I've decided to get serious about photography, camera recommendations?

[shecky]

I'm going to major in Graphic Design, but I've always had an interest in photography, so I thought it would make a great minor.

i agree as well; graphic design and photo are very, very closely related to each other; almost every good graphic designer i know if fluent in photography.

just out of curiosity, what schools are you looking at? i may have some advice in this regard (i teach graphic design + do a lot of photo work.)

i also think you should not be too quick to ignore wet photography; i use as much film stuff as i do digital stuff in my GD work. also (i think this was mentioned before?) if you get a 35mm canon body used that takes the same glass as your digital its almost no additional cost (have to check the mounts, etc.) - here is an EOS 620 body at KEH in great condition for $69.

 

[creator2456]

After doing quite a bit more research I decided that once I get my paycheck, I'll be buying a new Canon Digital Rebel XTi. I found a great deal, although it's slightly out of my price range, I can manage to get enough for it. Thanks for everyone's help . I'm sure I'll have some more questions for you once I get the camera.

Congrats on finalizing the choice.

I went a little overboard with my decision (K10D I think, but I am not disappointed one bit. I went with the Pentax mainly because I have a Pentax SP II 35mm that I use and with a $30 adapter I can use all my 'old' M42 lenses with the K10. I chose the K10 partially because B&H had a great kit deal going and because of the numerous reviews that I read.

By no means will my purchase of the K10D stop me from shooting with my SP II. I love the results from it and there is something special about actually working the darkroom and controlling what happens instead of dragging a few sliders. Also, no matter what the megapixel count is on a camera, film will always beat out digital for large prints.

One thing to check when you get your camera will be its firmware. When I did my camera had ver. 1.0 while the newest was ver. 1.3.

 

[iBookG4user]

i agree as well; graphic design and photo are very, very closely related to each other; almost every good graphic designer i know if fluent in photography.

just out of curiosity, what schools are you looking at? i may have some advice in this regard (i teach graphic design + do a lot of photo work.)

i also think you should not be too quick to ignore wet photography; i use as much film stuff as i do digital stuff in my GD work. also (i think this was mentioned before?) if you get a 35mm canon body used that takes the same glass as your digital its almost no additional cost (have to check the mounts, etc.) - here is an EOS 620 body at KEH in mint condition for $69.

I'm going to visit the Massachusetts College of Art and The Art Institute of Boston at Lesley University in August. I'm also going to be looking at schools in northern California in the next few days to see what good ones they have up there. And I might consider getting a film SLR, but right now I will only have enough for the Canon Digital Rebel XTi, it's going to take up all of my paycheck and spending money.

 

[shecky]

MassArt + AIB are worth a visit. you should look at RISD while you are in the neighborhood as well as Yale, which is not unreasonably far away. i know Northeastern has graphic design but i do not think they have photo.

in NoCal you should check out CCA and UC Berkley, i would avoid the art institute. in SoCal CalArts is a great school you should check out and possibly Art Center.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Canon, all the way. Here are two of the main reasons:

**disclaimer: I have zero brand loyalty, and simply use the best tools for the job. I would switch to Nikon, or whatever else tomorrow if it were better.**

1. Noise performance. Canon absolutely destroys Nikon here. ISO 1600 images from Canon are comparable to ISO 400 images from Canon. Also, the noise in a Canon is monochromatic, Nikons is RGB.

2. Lens Selection. In choosing your body, you are in effect choosing your lens options. You probably won't be throwing down for a bag full of L glass right now, but Canon's lens selection is the most robust.

For those above talking about Canon lens mounts, here is a shot of my 85 f/1.2L, which is a pretty new lens, on a almost ten year old Rebel Film body. I'd actually love to take this combo out with some 3200 ISO or IR film.

(1) The truth but far fetched. I take images with my Nikon D2zs at ISO 1600 and they look like images taken at ISO 400 with virtually no noise. Some photographers just can't shoot. Besides.. the only sensors that Canon has that are worlds better than the Nikon ones are the 1D series. The noise performance on the lower end bodies is better than Nikon's on certain cameras but it does not destroy it depending on how good you shoot.

