Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: WMLute on November 08, 2009, 09:07:03 PM
-
Sister is looking at a camera and it is between the Nikon d3000 and the Olympus PEN E-P2.
I know very little about this subject and I would like to pass on good advice.
If not those two, what would be a good all around SLR camera for a novice?
(edit: just talked to a friend who is a photographer and he said to go Nikon or Cannon, and to save up and spend the $1,200 bucks. Unfort. I don't think that is in the budget so if y'all can keep your ideas under $6-700 i'd appreciate it)
-
I'd go with one of the cheaper consumer nikons and then spend a little more on their new zoom "VR" (vibration reduction) lense. I have a nikon D50 and love it, and the newer nikons aimed at the same market as the old D50 have some really nice features. Even the newer D40x is better than my D50, and it's pretty much the low end of their product line right now.
Or get the equivalent low end Canon DSLR, and again spend a bit on a nice second lense. But the original advice to go with nikon or canon is very good advice. You can get a cheaper camera body, splurge on nice lenses if you get into photography, and then upgrade the body later while continuing to use the lenses (if you like them that much). The lense choices with the other camera brands just aren't as good.
If she just wants a complicated point-and-shoot, there are SLR look-alike cameras that are a bit smaller and much cheaper than real DSLR cameras, but they just don't have removable lenses and are aimed at high end consumer use. Some of those are really good and don't cost too much. I'd probably go with Canon if that was what I was going to buy.
-
aaaaah hell just get an iphone............ :neener:
-
Hi, I call myself a semi-pro photographer (meaning I make a profit at it, but don't do it full time) and I like to think that I know more than the average Joe Schmoo with a Canon Rebel about photography. There recently was a similar thread found here
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,276674.msg3472918.html#msg3472918
maybe you can read through it and find some pearls of wisdom there
My advice as to which beginner SLR to buy goes like this.
Short answer: IT DOESN'T MATTER
Slightly longer answer: It doesn't matter because the capabilities of even beginner DSLRs today will far surpass the talents of the beginner photographer. (no offense meant, but most beginners photos suck, doesn't matter what camera you use) You could go out and buy a Nikon D3x ($8,000 SLR) but if you don't know how to use it, you'd get better photos from a $200 point & shoot then from it. It always irks me for some reason when I see people with a $500 or $1,000 or sometimes even a $3,000 camera that don't have a clue and shoot with it set to the "green square" or "P" mode all the time. Why they spent money on an expensive camera, without ever learning how to use it I'll never understand.
So my advice, she should get whatever camera she likes, try some out, does she like the ergonomics, the menu system, the viewfinder (most low end DSLRS have dismally awful viewfinders) does it fit her hand, can she comfortably reach the shutter release, and control wheel.
Something else to consider is what kind of photography she is into, different brand have different strong points in their system which suit different styles of photography.
Also if she really wants to get the most of of any SLR be prepared to shell out more $ for a better lens, ("kit" lenses suck) a decent tripod and/or monopod (shaky hands ruin a lot of photos) and an off camera flash (built in flashes suck too)
Out of the two cameras you mentioned I would get the Nikon just because I think Olympus's 4/3 format is stupid and silly. It can still create good images though. You should also consider Sony and Pentax, the big advantage they have is built in image stabilization so you don't have to spent extra on VR or IS lenses if you want that feature.
-
The lense choices with the other camera brands just aren't as good.
That is total and utter BS! Tell me what lens an amateur photographer is gonna want, that they can't get in a Sony, Pentax or Olympus mount?
The Sony G/Carl Ziess, Pentax Select, and Oly Zuiko lenses are every bit as good as anything from Canon or Nikon, and in some cases -Sony CZ 24-80 2.8- better.
Not to mention the plethora of third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina for all mounts.
This reminds me of more advice. Camera brands have some die hard fans just like many other things in life, don't listen to the fan boys. If someone is pushing you on a certain brand, and saying that all others stink, they are full of it.
spend a little more on their new zoom "VR" (vibration reduction) lense.
