If you bought a new digital SLR today, what would it be?

They Live

They Live

Well-known member
It's a large market, and I'm asking for you still photogs input.

So far I've looked at the Nikon D-80 and D-90 and the Canon Rebel. What would you recommend. I think the D-90 looks good, but is it really worth the extra $? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

So if you were to buy a new digital SLR today, what would you get and why? And is there anything new on the horizon I should know about? Thanks.
 
Without doubt I would get an Olympus E-520 to go along with my E-3 mainly because it would talk remotely to my flash system just as the E-3 does and yet it's a bit smaller and lighter. With the E-system you get edge to edge sharpness because the four-Thirds system was designed from the ground up to be digital.
 
Have a look at the Nikon D90 with its ability to shoot 720p!!! There lots of talk about it on here!
 
I have a Sony A700. If I were buying today, I'd buy the A900. :)

They're very popular on this board. Well ... they should be. :)

Seriously, if you're just starting out and are not yet accessorized, You can't go wrong buying Nikon, Sony, Canon, Olympus, etc. Like someone told me once, Matt Grunau I think (this forum), told me it's the indian, not the arrow. Well, the arrow has to be true and well constructed to be effective, but after that, it is the indian. So, buy a decent camera and join in here and any other of hundreds of good photography boards and learn. You'll love it. :)

You will, over time, accumulate lenses. They will be your greatest expense, if not right away (i.e. you only have the kit lens), eventually. Once you have those, future camera purchases will be based on you lens collection.

Larry
 
p.s. Image stabilization can be an important feature. Each manufacturer has their own system and these days, they all work at least fairly well. I'm not sure ... others with other brands will have to chime in on this ... but I THINK that Sony is the only one with the stabilization system in the body, not the lens. That keeps the price of the lens down a bit.

Larry
 
Olympus also has it in body plus a sonic wave filter that keeps dust off the sensor. With the E-3 you're also weatherproof. The articulating LCD and Live View come in handy for shooting round corners and self portraits etc. Plus...It's getting a tad lonely in the E-system thread...So How about that E-system eh? :)
 
Same goes for Pentax K10d/K20d DSLRs. Built in body image stabilization, 17 pt weather resistance. Dust removal and the best HDRI for DSLRs for under $1,500.

I suppose it depends on what you want to spend. I'm sure a high dollar Canon or Nikon would be nice but their are other DSLR camera manufactures :).
 
The E-3 also has little bristles on its base so you can use it to scrub those bits of dried up food on your dishes and the built in vacuum motor is great for cleaning up small spills...LOL sorry, I couldn't resist but yes the other manufactures are really worth looking at especially when you're not married to a box of glass and gizmos that only work with a certain brand.
 
Wow, thanks guys for all the input. Buying electronics today is a bit like a Calvin and Hobbes comic I love where Calvin's Dad is totally frustrated and perplexed by the amount of Peanut Butter options at the grocery store.

Anyway, I appreciate the input. And alwayslearning, I definitely agree with the analogy you use. Sometimes it's easy for us gadget geeks to get way caught up in the price and hype. I'm sure I would be just as happy with a $800 Nikon or Canon than with one of the cameras in the higher price range of 1000 - 1500.

Mino, are you an E-3 salesman by any chance? You've definitely made me curious about the E-3.

Thanks guys.
 
No, not a salesman...Just a really happy user:) I just think a lot of other camera brands get glossed over when they really deserve an objective look:)
 
i'd buy a used D200, or if i had the cash a new D300 or D90. Really depends on what i wanted and my budget. The lenses are worth way more than the body ever will, don't skimp on lenses.
 
If I were to get one today, and didn't have any at all, and still knowing what I know right now......it would be one of 2.

A Nikon D700 or a Canon 5D Mark II. Picking the brand would really just come down to the main usage. For you, I have no idea what you want to do with it so I can't advise one way or another.

If all I was shooting was weddings then I might also consider the Fuji S5. It's a D200 (basically) with some wicked dynamic range from the RAW files.
 
Canon 1dsMklll

Pretty awesome camera..... A little expensive if you don't have the billing to back it up.

frisco
 
I will answer this question as if money were no object and I could afford to do this. It would be of course the Nikon D3. Paired with a 70-200mm f2.8
 
DivotDan said:
A Nikon D700 or a Canon 5D Mark II. Picking the brand would really just come down to the main usage. For you, I have no idea what you want to do with it so I can't advise one way or another.
Click to expand...


I completely agree with DD here.

These are market changing cameras and while I am firmly invested in the Nikon camp to the tune of thousands of $$$ I actually have started to resent my D200 simlpy for the weight factor. There are more and more occassions where I find myself grabbing either my wife's point and shoot or borrowing a buddies D40 because I just need a light weight solution.

Think about what you are going to be shooting and let that determine what you need to purchase.
 
pranic said:
I already own a Canon EOS 5D and a 1D MarkIII, but if I were to buy any camera, it would be the 5D MarkII. I wasn't going to upgrade, but after seeing the video at http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086 I changed my mind. What an excellent tool to carry on vacations and when you don't want to take your video camera. An all-in-one solution would be ideal!
Click to expand...


Wow...what an awesome video from the 5DMarkII camera. November time frame can't come soon enough.
 
What I like about video on this thing is that it's full frame not s35. Combined with a bunch of super fast L series primes night footage such as this video looks amazing and shallow (the ability to shoot with a tilt and shift lens is also awsome)

What I don't like about it is the the 12 minute max recording, no audio hookup and compressed codec it shoots too. The 12 minute no audio limitation make it only usable for narrative productions but the compressed codec takes that away for any important project.

That being said, I think there will be two useful applications for video on this camera. One will be when really shallow or low light/night shots are needed and the other is if you are an event photographer and want to grab a few minutes of short video of the bride to throw in front of a DVD of images. Don't get me wrong I am totally physched about this camera and I am almost 100% this will be my next choice but I think the video capabilites doesn't replace a video camera. If only it could record a reduced resolution 16bit RAW
 
there is no zoom lens, and the bitrate is too limited, so it's not a substitute for a real video camera.

sure wish i that canon to experiment with, tho!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top