Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2007, 12:09 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

Assuming you had not bought your first DSLR. That you had not invested tens of thousandsin lenses and other gear. And you accountant said you could run out and buy a FF DSLR (e.g. Canon 5D, Nikon D3...etc.) as your first DSLR would you? Keeping in mind we all do different types of photography. Where weight can be an issue. Which way would you have gone and why?
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 22, 2007, 12:15 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

If money's no option, this isn't a difficult question....of course you'd go that route. But that's the problem with most of us. It is a money issue.

As long as we are day-dreaming here, let's go one step further. Assuming I had ten of thousands of Dollars/Euros/whatever,just sitting around and could afford a Hasselblad H-series digital outfit. I'd not waste my time on evena "full-frame" DSLR...
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 3:15 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I now have a 5D and couldn't be happier.

But my main uses are snapshot/documentary, portrait and landscape. For sports or wildlife work it's not the right camera, for that I would prefer the 40D and obviously the 1DMkIII.

The new Nikon D3 of course looks amazing, but too large for me to want to carry in general usage I think.

Also because my interests have been developing in the direction they have, I have actually been decreasing the number of lenses I own. My "investment" in that area has been going down, and in fact I could fairly easily get by with only one or two lenses. This has the beneficial side effect that I will be able to switch "systems" if I want to with very little trouble.

A good f2.8 standard zoom or perhaps a 50mm f1.4 is all I really use. I went to the bird park last weekend and used my 70-300 zoom for the first time in 6 months.

My basic principle (like the vastly entertaining and informative Ken Rockwell) is to get the biggest possible sensor or film area in the smallest possible sized camera. For now that means the Canon 5D in digital, I hope that Sony and Nikon will soon have some competition there.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 8:12 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

If I had a 5D, a 70-300 (you don't mention the model, but I'd bet it isn't the Sigma 70-300 consumer lens), an f2.8zoom (tele or wide)and a 50mm f1.4, I'd be happy too(!), as well as around $5,000 poorer. Now, my guess would be you also own at least one flash and (possibly) a few other accessories and lenses you are not mentioning in addition to software you've invested in to process all these fine images, so I'm positive the expenses don't stop at the "conservative" outfit you've listed. Smaller the 5D is, cheap it is not, and I imaginethat 5D will start looking pretty "old" here in a year or two after Canon's announced new models with more advanced bells & whistles, if you're not already thinking aboutthat, like the vastly entertaining (and also, obviously very wealthy) Ken Rockwell who's buying digicams as often as I buy bread, and owns a fully pro lens-outfitted Nikon D200 (and no doubt, soon aD300)and Canon 5D system. I can't afford to make that type investment even once, not to mention every 3-4 years.

This isn't the typical route taken by most as I mentioned above. In a sea of consumer users, it is the exception, not the norm.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 9:22 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

For me, size isn't really a concern, in that I don't really "focus" on any specific type of photography. I do portrait, sports, landscapes, travel....etc. Pretty much anything that peaks my interest at the moment. As long as there's something about the subject matter that draws me in.

What I was wondering was just, from a performance standpoint, would you have started with a FF DSLR if money and sixze was not a concern. If all that mattered was getting the best possible tool for the job. The upcoming Nikon D3 seems to be that camera.

With it's 9-11 fps frame rate it's very much suited to sports photography. Using a FF digicam!! And with it's ability to shoot at 5:4 it should also appeal to wedding photographers. Less time in PP. Portrait work?...if you don't use a tripod then I supposesomeof usmight want to start working onupper body strength. But when I travel I usually carry at least a monopod any how. If not I would look for an inanimate object to prop myself against in low light situaitons.

Any how, thanks for your comments so far guys!
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 1:50 PM   #6
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I reckon the Nikon D3 or the Canon 1D series are awesome all-around cameras.

Getting the size right is important to me. The Nikon D3 and Canon 1D are too big and heavy I hate that in-built vertical grip.

The 5D is just right, the 20D was a bit too small and the Rebel much too small.

As to price, well, consider that there are fewer people with:

Setup 1:

Canon 5D + 50mm f1.4 = 2200 + 290 = $2490

Than Setup 2:
Rebel XTi + 17-85 + 70-300 + 10-22 + 430EX flash = 600+500+550+675+240= $2465

But I know which one I'd rather have, and honestly I'm seriously considering selling my superflous lenses and leaving myself with just the gear listed in setup 1.


peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 3:18 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
I reckon the Nikon D3 or the Canon 1D series are awesome all-around cameras.