Oh and Nikon's VR lenses are not new at all, they've been around for 10 years or more
-
That is total and utter BS! Tell me what lens an amateur photographer is gonna want, that they can't get in a Sony, Pentax or Olympus mount.
The Sony G/Carl Ziess, Pentax Select, and Oly Zuiko lenses are every bit as good as anything from Canon or Nikon, and in some cases -Sony CZ 24-80 2.8- a lot better.
....
I think eagl meant that there are more third party lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts. If so, he's right.
-
I am a professional photographer by trade, and have been for quite a number of years. Personally, I am a Canon guy. Always have been. And really it does matter which you choose, Nikon or Canon... Why you ask... Because once you start with a particular brand, you are pretty much married to that brand for better or worse. It's simply too expensive to change brands once you get going.
That said, whichever brand DSLR you choose, the camera body is less important then the lens choices. Even the relatively inexpensive Digital Rebels that Canon offers will give you a really nice image if you have good glass. Also, if you take care of your lenses, they will continue to serve you well even after you wear out camera body after body. So, my advice would be to get into a consumer grade DSLR (such as a Digital Rebel), then save your pennies to invest (yes I said and meant invest) in the very best lenses that you can afford. As your skills and needs progress, it is easier to upgrade camera bodies then it is to upgrade an entire collection of lenses.
This is the lens that I use more then any other... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/264304-USA/Canon_8014A002_Zoom_Wide_Angle_Telephoto_EF.html
I do a lot of sports photography for local newspapers, for that I use this lens most for indoor sports... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/234444-USA/Canon_7042A002_70_200mm_f_2_8L_IS_USM.html
And this one for outdoor sports.... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/183202-USA/Canon_2531A002_Telephoto_EF_300mm_f_2_8L.html
Obviously, these are some seriously high end lenses and out of reach (financially) of most non-professional shooters. The important point is, as I said, to get the best glass that you can afford for your application. Put some thought into the type of photography that you want to do, then buy lenses that suit that application. If portrait work is your interest, then a lens that goes fairly wide for groups and zooms to 70-100mm for individuals would be a good investment. For indoor action photography, you want something that reaches out to at least 200mm but has the absolutely lowest f stop that you can afford. Outdoor sports, you want 300mm or longer usually. And that lowest possible f stop really helps out when the sun starts going down and the light starts to fade.
Feel free to send me a PM with any more specific questions you (or she) might have. Or if you would like a professionals opinion of a specific model, I'd be more then happy to try and help you out.
-
I think eagl meant that there are more third party lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts. If so, he's right.
Stay away from third party lenses. Even though they seem like a good value, typically the performance of those lenses is far far below what you will get from an actual Canon or Nikon lens. I purchased several Tamron and Tokina brand lenses when I was first starting out (trying to save money) and I can assure you that they don't hold a candle to actual Canon brand lenses.
-
I think eagl meant that there are more third party lenses for Nikon and Canon mounts. If so, he's right.
Everything Sigma makes for Canikon, they make for Sony and Pentax too. With the exception of some $10-$30k lenses like the 200-500mm 2.8.
Again tell me what lens an amateur is gonna want that they can't get in a Sony, Pentax or Oly mount?
-
Stay away from third party lenses. Even though they seem like a good value, typically the performance of those lenses is far far below what you will get from an actual Canon or Nikon lens. I purchased several Tamron and Tokina brand lenses when I was first starting out (trying to save money) and I can assure you that they don't hold a candle to actual Canon brand lenses.
I've heard that, but never experienced it myself, I shoot with a Sigma 70-200mm 2.8 for many years with no problems at all. In fact I found it was just as sharp wide open then the Minolta 80-200mm 2.8 I shoot now (but the Minolta has better color). I also shoot with a Sigma 150-500mm now, and while not as good as the Minolta 600mm f4 I really want, it cost a fifth of the money, I think it's a good deal. (never used Tamron or Tokina though)
As for the expense of switching systems down the road, it's true, I started out with Minolta many years ago, and nearly switched to Nikon (which would have cost me a big loss) when Minolta went under. Fortunately Sony saved Minolta just in time for me.