(2) The lens selection for either system is debatable. Canon offers a lot of glass that overlaps each other... (16-35, 10-22, 17-40, 20-35) and their performance varies too much from lens to lens. this is do to the fact that Canon is the only camera company to have three different sensor types and they have to make lenses that utilize all of them. Most photogs have to either carry the same camera with it's particular type of sensor or carry two lenses that have slightly different focal lengths to reduce the chances of vignetting. And Canon doesn't have an 85mm 1.4 which many concert photogs that shoot Nikon have sworn by.

No matter how far back you go... any Nikon lens will fit on any Nikon camera (sans the DX series) I can grab a 50 year old 50mm and strap it on the front of my D200 and meter with it. No other camera company can do that.

Don't leave out flash systems either. Canon took a very important feature off their flashs a few years ago and many pros in the field have switched to Metz flashes to use on their Canons.

Each system has it's pros and cons, Canon is by no means the best. If you want to use the best, you'll have to pick what you are looking for in a system that is important to you. Image quality might be Canon, but performance and consistency is lacking.

 

[creator2456]

Mini hijack:.

shecky:.

I just want to get a feel for what people think about the program I'm in, so what do you know about UICs (University of Illinois at Chicago) GD program compared to others.

Thanks
.:Hijack over

 

[shecky]

never heard of it as far as GD goes so not sure. i can say that its not a Tier A program, but then again, most programs are not.

 

[Maclomaniac]

This may be a little late in the discussion, but I would highly encourage you to take a film photography class and learn how to become proficient on the mechanics and technical aspects of photography using film rather than digital. It is easy to switch to digital later, but very difficult to go back and learn film once you're used to using a digital and checking your exposures instantly, taking a tons of shots rather than making yourself use the correct settings to get it right in much fewer shots. It forces you to become a much better technical photographer, which will only benefit your long-term skills as a designer and photographer.

 

[kwajo.com]

No matter how far back you go... any Nikon lens will fit on any Nikon camera (sans the DX series) I can grab a 50 year old 50mm and strap it on the front of my D200 and meter with it. No other camera company can do that.

That's not true, Pentax can as well.

 

[Mike Teezie]

(1) The truth but far fetched. I take images with my Nikon D2zs at ISO 1600 and they look like images taken at ISO 400 with virtually no noise. Some photographers just can't shoot. Besides.. the only sensors that Canon has that are worlds better than the Nikon ones are the 1D series. The noise performance on the lower end bodies is better than Nikon's on certain cameras but it does not destroy it depending on how good you shoot.

Noise performance has nothing to do with how well you shoot. If you are talking about underexposing every image, then fixing it later, that's something else. Your images at ISO 1600 may look like your images at ISO 400, I don't know. I do know, however, that Nikon's ISO 400 performance is unacceptable when compared to Canon's.

Where's Nikon's full frame option? They don't offer one, which is a deal killer right from the start for me. And I'd put a 5D against a D2x any day of the week. Of all the Canon pros I talk to and hang out with, every single one prefers the files that come from their 5D's to their 1Ds MKIIs. They say the camera feels like garbage compared to the 1Ds, but the files are better. So, I ultimately chose the 5D's over the 1D's.

(2) The lens selection for either system is debatable. Canon offers a lot of glass that overlaps each other... (16-35, 10-22, 17-40, 20-35) and their performance varies too much from lens to lens. this is do to the fact that Canon is the only camera company to have three different sensor types and they have to make lenses that utilize all of them. Most photogs have to either carry the same camera with it's particular type of sensor or carry two lenses that have slightly different focal lengths to reduce the chances of vignetting. And Canon doesn't have an 85mm 1.4 which many concert photogs that shoot Nikon have sworn by.

All of Canon's lenses will work on any of their cameras except for the EF-S series. It's only a handful of lenses to begin with, and in reality only features one attractive lens - the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

You are right, Canon doesn't have an 85 1.4. They offer a 85 1.8, and an 85 1.2. I fail to see how more choice equals less than. If you want 85 1.4, buy an 85 1.2 and stop it down.

