What DSLR brand do YOU have, and why?

[Chip NoVaMac]

WHen you get past a 200mm lens you are talking about using a tripod. That 1/(lens focal lenght) rule will get you. At 400mm you are limited to shooting at 1/400 and faster unless you are using a tripod. and even 1/400 is slow if you want very sharp shots.

Get a tripod head with a quick release plate built into it. Then it will be easy.

The 1/(focal length) rule is based on the 35mm format.

So in order to have a "sharp" image at 200mm; one needs at least 1/200 shutter speed.

I agree in the digital format one might need a tripod or monopod for something past 200mm. But with IS/VR 200mm in digital (close to 300mm) is very doable. Anything above that might need some sort of support.

More to the point, if one had a 400mm lens on the more popular DSLRs; one would need at least 1/600 of a second shutter speed to match the capabilities of a 35mm camera at the same focal length.

 

[Abstract]

For Chip

This is the worst display of quote-usage I have ever seen in my life.

 

[Kingsly]

Canon 10D
If it has either a Canon or Apple logo, Im a happy man.
Seriously, Canon pretty much invented digital, and I like the quality they bring to whatever field they manufacture in.
P.S., I also have the PIXIMA ip4200, Powershot SD200, and XL-1 and I love all of them.

 

[njmac]

When I have the money to buy a DSLR, I will be getting a Canon.

 

[ksz]

I have a Nikon D200 which complements my Nikon F100 film camera. Film has never been as good as it is today, so I continue to use the F100 with films like Fuji's Sensia and Provia, both of which are simply extraordinary and outshine even the Canon 1Ds Mark II. On a recent trip to Japan I purchased Fuji's new Sensia III and shot a roll last weekend in the mountains. Can't wait to see the results next week.

The D200 gives me instant results and offers a lot of imaging flexibility. It is brimming with features and very well designed and built. It is a very good complement to the F100.

Canon makes excellent digital cameras. My PowerShot G2 is an amazing photo machine and I have no doubt that their DSLRs are superb. However, I do not like Canon's ergonomics or aesthetics. But Canon is the undisputed winner in two categories:

1. Extremely low sensor noise even at high ISO.
2. Excellent per-pixel sharpness.

There is generally a tradeoff between noise and sharpness: As noise improves, sharpness falls. But Canon has managed to produce the best of both worlds: Low noise and high per-pixel sharpness. Most pundits believe this is due to Canon's proprietary sensors which are designed and fabricated for extremely low noise.

But in the final analysis, I am very happy with my D200 and superb Nikkor optics.

 

[sjl]

Canon EOS 20D.

Given that I already had three lenses for my EOS 30 (the 75-300 [since sold], a 28-105, and the 50mm f/1.8), going Canon was a no brainer. Had I not had those lenses, I probably would have gone Nikon, since that's what my parents have.

There's really very little between the two companies. It comes down to personal taste more than anything else; I'd not argue anybody out of buying Nikon, nor into buying Canon.

As for why the 20D: the feel was much more solid than the 350D. If I were to buy today, I'd go the 30D, but the 20D is well and truly adequate for my needs, so I see no point in spending more money on what's really a very minor upgrade (especially for the cost).

Next camera purchase: probably a battery grip, then the 100-400, then the 100mm macro, and finally, an underwater housing. Money, money, money ... (several years later ...)

 

[kwajo.com]

wow no respect for Pentax, one of the greatest imaging companies ever, they're not even in the list

I have a Pentax *ist DS and it is amazing. I won't get intoa long list of details, but it was a great price, I had several Pentax mount lenses already, uses the same sensor as the D70 yet is smaller, lighter and feels better to hold (IMO), option to use AA batteries so I can grab backups at just about any store if I'm away from home and I lose power, pentax makes some of the best lenses in the world, and there are thousands of used lenses for reasonable prices that equal any glass made today by any company, the metering system is probably the best you can get in the price range, it is very solidly built (much better frame and plastics quality than Canon) and the viewfinder blows everything else in the price range out of the water.

as an example, he's a comparison of the D70 viewfinder and the one on my DS. the D70 is the smaller one overlayed on the larger Pentax

viewfinder size and brightness is very important to me because I manual focus most shots

 

[Clix Pix]

Nikon responded to the many complaints photographers had about the "tunnel-vision" viewfinder on the D70 by coming up with a much better one in the D200. So, yes, there are other cameras which have bette viewfinders than the D70/D70s.....

 

[kwajo.com]

yeah but when I made my purchase the D200 didn't exist, and even now the DS viewfinder is still better, probably the best you can get for under 2500 USD. the photo was just an example

 

[Clix Pix]

yeah but when I made my purchase the D200 didn't exist, and even now the DS viewfinder is still better, probably the best you can get for under 2500 USD. the photo was just an example

Oh, right, I realize that.... just was adding the comment that many photographers had complained about that viewfinder in the D70 and that Nikon did listen and did finally respond....