I don't think it should be a big worry for beginners though. How much money is Lute's sister gonna put into photography really? It depends how serious she is I guess. If she decides she wants to get really serious about it, then worry about that.
PS. Dave what kind of photography do you make a living at. I would love to be a real pro, but it seems like all the money is in weddings these days. I have a friend who is a pro commercial guy, and he has really been struggling lately. I've done a few weddings, but I prefer other things. Lately I've been doing youth rodeo's, which is actually a lot of fun, but I think I'm pulling about as much money as possible out of that. Just trying to think what other disciplines you can make a living at besides weddings.
EDIT:
Some good photography websites to check out:
www.dpreview.com
-has lots of camera reviews, but I'd not believe everything you read in the forums there, lots of die hard "brand fans" there that spent more time arguing about which brand is better than making photos.
www.SLRgear.com
-the place to go for lens reviews
www.Luminous-landscape.com
-thousands of articles, essays and reviews, and a much more useful forum than dpreview
www.cambridgeincolour.com
-Lots of great tutorials to help you understand how photography works.
And places like Flickr, Zenfolio and Smugmug have lots of awesome photos you can check, I always find it helps me be better by looking at others work I like.
-
Stay away from third party lenses. Even though they seem like a good value, typically the performance of those lenses is far far below what you will get from an actual Canon or Nikon lens. I purchased several Tamron and Tokina brand lenses when I was first starting out (trying to save money) and I can assure you that they don't hold a candle to actual Canon brand lenses.
Can't say I've had the same experience. Sure, third party misses the mark on occasion, but do the homework and read the reviews or better yet, find a way to borrow one. I own a Tokina 12-24mm f/4. Great lens, IMHO.
-
PS. Dave what kind of photography do you make a living at. I would love to be a real pro, but it seems like all the money is in weddings these days. I have a friend who is a pro commercial guy, and he has really been struggling lately. I've done a few weddings, but I prefer other things. Lately I've been doing youth rodeo's, which is actually a lot of fun, but I think I'm pulling about as much money as possible out of that. Just trying to think what other disciplines you can make a living at besides weddings.
I used to be primarily a Sports/Action photographer, but I suffered a badly broken leg in a fall from about 25ft and can't really manage that kind of pace anymore. I did a lot of youth sports back then. Here is a the web site to the company I used to be half owner of, my old partner is still doing what I used to do. GainesPhoto.com
It takes a lot of hard work to make money doing youth sports.
Now I do some freelancing for the local papers, mostly High School sports. Not much money in it, but it's fun. My real income comes from weddings. If you want to make a living in photography, weddings are what you really need to be doing. Aside from that, I still do some portrait work occaisionally too, but I don't advertise it.
If you're looking to get going on a serious professional level, I'm more then happy to offer up some advice. Just drop me a PM. I can tell you how to make money doing something like your youth rodeos too.
-
Can't say I've had the same experience. Sure, third party misses the mark on occasion, but do the homework and read the reviews or better yet, find a way to borrow one. I own a Tokina 12-24mm f/4. Great lens, IMHO.
Glad to hear you have had good luck, I have not. My first 300mm f2.8 was a Tokina lens. I bought it because it was about half the cost of the Canon. Big mistake. The lens was significantly slower focusing and less accurate in it's focus too. I used it for about 3 years and finally couldn't take it anymore and purchased a Canon 300mm f2.8 IS. The difference between the two was HUGE! The Canon lens was worth every penny, even though it cost me twice what the Tokina did. I've had the Canon 300mm for about 8 years now, no complaints at all. I've similar experiences with a Tokina 70-200mm f2.8 (might have been 80-200mm, I forget) and a Tamron lens in the 28-105mm f2.8 range.
I'll never buy another third party lens. Ever.
If you are looking to buy a professional grade lens, trying it out before you buy it is good advice. There are quite a few companies that will rent you a pro grade lens for a few days, you just have to do the leg work to find one in your region.
