canon or Nikon.

It's all about what you want/need, heck if you wanna do street photography get an old Leica M rangefinder, don't know why but they seem to be very popular among cityscape/street photographers.   If you wanna do stunning landscapes that can fill a wall get an old Pentax 6x7 and some Velvia/Provia film, I love mine.  If you want to do REALLY stunning landscapes that can fill a billboard get a 4x5 view camera.  If you want a really small camera that will fit in your pocket, and still have interchangeable lenses get a Panasonic G1.

Please, I'm NOT a brand fan boy.  I just don't think you should feel like you have to buy a Canon or Nikon, gear IS important, but the person behind it is much more so.  Research all the different systems and get whatever suits your needs best.  Plus as a beginner with only one body and maybe 2 lenses, it's not a huge loss to switch systems once you learn more about photography and discover what you want/need in a system.  It's once your really into it with 2-3 bodies and $10k worth of glass that it is a huge deal.

[ramzey]

best bang for the money, have  image stabilization build in, make HD video, its fast 4.5 fps and it comes in 100 colors

http://www.thelovelyroom.com/2009/09/a-techicolor-dream-pentax-k-x-dslr-in-100-color-combinations/

[jollyFE]

I've had my Nikon D40X for a little over a year an dI love it.  I am totally beginner but I did go out and get a 50 to 200 lens to go along with the 18-50 that came wit it.  I should have spent a lil extra and picked up the 18-200 (mabye it's an 18-250) but whatever....my point being I still have to change lenses depending on what I am shooting and would rather have just the 1 lens that would fufill most of my needs (the 18-200).  I have made prints bigger than 8 x 10 and they really don't pixel out like I thought they would, guess it's the 10.2mp.

[PFactorDave]

In today's age of interweb shopping I think this argument is BS.  Go to B&H or Adorama or KEH and you can find anything by any manufacturer, new and used, and have it shipped to your door in 3 days with no sales tax.  It just bugs me when people say you have to go with Canon or Nikon or life will be so difficult.  By all means if Canon or Nikon has what you want, then go with it, but don't be scared of Sony or Pentax either if they have what you want.

Once again, tell me what lens, or flash system an amateur could want, and afford, that you can't get with Sony or Pentax?  Aside from the reeaaalllly long, fast $6k+ telephoto (although you can still find some Minolta 600mm f4's around) and some T&S lenses they've got it covered as well as Canon or Nikon.  

I started out with a Minolta Maxxum 9000 (first ever autofocus SLR) and have grown with Minolta/Sony ever since.  I liked Minolta back then because I felt they had the best ergonomics, and my buddy had it too, so we could swap lenses.  (and I still think the Maxxum 7 is the best film camera ever made) Besides a few scary months after Minolta sold out and before Sony made a serious DSLR, everything has been great.  Sony/Minolta has always had what I want (most recently a full frame 24 MP body for less then $2000), in body image stabilization, and lots of great old Minolta (and new Carl Zeiss) glass.  That said I could be just as happy with a Nikon system, the aforementioned buddy now shoots Nikon, as he got tired of waiting for a Minolta digital before the 7D.

Recently Sony (and to a lesser degree Nikon) have been eating away at Canon's SLR majority market share, I think this is a great thing for users of all brands, more competition = more innovation and lower prices for everybody.

BUT Sony doesn't have a 10fps camera, or a great low light camera or video, or a 800mm f5.6 lens, (someday they might)  So if you want those features go with Canon or Nikon.

It's all about what you want/need, heck if you wanna do street photography get an old Leica M rangefinder, don't know why but they seem to be very popular among cityscape/street photographers.   If you wanna do stunning landscapes that can fill a wall get an old Pentax 6x7 and some Velvia/Provia film, I love mine.  If you want to do REALLY stunning landscapes that can fill a billboard get a 4x5 view camera.  If you want a really small camera that will fit in your pocket, and still have interchangeable lenses get a Panasonic G1.