No matter how far back you go... any Nikon lens will fit on any Nikon camera (sans the DX series) I can grab a 50 year old 50mm and strap it on the front of my D200 and meter with it. No other camera company can do that.

Sure. Autofocus wouldn't work, but you could mount it. But what's the draw in that to someone who is just starting the build a camera/lens system?

Don't leave out flash systems either. Canon took a very important feature off their flashs a few years ago and many pros in the field have switched to Metz flashes to use on their Canons.

What feature was that?

I'm not saying you aren't right, but I will say that of every single pro photographer I hang with, every single one shoots Canon, and every single one shoots with 580Ex flashes, myself included. I have never seen a Metz flash mounted to a Canon body at all the photographer's events I attend.

Each system has it's pros and cons, Canon is by no means the best. If you want to use the best, you'll have to pick what you are looking for in a system that is important to you. Image quality might be Canon, but performance and consistency is lacking.

Isn't image quality paramount? I don't understand what you mean when you say performance and consistency. My cameras perform consistently each and every time I pick them up, which is 4-5 days a week. I will say that Canon shutter life is crap. This is an area I wish they would address, and I've complained to the people at Canon Pro Service.


What everyone needs to understand is, we're all talking about the most intricate details of camera systems. To someone just starting out, these details won't be nearly as important - the focus will/should be on making great images. The only reason to debate this stuff is because it's fun if you're a gear nerd like me, and it's good to be able to make an informed decision for your purchase.

 

[creator2456]

That's not true, Pentax can as well.

You beat me to it. That is a big reason I stuck with a Pentax dSLR...didn't want my lenses to just sit there half the time.

 

[Digital Skunk]

Noise performance has nothing to do with how well you shoot. If you are talking about underexposing every image, then fixing it later, that's something else. Your images at ISO 1600 may look like your images at ISO 400, I don't know. I do know, however, that Nikon's ISO 400 performance is unacceptable when compared to Canon's.

Where's Nikon's full frame option? They don't offer one, which is a deal killer right from the start for me. And I'd put a 5D against a D2x any day of the week. Of all the Canon pros I talk to and hang out with, every single one prefers the files that come from their 5D's to their 1Ds MKIIs. They say the camera feels like garbage compared to the 1Ds, but the files are better. So, I ultimately chose the 5D's over the 1D's.

All of Canon's lenses will work on any of their cameras except for the EF-S series. It's only a handful of lenses to begin with, and in reality only features one attractive lens - the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

You are right, Canon doesn't have an 85 1.4. They offer a 85 1.8, and an 85 1.2. I fail to see how more choice equals less than. If you want 85 1.4, buy an 85 1.2 and stop it down.

Sure. Autofocus wouldn't work, but you could mount it. But what's the draw in that to someone who is just starting the build a camera/lens system?

What feature was that?

I'm not saying you aren't right, but I will say that of every single pro photographer I hang with, every single one shoots Canon, and every single one shoots with 580Ex flashes, myself included. I have never seen a Metz flash mounted to a Canon body at all the photographer's events I attend.

Isn't image quality paramount? I don't understand what you mean when you say performance and consistency. My cameras perform consistently each and every time I pick them up, which is 4-5 days a week. I will say that Canon shutter life is crap. This is an area I wish they would address, and I've complained to the people at Canon Pro Service.

What everyone needs to understand is, we're all talking about the most intricate details of camera systems. To someone just starting out, these details won't be nearly as important - the focus will/should be on making great images. The only reason to debate this stuff is because it's fun if you're a gear nerd like me, and it's good to be able to make an informed decision for your purchase.

Sorry... I wrote the post a little too fast.

The feature Canon was missing on their flashes was the PC Sync.

The Mark III has some of the best IQ on the market, but the AF is horrible, it's worse than the Mark II, lack of consistency.

The different size sensors across the line up is a bit of a nuisance. I can't use certain lenses on my 1Ds on my 30D and vice versa, albeit affording a 1Ds means that one can buy any lens they want in most cases.

I do love the Mark III feature list sans a few of the cute non-essential stuff. The resolution and IQ and speed are simply amazing and I am waiting to pull the trigger on my Nikon gear if the D3 isn't up to par with what I need, which is exactly what the Mark III offers. I can afford to wait since I don't shoot stills as much as I do video. But the AF was very disappointing. If I could justify the $25,000 for a Hasselblad that would be it, but that is the cost of the entire small format digital system.