Getting the size right is important to me. The Nikon D3 and Canon 1D are too big and heavy I hate that in-built vertical grip.

The 5D is just right, the 20D was a bit too small and the Rebel much too small.

As to price, well, consider that there are fewer people with:

Setup 1:

Canon 5D + 50mm f1.4 = 2200 + 290 = $2490

Than Setup 2:
Rebel XTi + 17-85 + 70-300 + 10-22 + 430EX flash = 600+500+550+675+240= $2465

But I know which one I'd rather have, and honestly I'm seriously considering selling my superflous lenses and leaving myself with just the gear listed in setup 1.

Sure. Whatever works for you. What works for one person, obviously, might not work for the next.

A lot of people consider camera bodies like the Canon 1D series and the Nikon D2 series "too big" for their shooting style. And of course the upcoming Nikon D3 joins that group. I've heard many world class photographers say that as well. That if in the field, carrying around a DSLR for so many hours, they would rather have a DSLR the size of a Nikon D200 over a D2x.

And regarding smaller body FF cameras I believe Canon is supposed to be putting out the 5D sucessor early next year. Have you found any information on it's proposed specs?

The D3 looks so enticing. At least on paper. And the photos that have been made available by Nikon Japan/USA are very impressive. Showing us what the D3 is capable of. Though, I'm not sure how much or how little PP had been done to those images. The detail on the fireman picture blows me away.

$5000.00 US ($5499.95 CAD) for the D3 body. Not cheap by any stretch. But doable (compared to the Canon 1Ds M3 at almost double that). Or the D300 at $1800 US ($1999.95 CAD). Or the Canon 40D at $1399.95 CAD...hmmmm....
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 3:25 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Granted, a full frame dSLR would give me that much more depth of field to play with, but there are more lenses available for APS-C dSLRs than for full frame dSLRs. That would be the deciding factor for me. I'd stick witha APS-C dSLR. Even if I could have a Hasselblad.

If money were no object, however, I would have more and better lenses, though.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2007, 3:45 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 774
Default

TCav wrote:
Quote:
Granted, a full frame dSLR would give me that much more depth of field to play with, but there are more lenses available for APS-C dSLRs than for full frame dSLRs. That would be the deciding factor for me. I'd stick witha APS-C dSLR. Even if I could have a Hasselblad.

If money were no object, however, I would have more and better lenses, though.
Well, with the D3, you can use DX lenses (non-FF). It's just that the D3 would go into DX mode and you would be shooting at 5.1 MP instead of 12.3. And even if you were shooting with a Canon 5D I believe you can still use non-FF lenses. It's just that you would not be taking advantage of the FF sensor by not using FF glass.

A Hasselblad? If you were doing studio work perhaps. Or that's the only stance I could see myself possibly considering a Hasselblad. That and if I were a commercial photographer and was required to use a 39 MP H3D. But I like to be outdoors. So, even if I had 50k to blow...doubt I'd be looking at medium-format.

Actually for me I do the majority of my shooting on travels. Or rather that's when I shoot the most at one time. So being mobile would be important.
DarkDTSHD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2007, 1:26 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8
Default

Greg Chappell wrote:
Quote:
If I had a 5D, a 70-300 (you don't mention the model, but I'd bet it isn't the Sigma 70-300 consumer lens), an f2.8zoom (tele or wide)and a 50mm f1.4, I'd be happy too(!), as well as around $5,000 poorer. Now, my guess would be you also own at least one flash and (possibly) a few other accessories and lenses you are not mentioning in addition to software you've invested in to process all these fine images, so I'm positive the expenses don't stop at the "conservative" outfit you've listed. Smaller the 5D is, cheap it is not, and I imaginethat 5D will start looking pretty "old" here in a year or two after Canon's announced new models with more advanced bells & whistles, if you're not already thinking aboutthat, like the vastly entertaining (and also, obviously very wealthy) Ken Rockwell who's buying digicams as often as I buy bread, and owns a fully pro lens-outfitted Nikon D200 (and no doubt, soon aD300)and Canon 5D system. I can't afford to make that type investment even once, not to mention every 3-4 years.

This isn't the typical route taken by most as I mentioned above. In a sea of consumer users, it is the exception, not the norm.
Quote:
I don't really know what you mean by saying the 5D will look "old" in a year or two, of course it will be older just like all the others, but it will still be a fantastic piece of kit for the current price. TheMk2 (if there is one) will cost a small fortune, so most will have to wait until the price drops anyway.
boywallace is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:51 AM.