Please, I'm NOT a brand fan boy.  I just don't think you should feel like you have to buy a Canon or Nikon, gear IS important, but the person behind it is much more so.  Research all the different systems and get whatever suits your needs best.  Plus as a beginner with only one body and maybe 2 lenses, it's not a huge loss to switch systems once you learn more about photography and discover what you want/need in a system.  It's once your really into it with 2-3 bodies and $10k worth of glass that it is a huge deal.

You know, for the most part, I agree with you.  There is really only one argument, when talking brands, that really should tip the balance toward Canon or Nikon, in my opinion.

Stability.

Canon and Nikon are both solid as a rock.  Neither of them is in danger of disappearing.

Brands like Minolta would scare me personally.  Sure Sony isn't going anywhere, but all it would take is a few bad years by the Minolta brand and I can see a corporation like Sony shutting the brand down or selling it off to some wild card third party.

As highly unlikely as that might sound to you, as a professional, I need to know that my equipment manufacturer is going to be around and solid for as far into the future as humanly possible.  I wouldn't feel that comfort level with Sony calling the shots.

On an unrelated note, I buy 99% of my equipment from B&H.  They have everything you can imagine, ship quickly, and have always stood behind their merchandise if there is a problem.  Plus, their web site is well designed and easy to navigate.

[PFactorDave]

I have made prints bigger than 8 x 10 and they really don't pixel out like I thought they would, guess it's the 10.2mp.

You can make 20x30 poster prints from as little as 3mp cameras.  The trick is what you do to the image before you send it to the photofinisher for printing.  I shot weddings with a Canon 10D for several years.  If I recall correctly, the Large Fine setting was roughly a 3.5 mega pixel image.  To make a nice looking 20x30 print, open the original image in PhotoShop and resize it to 20x30 at 300dpi.  It may take a few minutes, depending on your computer power, and the file will be pretty large, but send that file to the photofinisher and you should get a nice looking print (assuming that the original image was in sharp focus to begin with).

[PFactorDave]

It's once your really into it with 2-3 bodies and $10k worth of glass that it is a huge deal.

That made me chuckle a little bit.  Here's what I pack to shoot the average High School football game (throw in some extra batteries and a flash too).  

 

EOS1D Mk3 - $3600
EOS5D Mk2 - $2600 + vertical grip $250
300mm f2.8 IS - $4300
70-200mm f2.8 IS - $1700
24-70mm f2.8 - $1400
Carbon Fiber Monopod - $225
Aux Battery Pack - $150
580EX Flash - $400

Toss in extra batteries, memory cards, rain hood, shooting vest, occaisionally a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter, etc etc etc, I'm sure I top out over $15000 of gear.  

And that's just a football game...  Don't even get me started on studio lighting!

[Westy]

"Don't count out film either.."

 Amen to that. When I want to get a really great shot for posterity and for framing
I use film. Minolta X-700 and lenses.  Although to be honest the main reason I've
held off on making a decent DSLR purchase is the very high cost - and lousy resale
after they're two years old which is about when it's time to upgrade.

Here's a nice article about that...

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2009/04/everything-old-is-new-againphotography.html

 So for things like a kids birthday party or chaperoning a school trip I use a "p&s"
pocket digital.  

 Enjoying this topic for all the input. It's been a great read and there's lots of really
good advice here. Thanks from me too!

[PFactorDave]

Although to be honest the main reason I've
held off on making a decent DSLR purchase is the very high cost - and lousy resale
after they're two years old which is about when it's time to upgrade.

I can honestly say that I've never let resale even enter the equation.  I shoot a camera body until the shutter fails, then depending on how much I like the body decide if I should replace it or repair it.  I used a Canon 10D for just over 5 years, wore out 2 shutter mechanisms (something like 1.5 million images).  I wouldn't even consider replacing a camera after 2 years, unless there was something about it that I didn't like.  And nobody in their right mind would buy one of my used cameras, I wear them out.

Resist the urge to keep up with the current technology.  If the camera is giving you the images that you want, who cares if there is something better on the market?  All that is important is that you are getting what you want.