As for noise... I agree, but the images I edit from my D2xs and the newspaper staff's D2xs just don't coincide with the general consensus that Nikon's have bad noise reduction. It does get terrible in certain circumstances, were the ISO is high and the shutter speed is low (i.e. low light fast action) but in every other situation, especially where good technique is used the noise has been little to none.

The audience isn't looking for any particulars that we eggheads have mentioned, you are right, I just don't want us to send him running for Nikon or Canon or Pentax based on personal opinion. When I used to work for Ritz the associates would sell any sucker the most expensive camera based on the associates personal preference and it was just disgusting. Glad I don't work there anymore.

 

[sjl]

The feature Canon was missing on their flashes was the PC Sync.

General comment: how many people are likely to want PC Sync? Remember that if you have a 580EX (or 530EX, or even a MR-14EX or MT-24EX), you can use wireless syncing between the flashes - granted that it's not always an option, but it wouldn't surprise me if that covers most of the need.

I'm not saying that it's not useful, just questioning whether it's really as essential as you seem to be making it out to be.

The Mark III has some of the best IQ on the market, but the AF is horrible, it's worse than the Mark II, lack of consistency.

Indeed, this is generally acknowledged. I suspect Canon is desperately trying to fix it with firmware; if they have to do a hardware rev to sort out the problem, it'll cost them, big time. But it's important to remember that this is the 1D mk 3, which is well outside the price range for the OP; the problems besetting the 1D mk 3 do not affect (to the best of my knowledge) the other bodies in Canon's lineup.

The different size sensors across the line up is a bit of a nuisance. I can't use certain lenses on my 1Ds on my 30D and vice versa, albeit affording a 1Ds means that one can buy any lens they want in most cases.

Any lens you can use on the 1Ds, you can use on the 30D. The field of view changes, yes, but you can deal with that. eg: I'd be very happy to get a 5D and 30D, with the 17-55mm f/2.8 on the 30D and the 70-200mm f/2.8 on the 5D. Or the 70-200mm f/2.8 on the 5D, and the 100-400mm on the 30D if I'm going to be shooting wildlife. Or 17-55mm on the 30D and the 17-40mm (or 16-35mm) on the 5D ... just to give a few examples of how I might pick my kit if I had two sensor sizes in my arsenal. If I were shooting primes, I might pick up a 50mm lens, a 135mm lens, and a 24mm lens, taking advantage of the crop factors to fill in the gaps at 85mm and 35mm.

Different sensor sizes mean that you have the flexibility to pick and choose according to your needs. If you don't want to deal with different sensor sizes, you can always pick your cameras accordingly - the 5D is a superb camera for the price, and would complement the 1Ds very nicely as a backup body.

The audience isn't looking for any particulars that we eggheads have mentioned, you are right, I just don't want us to send him running for Nikon or Canon or Pentax based on personal opinion. When I used to work for Ritz the associates would sell any sucker the most expensive camera based on the associates personal preference and it was just disgusting. Glad I don't work there anymore.

Nikon and Canon are the safe choices; they have over 90% of the DSLR market between them. For somebody to suggest Pentax or Olympus (or, heaven forbid, Sony - yes, I have a bias against Sony as a company, and freely admit it; I cannot comment on the quality of their kit), they need to have a reasonable knowledge of the gear lineup and whether or not it's appropriate for the current and likely future needs of the would-be purchaser. So I think it's fair to say that the perception of pro-Nikon/Canon bias in these forums is rooted in the dominance of these two companies in the market: it's what most people shoot, so it's what most people are familiar with, so it's what most people will suggest. I would not, however, suggest a 5D to somebody just starting out in photography; I'd nudge them towards the 400D or 30D, depending on how serious I thought them to be. Strong knowledge of a given brand does not necessarily equate to overselling; I'd argue, in fact, that a lack of knowledge is more likely to be correlated with overselling.

Just my two cents.

