Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Buying a DSLR
- Thread starter djejrejk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
nice to have all your input. guess i should add pentax to the list. guess the next move is to go handle a couple. thanks op as well, theres alot of good information in this thread!
One downside to Pentax is they currently manufacture a fairly limited range of lenses, and Pentax lenses tend to be more expensive than their Canon or Nikon equivalents.
Also, while it's fun to look at all the options that are available from each manufacturer, it's far more important to look at the components you will actually buy. While I find Canon's tilt-shift lenses pretty cool, I'm never going to buy one.
Also, while it's fun to look at all the options that are available from each manufacturer, it's far more important to look at the components you will actually buy. While I find Canon's tilt-shift lenses pretty cool, I'm never going to buy one.
If I'm not going pro, Pentax K10D over Canon 400D/XTi. The bare minimum Canon I'd go for is the 40D.
You realize that the OP asked about a sub $1000 camera? And the non OP is asking about a $5-600 camera.
Yes, but all I meant is that I wouldn't buy the 400D/XTi. If I was insistent on buying a Canon, I would need to buy at least the 40D, or the 30D (if he can find one). I would be less hesitant to buy a cheaper camera from Nikon, Pentax, and possibly an Olympus. I'd think about the Sony, but I would probably go with one of the other brands. The K10D and D80 are the obvious choices for me, and if you really want something cheap and good, the K100D is a great camera. But since someone said that you can now get the K10D for under $600, that is definitely the best deal.
Cameras don't get worse with age....only cheaper. The K10D was given award after award in 2006 and beginning of 2007. It still takes great photos.
Cameras don't get worse with age....only cheaper. The K10D was given award after award in 2006 and beginning of 2007. It still takes great photos.
For a first DSLR, there's nothing wrong with the 400D. For most people, the difference in output is negligible, and the difference in price isn't worth the output difference. This should be about what's right for the OP, and a 400D would suit them just fine.
I like the image quality, but hate the camera. Why are the Canon G-series cameras built better than their DSLR? At one point, the "Digital Rebel" cameras sold for $1000 and were built like toys, while the G-cameras were always built quite well. They're still built well. The photo quality is good, but I don't believe there's much difference in photo quality between top-end and bottom-end cameras anyway. That, and the Rebel XTi's "industry worst" kit lens doesn't really make their package unappealing. On the other hand, the situation has changed because as of 2 months ago, Canon's new kit lens is supposed to be great.
Anyway, for $600 USD, the Pentax K10D is amazing value.
Anyway, for $600 USD, the Pentax K10D is amazing value.
This is completely fallacious, Pentax lenses are almost always cheaper than their Canon or Nikon Equivalents. And they have every single realistic lens that anyone could ever need. Plus, as a result of the merger with Hoya Glass Company they are going to seriously ramp up both production and number of lenses in 2008. Also, the Pentax is backward compatible with every single K-mount lens that has ever been produced, as well as M42 screwmount lenses with a cheap adapter, so I don't really think that you can truthfully say that their lens selection is limited.
I really can't see any disadvantage to the Pentax system vs the NiCanon systems, apart from those fabricated by Nicanon users themselves. But if it were me and I had to pick between a Nikon D40 or a Canon XTi, it'd be the D40. I can't stand the hollow plastic feel that the XTi has, it certainly doesn't inspire confidence to get out and actually use the camera in the same way I use my K10D; I'd be afraid I'd break it.
SLC
Never thought I'd see Canon and Nikon on the same side of a debate. 
No matter who wants to say what we should all agree the following is true:
-All cameras out right now take good pictures (Some better than others, but all good)
-The best way to find out if you like a camera is to handle it
No matter who wants to say what we should all agree the following is true:
-All cameras out right now take good pictures (Some better than others, but all good)
-The best way to find out if you like a camera is to handle it
Actually, cameras get better with age, or rather, the RAW software used to process their pictures.
People are getting much better results with their weird old Kodaks than some years ago.
all prices from bhphotovideo:
35mm f/2.0 (Pentax $300, Canon $230, Nikon $300)
100mm f/2.8 Macro (Pentax $525, Canon $450,
50-200 f/4-5.6 (Pentax $230, Canon 55-200 $200, Nikon 55-200 $170)
I could try to find some more. Pentax also has limited options in the way of telephoto zooms, not to mention telephoto primes. Pentax also doesn't offer the f/1.4 or 1.2 primes that Nikon and especially Canon does (excepting a 50mm f/1.4).