I've never handled the camera you have but next time I'm in a store where they are available I'll have a looksee. Sounds as though you're very happy and satisfied with it, and that really is the bottom line.

 

[Jon'sLightBulbs]

Bla bla bla, and the winner is...

Only Canon produces full frame image sensors. This fully trumps "ergonomics," plastic v. magnesium, silver v. black, my viewfinder is so much brighter than yours, etc. Instead of getting a large percentage of the outside edges of your picture cropped off compared to a 35 mm. sensor, you get the full image.

Yes, 35 mm sensors are only availible on Canon's $3000+ dollar bodies. Yes, they are getting cheaper, and will be availible increasingly on cheaper Canon bodies. No, Nikon and Pentax have no full frame sensors in the pipeline. But if you're stuck with anything other than Canon (non apsc) lens when the Canon fullframe bodies become cheaper... we'll see what your black magnesium body with beautiful viewfinder is still worth to you!

 

[Lau]

...pentax makes some of the best lenses in the world, and there are thousands of used lenses for reasonable prices that equal any glass made today by any company...

***noob question alert....***

I've been a manual SLR Pentax user for years, but haven't made the jump to a digital SLR yet. Does that mean I could use second hand Pentax film SLR lenses on a digital SLR? <--- embarrassed by general digital inexperience.

Though I'd still have to buy it all anyway - my film SLR takes screwthread lenses.

 

[homerjward]

Only Canon produces full frame image sensors. This fully trumps "ergonomics," plastic v. magnesium, silver v. black, my viewfinder is so much brighter than yours, etc. Instead of getting a large percentage of the outside edges of your picture cropped off compared to a 35 mm. sensor, you get the full image.

Yes, 35 mm sensors are only availible on Canon's $3000+ dollar bodies. Yes, they are getting cheaper, and will be availible increasingly on cheaper Canon bodies. No, Nikon and Pentax have no full frame sensors in the pipeline. But if you're stuck with anything other than Canon (non apsc) lens when the Canon fullframe bodies become cheaper... we'll see what your black magnesium body with beautiful viewfinder is still worth to you!

kodak had several digital slr's with ff sensors (2 nikon mount, 1 canon mount). you can get a kodak slr/n or 14n for like $2000 which are great cameras
of course, they don't make those anymore

 

[whocares]

Nikon 'cause I already had some Nikkor-branded glass.

 

[ksz]

Oh no, not FF vs. DX debate again

FF images are prone to vignetting and soft-focus at the edges. The DX format allows lenses to be made smaller, lighter, and less expensive without affecting image quality. New sensor designs are in the works that will increase light sensitivity and reduce noise appreciably while packing more megapixels into the same DX size.

So if you can have all the benefits of digital in a smaller, lighter, cheaper package, why wouldn't you?

 

[bousozoku]

Only Canon produces full frame image sensors. This fully trumps "ergonomics...

If you can't use it because the controls get in the way, you're not going to get much of anything, full frame sensor or not.

***noob question alert....***

I've been a manual SLR Pentax user for years, but haven't made the jump to a digital SLR yet. Does that mean I could use second hand Pentax film SLR lenses on a digital SLR? <--- embarrassed by general digital inexperience.

Though I'd still have to buy it all anyway - my film SLR takes screwthread lenses.

I wouldn't even bother trying to use Pentax screw mount lenses today. Pentax K-mount lenses are supported by the latest Pentax and Samsung digital SLRs.

 

[DerChef]

Odd thing I have noticed

Nikon dont seem to be nearly as popular in Europe as they are in North America.

Not sure about the far east

 

[Lau]

I wouldn't even bother trying to use Pentax screw mount lenses today. Pentax K-mount lenses are supported by the latest Pentax and Samsung digital SLRs.

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether non digital lenses could be used on digital SLRs. As for my camera, I'm quite happy with my screwthread SLR and it's 2 lenses at the moment - but I know it's hideously out of date. It's done me good, but I'll be upgrading when I've graduated.

 

[homerjward]

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether non digital lenses could be used on digital SLRs. As for my camera, I'm quite happy with my screwthread SLR and it's 2 lenses at the moment - but I know it's hideously out of date. It's done me good, but I'll be upgrading when I've graduated.

iirc pentax screwmount lenses can be used on pentax digital slrs, i think even with metering capability, though i may be wrong about the metering. either way you'll need a screwmount>>k-mount adapter.