-
Lute, I just realized how badly your thread has gotten of the intended topic. Sorry about that.
If your sister is simply looking for a camera to take general family type shots... Check out this camera... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/605216-REG/Canon_2664B001_PowerShot_SX1_IS_Digital.html
I bought one of these for my wife (because she is intimidated by my expensive cameras) and she loves it. It takes great images, but is flexible enough to grow with the photographer (to some extent). If your sister decides later that she wants to get a bit more serious about photography, she may want to eventually upgrade to a more traditional style SLR. But if she just wants an easy to use camera, that takes great photos and is more capable then a basic point and shoot camera... This would be a good choice.
It has a very nice optical zoom lens (always ignore digital zoom when looking at cameras, optical zoom is all that counts). It has the capability to simulate different ISO settings (film speeds), up to a simulated ISO 3200. At 10 megapixels, it has plenty of resolution. It has a hot shoe for a bigger flash if she finds that the pop up flash isn't cutting it (pop up flashes usually suck, so the ability to mount a stronger flash is nice. That said, my wife uses the pop up all the time and other then some occaisional red-eye it works pretty good for general family type shots). And it does really nice video clips too, which isn't a feature I thought we would ever use when I bought it for my wife, but turns out it is kind of fun to use and we like the video feature.
-
I'm going to side with PFactorDAVE about lenses vs bodies. Being an improving amateur photographer whose mistakes certainly overwhelm
his successes, I'd like to pass on something I learned from a Photography Teacher in college: lenses are made of glass...only light passes
through that glass...IF, and only IF you take care of that glass, light will not hurt the glass. But, improper handling, cleaning, or dropping it will.
I am in the same situation as Lute at the moment...my Sister (who will be 60 in a month) wants to learn photography and this is what I've told her:
20 years ago I bought my first camera, a Cannon EOS 630 and I knew NOTHING about photography. I skipped buying the "kit" lens and opted for the 28-100mm lens which cost me some extra cash. The point is...I listened to the guy selling me the camera who told me that the standard 50mm lens would not serve me well over time. Within six months I bought a 100-300mm lens to go with my 28-100mm lens and I was quite happy with the range I now had with my lenses, 28mm to 300 mm, I can't miss! Watch out National Geographic, here I come! I burned up roll after roll of film and finally took some courses in photography from a local Community College. VERY quickly I outgrew all of the "automatic" functions on the camera body and was manually dialing in ISO, f-stop, etc., and manually focusing the lens as well, and developing and printing my shots. They were HORRIBLE! But, I persevered and kept shooting! Encouraged by my Photography Teacher (who also said, "Film is the cheapest thing in photography") I kept shooting and challenging myself to "see the shot before I took it". I read and read and read about photography, and I bought filters, and I began to work my shot backwards; I began to "see" it first, then input to the camera what I thought the camera body with the lens I had selected needed in order for me to develop and print what I "saw". And...I began to get some fairly good shots. I am by no means a professional. I like to consider myself as an, "Advancing Beginner".
If you've read this far then you're ready for this: 2 years ago I bought a Cannon EOS 40D digital camera. And! My 20 year old lenses work just as well with it as they did with my EOS 630 (Oh! And by the way, I can still buy film for my EOS 630!). The money I saved in not having to buy new lenses with the body enabled me to buy a lens that I was only able to rent one time, 18 years ago: a 100MM Macro lens!
The shots I have taken with this Macro lens have encouraged my Sister to learn. So! At Christmas time she will inherit my Cannon EOS 40D and 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, and still do on my 20 year old EOS 630.
My suggestion: buy the body...work for the lenses!
Oh! One other thing! When I was a kid my Dad had the camera that changed lenses and had flash bulbs...I think it was an Argus. My Mom had the camera that looked like a black box...I think it was a Kodak Brownie. Nevertheless...more of Mom's shots were in "The Family Album"!
just thoughts...keep it simple. ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(http://www.thelovelyroom.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pentax-kx-100-colors-100-styles1.jpg)
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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).
