What digital camera do you use?
- Thread starter 10-Ring
- Start date
- Status
Blatant fan boyism, Canon used to have better high ISO noise, but Nikon currently has caught up, and is beating Canon in certain camera brackets. But picture quality has been the same if not a little better from Nikon's.
Anyways for $1,200:
D50 used B&H: 400
Sigma 70-300 Macro Lens: 220
Sigma 28-70 2.8: 330
Nikon SB600: 185
Lexar 1GB SD Card: 30
That should be about $1200 including shipping, all the prices are from B&H Photo Video.
10-Ring, it does depend on what kind of images you want to produce and how much you're willing to spend on something that's basically money down the drain. If the only thing you do is shoot controlled conditions in your living room, you can get away with a decent point and shoot. I've been using a Canon G3 for almost the last two years to record stuff around the apartment and people have been very complimentary about the images.
For anything in uncontrolled conditions, a DSLR is generally a better choice. I've used both Canon (300D, 10D, 1D MK2) and Nikon (200D) DSLRs. I was very pleased with the Canon line but I sold all that gear to help with the move out west. I happened to have Nikon manual focus lenses when I looked at DSLRs again so that's the brand I went with after reading the reviews on DPreview.com. If the camera doesn't see much abuse, you'd be safe to go with one of the plastic fantastics from a major manufacturer like Canon/Nikon. I've been known to drag my gear into cave pools and up the sides of mountains, so I prefer a little more metal in my gear. For example, the lower end Canon DSLRs will usually have the same sensors as the mid-tier (used to be that way for the 300D and 10D anyway), and using the same lens you'd get the same image from both. What you got for a higher price was more frames per second, some additional features, and a more robust body.
I have both a Canon P&S and a Nikon DSLR. I wanted something that would be able to do movies as well as still pictures, and the DSLRs won't get you that. Also wanted something to slip into a pants or jacket pocket, another DSLR failing. If want to capture the shell ejection of a semi-auto, I resort to the five frames per second on the DSLR.
Sites like Imaging-Resource.com and DPreview.com have been extremely useful to me when making a purchasing decision.
For anything in uncontrolled conditions, a DSLR is generally a better choice. I've used both Canon (300D, 10D, 1D MK2) and Nikon (200D) DSLRs. I was very pleased with the Canon line but I sold all that gear to help with the move out west. I happened to have Nikon manual focus lenses when I looked at DSLRs again so that's the brand I went with after reading the reviews on DPreview.com. If the camera doesn't see much abuse, you'd be safe to go with one of the plastic fantastics from a major manufacturer like Canon/Nikon. I've been known to drag my gear into cave pools and up the sides of mountains, so I prefer a little more metal in my gear. For example, the lower end Canon DSLRs will usually have the same sensors as the mid-tier (used to be that way for the 300D and 10D anyway), and using the same lens you'd get the same image from both. What you got for a higher price was more frames per second, some additional features, and a more robust body.
I have both a Canon P&S and a Nikon DSLR. I wanted something that would be able to do movies as well as still pictures, and the DSLRs won't get you that. Also wanted something to slip into a pants or jacket pocket, another DSLR failing. If want to capture the shell ejection of a semi-auto, I resort to the five frames per second on the DSLR.
Sites like Imaging-Resource.com and DPreview.com have been extremely useful to me when making a purchasing decision.
What I'm using...
A Canon 20D DSLR with three interchangeable lenses: Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 75-300mm zoom, and a Sigma 10-20mm wide-angle. I do architecture, real estate, construction, chamber-of-commerce local color, shooting academy action shots and tabletop product photos (guns 'n knives a specialty). The wide-angle was/is an absolute necessity for many of the architectural subjects.
Got all of it on eBay for a few hundred less than original retail. The 20D is not a current-year model by any means, but was a popular model at the time and a slight departure from the 10D. After spending a year researching many types and models--and talking to friends who are high-end amateurs or out-n-out professionals, the perfect compromise was the Canon 20D.
Canon also makes a comparable ultra-wide-angle lens of this type but it's about $200 more than the Sigma.