That said, no one needs all the options, we just need the lenses we need. As long as Pentax (or a third-party maker) offers all the lenses you want, it's not a problem.
You are right on the 50-200 mm lens, the pentax is about $30 more than the Canon.
But the other 2 are ultra high quality lenses from Pentax. You would make a better comparison between them and the Canon L equivalent. That and the fact that the 35 mm is no longer in full scale production so the prices have gone up significantly, FA's are the mid 90's 35 mm film lenses, and they would be compatible should Pentax release a Full Frame digital.
But as you said, as long as the lenses you need are available from any manufacturer, you need not worry about what brand you choose.
SLC
But the other 2 are ultra high quality lenses from Pentax. You would make a better comparison between them and the Canon L equivalent. That and the fact that the 35 mm is no longer in full scale production so the prices have gone up significantly, FA's are the mid 90's 35 mm film lenses, and they would be compatible should Pentax release a Full Frame digital.
But as you said, as long as the lenses you need are available from any manufacturer, you need not worry about what brand you choose.
SLC
OK, admittedly, I've never used either. But the idea that the $300 Pentax f/2.0 35mm lens should be more accurately compared to the $1120 Canon F/1.4L 35mm lens is a little, well, not believable. Pentax does not have any equivalent high-end lenses to the Canon L series (at least not currently in production--except maybe the Tokina/Pentax 50-135 f/2.8), especially in the telephoto range. Pentax users tend to point to the FA series as L equivalent, but the reality is that they are at least 1 stop slower than the L lenses.
On the other hand, Canon doesn't make those neat little pancake lenses like Pentax's 21mm f/3.2, 40mm f/2.8, and 70mm f/2.4.
Also, it may be fine for many users that Pentax doesn't have any L level glass. None of my four lenses are L series. I don't know that I'll ever own one either. They are expensive, to be sure.
I just went through all this and ended up with a NIkon d40
www.dpreview.com was a great resource in making a decision, as was a site run by Ken Rockwell: http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
www.dpreview.com was a great resource in making a decision, as was a site run by Ken Rockwell: http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm
It's not just Pentaxians that consider FA glass to be on the level of L glass. It's a lot of reviewers and image testing houses. Pentax made a series of glass falled FA* (gotta have the asterisk) that really hasn't been matched for color accuracy, or quality. But lenses like the FA(no asterisk) 50 mm F/1.4 are often cited as being optically superior to any comparable primes on the market, even the 50 mm F/1.2 L from Canon, I own this lens and have almost no use for it under about F/2.4, I can't see any real value to having F1.2 when F/1.4 is almost unusable for 99% of situations because of it's very very very shallow depth of field. At F/1.4 depending on the distance between me and the subject, I've had the DOF as shallow as 1/4 inch.
I'm not saying all this as a dig on Canon, just saying that you have to dig a little deeper and have a little Pentax knowlege to understand why their glass is (almost) always comarably cheaper.
I had an interesting experience last night that kinda helped me understand why Canon is held in such an untouchable gold standard among many users. I was at Best Buy looking for Christmas gifts for my mom and I stopped in the camera section for a moment to check out the new Sony A-700. I was playing with it and my wife called out to me from a few yards away to see what I was doing, I told her I was checking the new Sony. Then a woman behind me tapped me on the shoulder and said "you don't want that piece of trash" I asked why, and she told me "my husband has used Canon for years". I responded by saying "really, well my wife and I have never been big Canon fans"; you'd think I'd punched her 97 year old mother in the teeth or something. She got all huffy with me, and said "well if you look at all these pictures you'll notice they were all taken with a Canon" (Best buy has photographs framed on the wall above where the DSLR's are displayed) "see Canon, Canon, Canon." just then, an assistant manager walked by and pointed out that Canon sends the pictures in so best buy can display them as advertisement. Apparently it works quite well, most people come in, see the photos, and decide that if they want to make a picture like that it requires a Canon. They play off the market's ignorance, I imagine it's much the same reason you see Canon's all over the photographer's pits at sporting events, I'll bet Canon has a large role to play in offering sports photographers their equipment for a very reasonable price, they become billboards for the brand. I don't have anything against Canon personally, I evaluated them initially and decided that for the price and for my needs, Pentax gave me way more bang for the buck. And I feel for what I pay, I get a far better quality of product. One only needs to handle a K10D and kit lens vs an XTi and it's kit lens side by side to see what I mean. K10D would be better compared to the 40D, but I got it at a price competitive to the XTi so that's why I make that comaprison. It's just that Pentax doesn't have a cut rate quality line of optics.
SLC