 

[OreoCookie]

I don't understand why the FF fanboys (most of whom own Canons with a crop sensor) are all up in arms, what's the point of the argument? The OP isn't going to shell out 4k+ for new equipment, he's new to photography.

All interesting bodies use cropped sensor anyway, there is no advantage for either Canon or Nikon due to sensor size. Even if the OP buys a Canon body, the lens argument won't work either: most interesting lenses are designed for cropped sensors (in particular wide-angle zooms), he'd have to get new top-of-the-line lenses for his future FF camera.

Besides, FF sensors are overrated, it's what you do with your camera that counts. As are noise comparison charts, photos of bathroom tiles and bricks.

 

[compuwar]

Noise performance has nothing to do with how well you shoot. If you are talking about underexposing every image, then fixing it later, that's something else. Your images at ISO 1600 may look like your images at ISO 400, I don't know. I do know, however, that Nikon's ISO 400 performance is unacceptable when compared to Canon's.

Depends on if you prefer the results of the Canon in-camera noise reduction- many folks don't like it and prefer different algorithms to what's perceived as a "plastic" look many of the Canon bodies produce at high ISO. At 1250 and above you'd have an argument, but you can do full-bleed double spreads at 400 with about any modern Nikon digital and be fine if you expose properly.

I don't shoot a lot of 400 and 800 images, but when I do, my customers are perfectly happy with them. I know quite a few folks who routinely shoot 400-800 with Nikon bodies who's customers aren't telling them their files are unacceptable, and given that it's a factor of overall tonal range in the picture, output resolution, output size, viewing distance and output medium, I'm leary of folks throwing around terms like "unacceptable."

I rarely go above 20" on the short side of prints, but I have to say that when I've done it with files from my D2x I've been pleased with the results without using anything other than in-camera noise reduction. Perhaps you're seeing more exposure issues than most when you trumpet "unacceptable" results, because I can say that my results to date have been quite "acceptable" to me and my customers.

I've seen 1250 to 1600 shots from folks who routinely shoot there for bright tonaly range shots and their shots look more than acceptable to me too. Heck, if I wasn't worried about diffraction, I'd go to 400 a lot more often for some of my work.

 

[Digital Skunk]

General comment: how many people are likely to want PC Sync? Remember that if you have a 580EX (or 530EX, or even a MR-14EX or MT-24EX), you can use wireless syncing between the flashes - granted that it's not always an option, but it wouldn't surprise me if that covers most of the need.

Indeed, this is generally acknowledged. I suspect Canon is desperately trying to fix it with firmware; if they have to do a hardware rev to sort out the problem, it'll cost them, big time. But it's important to remember that this is the 1D mk 3, which is well outside the price range for the OP; the problems besetting the 1D mk 3 do not affect (to the best of my knowledge) the other bodies in Canon's lineup.

Different sensor sizes mean that you have the flexibility to pick and choose according to your needs. If you don't want to deal with different sensor sizes, you can always pick your cameras accordingly - the 5D is a superb camera for the price, and would complement the 1Ds very nicely as a backup body.

Nikon and Canon are the safe choices; they have over 90% of the DSLR market between them. For somebody to suggest Pentax or Olympus (or, heaven forbid, Sony - yes, I have a bias against Sony as a company, and freely admit it; I cannot comment on the quality of their kit), they need to have a reasonable knowledge of the gear lineup and whether or not it's appropriate for the current and likely future needs of the would-be purchaser. So I think it's fair to say that the perception of pro-Nikon/Canon bias in these forums is rooted in the dominance of these two companies in the market: it's what most people shoot, so it's what most people are familiar with, so it's what most people will suggest. I would not, however, suggest a 5D to somebody just starting out in photography; I'd nudge them towards the 400D or 30D, depending on how serious I thought them to be. Strong knowledge of a given brand does not necessarily equate to overselling; I'd argue, in fact, that a lack of knowledge is more likely to be correlated with overselling.

Just my two cents.

I see where this is going. It's not bad but we are going to continue to agree on the main topics and disagree with the technicalities. Thank for being civil though... seriously it's hard to find courteous people on a lot of forums these days.