My backup emergency digital is the HP945 Photosmart, a reasonable little cam for certain types of work. No interchangeable lens capability, but takes crisp photos and the color (along with anything else) can be adjusted in Photoshop. I also have a full 35mm Minolta film workhorse camera field kit that is also now a backup system. It has three superb lenses too, and that's one reason I'm keeping it. Super-sharp negatives and prints.
A Canon 20D DSLR with three interchangeable lenses: Canon 18-55mm, Tamron 75-300mm zoom, and a Sigma 10-20mm wide-angle. I do architecture, real estate, construction, chamber-of-commerce local color, shooting academy action shots and tabletop product photos (guns 'n knives a specialty). The wide-angle was/is an absolute necessity for many of the architectural subjects.
Got all of it on eBay for a few hundred less than original retail. The 20D is not a current-year model by any means, but was a popular model at the time and a slight departure from the 10D. After spending a year researching many types and models--and talking to friends who are high-end amateurs or out-n-out professionals, the perfect compromise was the Canon 20D.
Canon also makes a comparable ultra-wide-angle lens of this type but it's about $200 more than the Sigma.
My backup emergency digital is the HP945 Photosmart, a reasonable little cam for certain types of work. No interchangeable lens capability, but takes crisp photos and the color (along with anything else) can be adjusted in Photoshop. I also have a full 35mm Minolta film workhorse camera field kit that is also now a backup system. It has three superb lenses too, and that's one reason I'm keeping it. Super-sharp negatives and prints.
Attachments
I'd recommend one of the lower-end Canon DSLRs or an EOS (whichever has the low-lag shutter speed - I can't recall). Theyre pretty cheap these days, especially if you can find one used and in good condition. My brother got his (can't recall the exact model #) bout 2 years ago for IIRC $350, and he's taken some incredible photographs with it. It was his first non-point-and-click camera, and he's grown into it marvelously. Here's some of his work with the camera, to show what's possible:
http://www.myspace.com/abram (Can't find his deviantart site - he's got a lot more stuff on there)
I've got a Canon G5 (5megapixel), an expensive "normal" digital camera that has many of the features of the SLR/EOS cameras, minus the cool quick shutter feature and the ability of taking lenses. Foolish purchase on my part, as I could've gotten more for less, BUT: I have the advantage of taking high-res photos, and I do have shutter timing, aperture, etc. control via jog dial. Not as nice as a "digital 35mm" camera, but still good enough to take some very nice photos.
Overall, I'd recommend canon equipment: cheaper than the competition in many cases, and IMO they've got the best digital photography and video chips out there by far. Anything over 5mp will likely be more than enough resolution for anything you'd want to do. (2000x1500 pixels or so? it's huge)
For photo prints up to (say) 8"x11" in size, any of the modern and recent (2 - 3 years) 'professional' and semi-professional cameras are, IMO, on par with a decent 35mm, if not superior.
http://www.myspace.com/abram (Can't find his deviantart site - he's got a lot more stuff on there)
I've got a Canon G5 (5megapixel), an expensive "normal" digital camera that has many of the features of the SLR/EOS cameras, minus the cool quick shutter feature and the ability of taking lenses. Foolish purchase on my part, as I could've gotten more for less, BUT: I have the advantage of taking high-res photos, and I do have shutter timing, aperture, etc. control via jog dial. Not as nice as a "digital 35mm" camera, but still good enough to take some very nice photos.
Overall, I'd recommend canon equipment: cheaper than the competition in many cases, and IMO they've got the best digital photography and video chips out there by far. Anything over 5mp will likely be more than enough resolution for anything you'd want to do. (2000x1500 pixels or so? it's huge)
For photo prints up to (say) 8"x11" in size, any of the modern and recent (2 - 3 years) 'professional' and semi-professional cameras are, IMO, on par with a decent 35mm, if not superior.
nitesite
Member
Even if there's a better camera out there than the one I've got, I still consider myself blessed and fortunate that I have a good DSLR. Truth is, I'd probably be quite proud of any of them!
Last edited:
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
- Status