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_6944.jpg)
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!
-
"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!
-
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.
-
with all the experts on here I cant believe that nobody has mentioned that the Pen EP2 isnt an SLR ... or that it costs almost double the equivalent spec (ie. entry level) Olympus DSLR. its a little smaller than a DSLR but has no optical viewfinder, flip out LCD, and its much slower than a DSLR in operation. iirc its also missing bracketing and a couple of other useful features. when it was announced I was quite excited and started looking around for decent old Zuiko Auto lenses (50/1.4 and 135/3.5) which are very cheap, until I saw the price, and the $200 for the OM converter...
btw Dave why take 2 bodies to an event? I can understand with old SLRs you may want 2 film types to hand but with a DSLR?
-
with all the experts on here I cant believe that nobody has mentioned that the Pen EP2 isnt an SLR ... or that it costs almost double the equivalent spec (ie. entry level) Olympus DSLR. its a little smaller than a DSLR but has no optical viewfinder, flip out LCD, and its much slower than a DSLR in operation. iirc its also missing bracketing and a couple of other useful features.
btw Dave why take 2 bodies to an event? I can understand with old SLRs you may want 2 film types to hand but with a DSLR?
I can't answer for Dave, but I take 2 bodies to an event; 1- so I have a backup if something dies or goes wrong. 2- so I don't have to constantly switch lenses, setting etc..
Recently I've been shooting the A900 w/ CZ 24-70mm 2.8 w/ HVL F48 flash and A700 with Minolta 80-200mm 2.8, or Sigma 150-500mm 6.3 if I need more reach and HVL F58 flash w/ better beamer That way I can switch between the long shoots, and short shots without changing lenses all the time.
The A700 with long lens stays on a monopod, and the A900 goes around my neck.
-
btw Dave why take 2 bodies to an event? I can understand with old SLRs you may want 2 film types to hand but with a DSLR?
Once upon a time I was half owner of a Sports Photography business. We would shoot action shots at youth sporting events and then sell prints to the parents. Well, the majority of our business was Baseball and Softball tournaments. I got into the habit of carrying two bodies then, one with a long lens and one with a short lens... Why you ask? Well, imagine that you are on the sideline of a baseball game, right in the middle of a lens change when a gust of wind kicks up a huge cloud of dust that comes right at you and your exposed shutter/mirror. I used to carry two bodies simply so that would never ever ever happen.
Mostly just a habit though. I like to be able to go from long lens to something wider and then back to long without missing a beat.
As for the Pentax EP2 not being an SLR, I haven't paid any attention to Pentax for years. They generally are almost never used professionally in this country. In fact, I can't remember the last time I even saw one at an event. In the last 10 years or so, most of the journalists are using Canons or Nikons, somewhat heavier on the Canon end (when Canon introduced Image Stabilized lenses was when Canon took over from Nikon, Nikon has been playing catch up since).
-
fair enuf :aok had that happen to me once years ago at an airshow (dam helicopters), so much dust got in I had to pack my A1 away for the rest of the day til I could get it home to clean it. needless to say my backup olympus trip 35 wasnt ideal for capturing the air display ... :furious
-
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.
I agree with you, but I feel that Sony has as good as Stability as Canon now.
Minolta IS gone, they sold all their design's and technology to Sony, so I now shoot Sony bodies with a lot of old Minolta glass.
I would personally say that Sony is safe, as well as Canon and Nikon. Sony has a MASSIVE consumer electronics division to keep it going, and have done really well in gaining market share that Minolta never had. Like I said both Sony and Nikon have been eating away at Canon.
check it out:
http://www.photographyblog.com/news/dslr_market_shares_gainers_losers/
http://www.photoscala.de/Artikel/DSLR-Welt-im-Wandel
The only thing Sony is really lacking now as far as a Pro system is the support (fast service centers, lens rental availability, etc) but that is growing too. I know of at least half a dozen well respected pros shooting with the A900 now.
