Thread: The 'right' DSLR for me?

Having worked with a number of professional photographers, I haven't seen one using something other than Nikon or Canon, except for one guy who used Nikon lenses on a Fuji body.

Personally, I like Canons a bit more, but I used to be a Nikon person - made the jump when I moved to digital, as Canon seemed to have its act together a little bit more - I think their image sensors are a bit less noisy than Nikon. Nikon has a slightly better flash system, but Nikon stuff tends to cost more than the Canon.

I'd suggest that you look for cameras that will give you the option of writing in RAW format. RAW is the stream of data as read straight from the sensor, before any sharpening or image correction or white balancing, which gives you the option to really tweak the image to your hearts content. RAW files also have more colour data in them - a jpg has 8 bits of information per colour channel, while RAW has 14 or so, giving you a larger gamut of colours to work with.

Generally this means a DSLR with a price tag over $1,000, but the Canon G11 compact will also write RAW files for a cheaper option.

If you are really fussy, then a DSLR with a full frame sensor (not APS-C size), but this jumps you up to $2,500ish for the body alone. The full frame sensor is the same size as the old 35mm image, APS-C is about half that, and compact cameras have a sensor half that size again, or smaller. This does have a relationship to the quality of the image.

Then, a good prime lens (since you are photographing roses, I'm assuming you have plenty of time to compose the image so you don't need a zoom) - the 85mm Canon f1.2 is probably the best you'll find while staying under $3k for a lens, although it may not focus close enough for your needs.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...os_lenses.html

Mid quality lenses are available from makers like Tamron - the Canon range tends to be split between their bottom of the line cheap ones that get bundled with every consumer DSLR, and then their pro lenses which will set you back anywhere up to the price of a mid-size car.

Another vote for Canon, I have the 450D with 2 IS lens kit.

You can either go the 500D or if you want to save a bit of money the 1000.

The 2 lens kit I have does everything I want, was going to buy the 85mm, but decided I could do what I wanted without it.

Another vote for Canon.
I have a 40D that came with an 18-55 IS lens.
I also bought a 70-200 IS lens, best lens I've ever used.

Hi everyone,

So Canon is coming up pretty well in many departments. I did a little experiment this morning that highlights where my views are coming from at the moment.

I photographed the colour chart in the earlier thread I mentioned with my two cameras, the Fuji first, the Canon second, and finally with David's little Olympus work camera.

The colour shifts are staggering wide. The Olympus is far and away the cleanest redition of the colour chart, with the Fuji and Canon both being significantly out of whack with reds and blues.

I also suspect that the Olympus optics are better, at this level. So on the basis of what I'm seeing here, naturally I wouldn't have rushed out to buy a Canon DSLR. However, there's so much technical information that must be taken into consideration and the layman isn't easily able to absorb it all . BUT one thing I will never do again, is buy a camera without testing it's sharpness and colour rendition up front.

Now what about the micro four thirds cameras? Just another gimmick to create a niche market.

I may have misled you all a little about my photographic needs. I photograph landscapes, buildings and gardens most frequently. But I also love a good zoom lens and am used to at least 250mm range.
I generally also crave a good wide angle - the standard 28mm.

The colour charts are an eye opener aren't they? Not just in terms of colour but crispness of image. These were photographed within seconds of each other, so I'm close to being able to compare apples with apples. Only aspect that I can't keep standard is focal length used.

As to price, we have built up some pretty good woodies toys over a number of years. I would treat my camera purchases the same, and just buy extra lenses as I needed them. The starter lenses and body are what I'd be happy to spend about $2000 on in total.

Keep the comments coming. Appreciate it greatly.

Cheers
LiliB

Originally Posted by LiliB

Hi everyone,

So Canon is coming up pretty well in many departments. I did a little experiment this morning that highlights where my views are coming from at the moment.

I photographed the colour chart in the earlier thread I mentioned with my two cameras, the Fuji first, the Canon second, and finally with David's little Olympus work camera.