But the PC Sync has to be used for many of the wireless remotes and if someone can't afford the wireless remotes at all they have to use the ugly sync cords. That's a bit overrate though since I am sure the OP won't be interested in that for a while.

I hope they do fix the Mark III. If the OP starts demanding more out of the camera then I am sure they will start to look into the higher end 5D and Mark III's for future use. The different size sensors in an annoyance in my opinion. I would like to see Canon use some of its R&D to create a cheap 1.3x sensor (like the one in the 1D Mark II and III) and put them into the 30D and Rebel. That would shake the camera industry up a bit.

Sony is still a good electronics company. What I don't like about them is that they bought Konica/Minolta and the amazing Maxxum 5D and 7D and regulated them to the consumer market. The Alpha is a good camera since it is just based off of the Minolta body, but where is the pro stuff that Minolta users have been begging for? I would sell anyone an Alpha if they had the Minolta glass. That's where the choice really rests, with the owners current glass and if they want to give up lenses and accessories that they may already have. But if someone is starting fresh, Nikon and Canon are the default, but don't sleep the smaller companies, Pentax is making some good strides albeit slowly, and Olympus still makes some of the smallest DSLR cameras on the market where their IQ is still on par with the two big brothers.

 

[Mike Teezie]

I don't understand why the FF fanboys (most of whom own Canons with a crop sensor) are all up in arms, what's the point of the argument? The OP isn't going to shell out 4k+ for new equipment, he's new to photography.

All interesting bodies use cropped sensor anyway, there is no advantage for either Canon or Nikon due to sensor size. Even if the OP buys a Canon body, the lens argument won't work either: most interesting lenses are designed for cropped sensors (in particular wide-angle zooms), he'd have to get new top-of-the-line lenses for his future FF camera.

Besides, FF sensors are overrated, it's what you do with your camera that counts. As are noise comparison charts, photos of bathroom tiles and bricks.

Just to get this off my chest, there is absolutely nothing more ridiculous to me than calling someone a fanboy because they prefer something. It's rampant on the internet these days, and not unlike Godwin's law in my opinion.

I prefer full frame, for many reasons. I've had several crop factor cameras, and you know what? I don't like them as much as the full frame cameras I bought to replace them. Being able to see what I'm shooting is "more interesting" to me than trying to compose an image looking through a viewfinder that is the size of a postage stamp. So is the more interesting depth of field. So is the fact my lenses behave like they are supposed to.

You state your opinion as if it's fact. There's no advantage to a full frame sensor? Of course there is, for me and countless other photogs. All the interesting lenses are EF-S? Tell that to my 85 1.2, and 35 1.4. Or my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for that matter. By the way, which will work on any EOS Canon camera ever made - cropped sensor, all the way back to the first EOS film bodies. It comes down to preference, which is not a real shocker.

Many, many, many Canon pros shoot with this lens, or this one, and lately, this one. All of which are fantastic, and very affordable. You don't have to get L glass and a 5D right off. But I'd like to have the option in the future.

I don't shoot bathroom tiles or bricks, either. I make photos of people, for money. It's my job - and like I said before, I'll use the best tools for the job. I can use whatever I want, and the minute someone makes something more attractive, I will.

As a matter of fact, if the OP would like, I can post a section of image at 100% crop, taken at ISO 1600. Then someone with a Nikon camera can do the same thing. I only say this, because I spend a fair amount of time at ISO 1600 in dark churches - with absolutely no fear whatsoever of noise. And again, everyone I know uses the in camera noise reduction.

I've seen a couple of really cool forum members get banned over this debate, so let's keep it civil.

 

[OreoCookie]

]There's no advantage to a full frame sensor? Of course there is, for me and countless other photogs. All the interesting lenses are EF-S? Tell that to my 85 1.2, and 35 1.4. Or my 70-200 f/2.8 IS for that matter. By the way, which will work on any EOS Canon camera ever made - cropped sensor, all the way back to the first EOS film bodies. It comes down to preference, which is not a real shocker.