Pentax and Olympus, I have now idea what their long term stability looks like, but I hope they make it, more competition is always better.
Sigma (camera division, not lenses) and Fuji both going down the crapper I think, wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
-
The only thing Sony is really lacking now as far as a Pro system is the support (fast service centers, lens rental availability, etc) but that is growing too.
~~~
Sigma (camera division, not lenses) and Fuji both going down the crapper I think, wouldn't touch them with a ten foot pole.
That hadn't occured to me yet, but from a professional standpoint, the fast service centers are very important. I don't know about Nikon or Sony, but I can tell you from first hand experience that Canon's service is very very good. You can overnight a camera with a crapped shutter on Monday and have it back in working order for the Football game Friday night.
I'm not informed on Sigma, but agree completely about Fuji. It's a real shame too, Fuji used to make some really nice gear. But in the last few years, they have lost most of their film business due to digital proliferation. Now that the film division is dying, it can no longer prop up the digital camera division like it used to. And Fuji was slow to see the change in their business model coming. I fear that it has terminally cost them.
-
II would personally say that Sony is safe, as well as Canon and Nikon. Sony has a MASSIVE consumer electronics division to keep it going,Pentax and Olympus, I have now idea what their long term stability looks like, but I hope they make it, more competition is always better.
i don't think he meant that Sony might go out of business, he meant that if Sony's management decided to drop cameras because cameras were not bringing in enough profit. You know how big businesses are, they will close you even if you are making money, just not a lot of money.
-
i don't think he meant that Sony might go out of business, he meant that if Sony's management decided to drop cameras because cameras were not bringing in enough profit. You know how big businesses are, they will close you even if you are making money, just not a lot of money.
Ya, that's what I meant. But honestly, I didn't realize that Sony had already killed the Minolta name. I'm always a little suspect of Sony, they've always struck me as one of the evil corporations... :D
-
i don't think he meant that Sony might go out of business, he meant that if Sony's management decided to drop cameras because cameras were not bringing in enough profit. You know how big businesses are, they will close you even if you are making money, just not a lot of money.
I don't think that will happen, but if it does I'm screwed!! I'd go Nikon.
Sony has done very well in the video industry for years before it ever got into SLRs, so I think they know how to make it profitable. I bet many of the TV shows we all watch are shot with Sony's. They've also release a whole plethora of beginner SLRs recently, trying to lure beginners to Sony so that they have a solid base to build the future on.
-
I don't think that will happen, but if it does I'm screwed!!
I doubt that it will happen too.
Best thing Sony did was get away from those idiotic proprietary Memory Sticks. Going with the industry and using Compact Flash cards was definitely a smart move. If they are going to seriously compete in the pro market though, they're going to have to develop the shutter technology that allows the super fast 8-10 frames per second that Canon and Nikon offer. The photo journalists drive the equipment market, and the high frame rates are a must have for those (us) guys. That and I just looked up their 300mm f2.8 and nearly choked on the price, $6300. That's roughly 50% higher priced then the equivalent Canon lens and a full $1000 more then the Nikon 300mm f2.8.
Issues like that will be what prevents Sony from busting seriously into the pro market. I would consider it a bad business decision to go with a Sony right now.
-
You can pick up a Canon D60 body at a great price these days.Even though it's only a 6.1MP,the photos it makes are really nice and sharp. Very low noise.I recently upgraded to the 50D,and love it.My only issue with the D60 was I could only go up to 1000 ISO. I keep the D60 as a backup,but I never plan on selling it because of the quality pictures it makes. B&H Photo is a good source for photo gear.
-
these always work fine for me
(http://www.fotocentreplus.co.uk/shop/images/Kodak_Disposable_camera.jpg)
:bolt:
-
Newbie obviously doesn't take in-flight photos at air shows; or pics of the young ladies flashing their boobies in the upper decks of baseball games. :x
-
I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT and it is a nice camera.
I have had a play with a Canon SX20IS though - that is what i want, even if it is a downgrade from a DSLR. Superb camera.