The colour shifts are staggering wide. The Olympus is far and away the cleanest redition of the colour chart, with the Fuji and Canon both being significantly out of whack with reds and blues.

I also suspect that the Olympus optics are better, at this level. So on the basis of what I'm seeing here, naturally I wouldn't have rushed out to buy a Canon DSLR. However, there's so much technical information that must be taken into consideration and the layman isn't easily able to absorb it all . BUT one thing I will never do again, is buy a camera without testing it's sharpness and colour rendition up front.

Now what about the micro four thirds cameras? Just another gimmick to create a niche market.

I may have misled you all a little about my photographic needs. I photograph landscapes, buildings and gardens most frequently. But I also love a good zoom lens and am used to at least 250mm range.
I generally also crave a good wide angle - the standard 28mm.

The colour charts are an eye opener aren't they? Not just in terms of colour but crispness of image. These were photographed within seconds of each other, so I'm close to being able to compare apples with apples. Only aspect that I can't keep standard is focal length used.

How about aperture was that constant?

Which chart did you photograph, was it a caibrated print or the commercially purchased chart? Anything else is not a basis for making a decision.

As important as what your shoot is what you do with the photos. In particular if you print what size prints you make.

Once the CCD has more than about 6MP the image shaprness becomes more and more dependent on the size and quality of the lens. Colour rendition is lighting and CCD dependent, and then come lenses. If you indeed have an evil eye for colour you may not be satisfied with anything less than pro level lenses.

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

Personally, I like Canons a bit more, but I used to be a Nikon person - made the jump when I moved to digital, as Canon seemed to have its act together a little bit more - I think their image sensors are a bit less noisy than Nikon. Nikon has a slightly better flash system, but Nikon stuff tends to cost more than the Canon.

I think that Nikon and Canon tend to leapfrog each other in terms of noise. The quietest camera I have see personally is a Nikon D3.

I'd suggest that you look for cameras that will give you the option of writing in RAW format.

Yep agreed.

If you are really fussy, then a DSLR with a full frame sensor (not APS-C size), but this jumps you up to $2,500ish for the body alone. The full frame sensor is the same size as the old 35mm image, APS-C is about half that, and compact cameras have a sensor half that size again, or smaller. This does have a relationship to the quality of the image.

Agreed but this is also a moving feast, the newer compact format CCDs are about where full frame was 5? years ago.

Then, a good prime lens (since you are photographing roses, I'm assuming you have plenty of time to compose the image so you don't need a zoom) - the 85mm Canon f1.2 is probably the best you'll find while staying under $3k for a lens, although it may not focus close enough for your needs.

Agree - this is a nice lens. I recently bought a Canon 100 mm f2.8 macro which was about $800 and I use this on a Macro stand tp photograph small items of technical equipment. I wish I could have stretched to the L series lens but that is nearly $500 more and I couldn't justify it for what I do with my images.

If you want to photograph flowers then a ring or twin pro flash unit is going to do as much or maybe more for you as a better quality lens.

I was an Olympus fan in my film camera days. When I finally decided that I "needed" a DSLR, Olympus was my first thought.

I also looked Sony, Nikon, Canon and Pentax.

The Olympus was the first one to be knocked out, didn't like the way it felt in the hand, too cramped, but particularly disliked the small and dim viewfinder.

Pentax didn't have some of the features I was looking for. Never been a fan of Nikon and their DSLRs in my price range didn't appeal either.

That left me with Sony and Canon. After reading many reviews and spec sheets (Steve Digicams is very helpful here), I decided to have a closer look at the Sony range, liked their "Live View" set up and swing out rear viewing screen (I do a lot of studio table top type work). On actually holding the camera and viewing their screen outside, Sony bit the dust, couldn't see anything on the screen outside.

Down to the Canon 450D, already knew the lenses were good (friend has a range of Canon DSLRs and lenses), Live View was excellent, viewfinder very good, manual controls again very good.