 

[Lau]

iirc pentax screwmount lenses can be used on pentax digital slrs, i think even with metering capability, though i may be wrong about the metering. either way you'll need a screwmount>>k-mount adapter.

Interesting, thanks. I think if I did upgrade I would think about selling the whoel screwmount kit, but it's certainly good to know that older lenses can be used on a digital SLR. I've always bought older second hand lenses in the past, and if I could continue doing that with a dSLR that would be great.

 

[Chip NoVaMac]

FF images are prone to vignetting and soft-focus at the edges.

LOL, I was thinking the same thing. Though these issues are with wide angle lenses mostly.

The DX format allows lenses to be made smaller, lighter, and less expensive without affecting image quality.

Well, yes and no. They are smaller and lighter when comparing like field of views; in particular when looking at the telephoto end. The only lens that I think meets the expectation of being smaller and lighter is the Nikon 10.5 semi-fisheye lens.

New sensor designs are in the works that will increase light sensitivity and reduce noise appreciably while packing more megapixels into the same DX size.

True, but a test in American Photo IIRC, did a test with the Canon 1D and a comparable MF digital back. The results showed that larger sensors will help resolve finer details.

While the need for that type of resolving power maybe limited for most photographers, unless one regularly produces prints larger than 16x20.

So if you can have all the benefits of digital in a smaller, lighter, cheaper package, why wouldn't you?

Yes, DSLR cameras are getting smaller, lighter, and cheaper. But there is no technical reason that a Digital Rebel FF could not be built. It too would be lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the 5D. In due time I think.

The holy grail of an affordable FF sensor DSLR is to answer the need for those of us that have shot 35mm for a long time. We know the type of perspective and depth of field we will have when shooting lets say a 35mm lens at f/2 at 10 feet.

One would need about a 23.5mm lens on a Nikon DSLR at f/1.4 focused at 10 feet to get the same DOF. But the perspective in the resulting image will be different.

 

[Malfoy]

Nikon D70

My friend told me to.

 

[bousozoku]

Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't sure whether non digital lenses could be used on digital SLRs. As for my camera, I'm quite happy with my screwthread SLR and it's 2 lenses at the moment - but I know it's hideously out of date. It's done me good, but I'll be upgrading when I've graduated.

Hey, I'd probably still be using my Fujica SLR with screw mount lenses, if someone hadn't pinched it and a lot of other kit. Too bad he hadn't taken the dead Minolta instead.

We were more worried about getting decent light readings back then. Who had auto focus or auto exposure? No one and then suddenly, everyone. Of course, the first auto focus camera I saw was a Polaroid. Imagine that.

 

[drlunanerd]

I had some experience using Pentax ME Super film SLRs which I coveted for their tank-like build and nice optics, but felt the brand had lagged behind in the digital race.

Like many people who have posted in this thread I was/am a Canon fan, having owned several Ixus point and shoot digital cameras, printers etc. So naturally when looking to progress to a DSLR it was a dead cert I'd remain loyal and buy Canon.

That was until I used a 350D and was shocked at how cheap it felt next to my puny little Ixus that cost a quarter of the price. The ergonomics sucked too much and the cost was taking the mick with a sub-par kit lens, so I went back to the drawing board and took a look at what Nikon had to offer. Having used some Nikon P&S cameras in the earlier digital days and not been overly impressed I wasn't expecting much, but to cut a ramble short I bought a D50 and have not looked back. What a great camera - the stunning deal I got on it just sweetened the experience. So much so that I have an 18-200 VRII lens coming down the pipe soon, and I'll certainly be buying a D200 in the future.

 

[ksz]

True, but a test in American Photo IIRC, did a test with the Canon 1D and a comparable MF digital back. The results showed that larger sensors will help resolve finer details.

Do you mean larger sensors or larger pixels? I haven't seen the article you're referring to, but in general smaller pixels resolve finer details. In the same way, conventional film with RMS 13 (very small grains of silver halide or other emulsion) resolves finer detail than the same film with RMS 20. Packing density and fill factor contribute to resolving power.

Yes, DSLR cameras are getting smaller, lighter, and cheaper. But there is no technical reason that a Digital Rebel FF could not be built. It too would be lighter, smaller, and cheaper than the 5D. In due time I think.

Sensors can be made of any size. Even large and expensive ones can be driven down in cost over time. The real question, however, is not about sensor size, but about the entire system. Smaller and lighter is generally more practical and more usable by more people in more situations.

The holy grail of an affordable FF sensor DSLR is to answer the need for those of us that have shot 35mm for a long time. We know the type of perspective and depth of field we will have when shooting lets say a 35mm lens at f/2 at 10 feet.

Good point. Since I shoot with both my F100 and D200, this statement rings true.