Slow down, that's not what I've said.
I said that for the OP the question of crop vs. FF is irrelevant and there is no advantage of FF sensors for him, unless he spends a lot more than what he wants to and should. I haven't made a blanket statement that FF sensors are non-sense. And with FF fanboys I was addressing people who take this debate far too seriously and way off topic.
I also haven't said that all interesting lenses are available only for crop sensors, but nowadays you can cover the whole range of focal lengths (or rather: viewing angles) with crop sensors. Starting from Sigma's 8 mm fisheye to all tele lenses, there is no wide-angle problem anymore like there used to be (the first digital pros were suffering from this, my cousin had to buy a fisheye for his D30 (not 30D) to have a `proper' very wide-angle lens). Sigma and Tokina have also pioneered to bring 50-135/150 lenses to market which cover the same focal lengths as 70/80-200 on film/FF sensors.

The same goes for viewfinder size, there has been a lot of progress. My last two dslrs' viewfinders (Olympus E-20, Nikon D80) are about the size of that of my last film slr's (Nikon F80). This was actually another argument against Canon and Olympus (with the exception of the E-1 and Canons that were too expensive) for me as I wear glasses and need a larger viewfinder. (I'm sure the next revision will change that somewhat.) What I'm saying is that the big manufacturers are working on this and I believe that these two shortcomings have in fact been overcome (at least on the Nikon side).

I don't want to enter into a discussion whether FF sensors really have all the benefits people claim they have, because as long as I have to spend about twice as much as I've invested into my whole setup just to buy the body and one lens, it's simply not an issue for me. So as long as Canon (or Nikon for that matter) doesn't release a FF sensor camera at the pricepoint of the 30D, I couldn't care less (my 80-200 zoom also works for FF cameras). But until then, I'm neither willing nor able to shell out this type of money for equipment.

The only thing that ticks me off is when people throw around words such as `unacceptable noise' or `bad image quality' or when they make it sound as if you can't take good pictures unless you have equipment abcd. The image quality of crop sensor dslrs is excellent, Canon's 30D and Nikon's D80 are testimony to that. I dare to say that all dslrs have excellent image quality that is more than sufficient 90 % of the time. People should start worrying again about taking good pictures instead worrying whether they have bought the right equipment.

 

[Mike Teezie]

The only thing that ticks me off is when people throw around words such as `unacceptable noise' or `bad image quality' or when they make it sound as if you can't take good pictures unless you have equipment abcd. The image quality of crop sensor dslrs is excellent, Canon's 30D and Nikon's D80 are testimony to that. I dare to say that all dslrs have excellent image quality that is more than sufficient 90 % of the time. People should start worrying again about taking good pictures instead worrying whether they have bought the right equipment.

I totally agree about image quality. Nikon's are great cameras, obviously. My perspective is honestly skewed, because this is how I make my living. The cost of the gear isn't a deciding factor, and will definitely be for anyone not shooting for money. That makes it a bit hard to relate.

That's why I tried to include the "who cares, get one and go" part of my earlier posts.

It's fun talking gear about though, isn't it?

 

[OreoCookie]

I totally agree about image quality. Nikon's are great cameras, obviously. My perspective is honestly skewed, because this is how I make my living. The cost of the gear isn't a deciding factor, and will definitely be for anyone not shooting for money. That makes it a bit hard to relate.

Yeah, although I'm trying to argue independent of my preference. Trying
I think most of my arguments hold for any of the big companies that bless us with new modern dslrs. My perspective is that of someone who tries to make the most out of his (limited) funds. I know that at least some pros (have to) do the same (my cousin is locked into the Canon system as he has invested a lot of money into (good) glass and he owns a lot of Sigma and Tokina lenses). Fortunate are those who can afford the equipment they really want. Since I really like third-party lenses (especially Tokina), the question of Canon vs. Nikon lenses is irrelevant for me.