Haven't regretted my decision, but YMMV

I guess what I'm trying to say is, do your homework, then go and actually hold the camera and use the controls, look at everything both inside and outside in daylight.

If you can be bothered, this was my "journey".

https://www.woodworkforums.com/f122/d...ography-91876/

Originally Posted by Big Shed

I guess what I'm trying to say is, do your homework, then go and actually hold the camera and use the controls, look at everything both inside and outside in daylight.

Agree - feel is quite important. I took tens of thousands of photos with my 5Mp Minolta D7 back in 2001-3. 6000 photos in 9 months during an extended trip to europe, including 400 photos in 3 hours at Giverny alone - it was a bit of a battery hog but it was small but comfortable and very easy to use.

I started with B&W and SLR stuff in the early 1970s and the first digitals in the mid 1990s. When the prices of DSLRs finally came into my budget range in 2004 the decision was not easy. Fortunately we have both Pentax and Canons at work so I got to play with both quite a lot before deciding. I also like Nikons but the chance to borrow quality canon lenses from work swung me to the Canon. Although my D20 and D50 both take better photos than ever they are bigger lumps of tech and more awkward to lug around especially to tourist type desitnations. The D20 has been given a good work really out. In 2007 during a 30 minutes boatride along the Amalfi coast I took 200 photos - my son says, stop shooting and smell the roses

My wife brought a Nikon D 40 a few years ago, it writes to raw format and now is permanently set to this. It is intuitive to use and gives good colour representations. She have three lenses including a beast of a macro lens. ATM she is into the macro side of photography and I am her "bug" finder. We normally target <10mm bugs at ranges of 100mm. I have used it on occasion, but as a photographer I make a good wood wrecker

...and there is one important thing to remember when you buy as DSLR.

If you are going to leave it set on Auto, you might as well buy a compact.

I'll chime in if I may with a question

Whats the expected life span of a DSLR the electronics, sensors, screen.?

These questions are some which hold me back from buying one still out laying $1500 to $3000 for a DSLR in comparison to a point and shoot for a 11/4 the price.

Very roughly:

Consumer lever DSLR (eg Canon 1000D, 500D) - shutter life expectancy is 50,000 shots. (Or in old figures....about 1,500 rolls of film or $10-20k in d&p costs.)

Pro DSLR (Canon 50D, 5D) - 100,000 shots

$$$ Top of the line Pro DSLR (Canon 1D) - 2-300,000 shots.
(the 1D will cost you over six grand for the body, however...)

More importantly...what are the features you are looking for - that's a better way to make a decision between compact and DSLR (or even full-frame DSLR).

The rest of the bits (screen, sensor) are more likely to come to grief through poor handling than their MTTF.

...and to do a quick critique on those three images...

To me, the Olympus looks way, way too saturated - the red and the yellow squares especially.
Fuji looks like the greens have too much green, and the Canon has too much blue in the blues. (but overall I think the Canon looks closer as it's not oversaturating the majority of the colours).

But as was said above...taking a photo of a photo on a screen is probably the very worst way of judging colours. You are going from LAB to SRGB to RGB to (uncalibrated monitor colour space) to (8 bit camera specific sensor space) to SRGB to RGB to (uncalibrated monitor colour space)....which is a hideous trip.

At the very least, use an original RGB image to start with - http://www.babelcolor.com/download/C...B_from_Avg.tif

Originally Posted by wheelinround

I'll chime in if I may with a question

Whats the expected life span of a DSLR the electronics, sensors, screen.?

These questions are some which hold me back from buying one still out laying $1500 to $3000 for a DSLR in comparison to a point and shoot for a 11/4 the price.

On a related matter most serious DSLRs users are not that worried about body failure because the bodies generally go out of date well before they fail and are considered as semi consumable. What these users are more focussed on is investing in glass or lenses, with their lenses being often worth much more that their camera bodies. The higher end DSLR systems are those that more or less guarantee that a given set of lenses will have a body form they can attach to for a period of 10-15 or so years.