Although to be honest, the camera I have now, does everything, really everything I want. Technology has really progressed compared to when I started taking pictures when I was 5. My first slr's AF (Nikon F50) was dreadfully slow by today's standards, Canon's 300V for instance was a huge step forward as it used a derivative of the AF module of its professional EOS 1V. The same goes for the first digital cameras, the whitebalance was usually off, noise is often clearly visible, even at low ISO settings such as ISO320 or ISO160. My previous dslr, an Olympus E-20, had visible noise, was slow to write pictures onto the memory card (and you couldn't access the menu in the meantime) and a noticeably smaller color range. But it was the first affordable dslr and cost me a third of a Nikon D70/Canon 300D (which had just been released back then) and was still a very good camera at that time. My current camera does about 3 fps and even after 40 pictures, the image buffer isn't exhausted. There is no point measuring the start-up time as I can start taking pictures practically right away: technological progress is awesome. If some pictures are bad, I have to blame myself

I think that the difference in quality between cameras from different manufacturers has become ever so small that IMHO most people don't have to pay attention to noise levels and whatnot anymore. Instead, they can buy their next camera purely on personal preference (size, glass, even design ).

It's fun talking gear about though, isn't it?

It sure is!

 

[epicwelshman]

Honestly, I can't contribute anything worthwhile to this thread. However, I'd love to be one day be able to give opinions on high end gear based on actual use, rather than technical specs.

Whenever someone makes fun of my D40x (lack of focus motor, "newbie camera") I resort to the old mantra that the photographer makes the picture, not the camera. I feel I've produced some killer shots with my D40x (hell, even my Sony DSC-H1) that couldn't have been taken better if I had a D2Xs with a 17-55mm 2.8 strapped on.

 

[OreoCookie]

Whenever someone makes fun of my D40x (lack of focus motor, "newbie camera") I resort to the old mantra that the photographer makes the picture, not the camera. I feel I've produced some killer shots with my D40x (hell, even my Sony DSC-H1) that couldn't have been taken better if I had a D2Xs with a 17-55mm 2.8 strapped on.

I've seen lots of people with no skills and a D200/30D around their (usually sizeable) bellies. They buy L glass/high-quality Nikkors just because they can afford it and they want the best equipment.

What you say pretty much nails it: as long as you (the photographer) don't hit the limits of your camera, you will take pretty much the `same' picture with a better camera, the product will essentially be the same. Don't let those people discourage you from taking pictures. Of course, you might hit a limit of your camera one day or another, but even then, you don't necessarily have to change gear to take good pictures (especially if you can't afford it). And taking pictures should be fun! It doesn't matter if your weapon of choice is a Leica M, a Holga/Lomo, a 30-year-old Canon AE1 or a Nikon D40X

 

[epicwelshman]

I've seen lots of people with no skills and a D200/30D around their (usually sizeable) bellies. They buy L glass/high-quality Nikkors just because they can afford it and they want the best equipment.

What you say pretty much nails it: as long as you (the photographer) don't hit the limits of your camera, you will take pretty much the `same' picture with a better camera, the product will essentially be the same. Don't let those people discourage you from taking pictures. Of course, you might hit a limit of your camera one day or another, but even then, you don't necessarily have to change gear to take good pictures (especially if you can't afford it). And taking pictures should be fun! It doesn't matter if your weapon of choice is a Leica M, a Holga/Lomo, a 30-year-old Canon AE1 or a Nikon D40X

Oh, I agree completely. The limits of the camera would be what would make me upgrade. I wish the D40/x had Nikon CLS support for wireless flash, and the only thing I'd change in regard to the lack of the AF motor would be an AF-S 50mm 1.8... but that'll happen soon enough I'm sure!

 

[OreoCookie]

Oh, I agree completely. The limits of the camera would be what would make me upgrade. I wish the D40/x had Nikon CLS support for wireless flash, and the only thing I'd change in regard to the lack of the AF motor would be an AF-S 50mm 1.8... but that'll happen soon enough I'm sure!

Yeah, I agree. AF-S lenses are pretty nice since they allow what Canon-users know for years as `instant override': you don't have to flip a switch to correct your focus manually.

 

[epicwelshman]

Yeah, I agree. AF-S lenses are pretty nice since they allow what Canon-users know for years as `instant override': you don't have to flip a switch to correct your focus manually.

Haha, apart from my kit lens (18-55)... no M/A option for me... either either auto, or a switch to full manual... no override. I think the 55-200mm VR Nikkor is the same way. As far as I know, all other AF-S lenses have the "instant override".