Cameras: What's the best DSLR, in your opinion?

[crazyfly1]

Hi all.
I can’t imagine that this hasn’t been done before, but if it has I suppose it’s a subject that needs to be revisited once a year.

I’m wondering if some of the pro photographers would share their preferences for high end cameras.
Let me qualify that, I don’t have $37,000 usd to spend so the top end Hasselblad is out, way out.

I don’t really have a preference for name brands. I used a Nikon and got mad at it because at the time, Photoshop didn’t play well with their raw format. I’m over that now and would be willing to give that relationship another try.

I'm also curious to get your feedback on digital backs. I don't have a camera at this point so it's not like I have a bunch of equipment that I could salvage by purchasing a back. So... do backs still make sence or should I focus on the camera?

Thank you for your input.

[Ant]

Focus on the glass. DSLR bodies are disposable. You said yourself that you can't afford a digital back. The low end of that would be the Mamiya ZD back and even though the price is much lower than other backs, so is the quality. Again with the medium format db, your glass is going to cost more than most of your bodies depending on exactly where you go. Top end is easy with the MK III DS, but I doubt that's what you want to hear either - especially considering that the chip outresolves 90% of the glass available to it. If you like the Nikon, get yourself a D3 or D300 or something along those lines that you think you can afford. D700 just announced, maybe look into that. Forget less than full frame chip bodies if you are going to get lenses. This is such an open ended question and more relevant is how you will utilize a camera and how much you can afford. What will work for you and fall in line with your budget?

[JD Spears]

My rule of thumb on what to spend on a camera; Approximately double what your car cost. I get sick of hearing people whine about not being able to afford a good camera, then get in their NEW gas hog SUV. Trade it in on a mid ninety's Honda and get a Cannon MK 3 1ds.

[skydog]

Like Ant said...invest in glass. Cameras bodies tend to change every 18 months. Recent Nikon review have been great with D3 and D300. A little more pricey for bodies and lenses vs Canon. I'm interested the upgrade to the 5D if it ever materializes.

[dsgoen]

Yes, invest in glass. It was the best advice before digital, and it's the best advice after digital.

That said, there is no best DSLR, no matter how much you want there to be one. I purchased a Nikon D3 a few months ago. It's a great camera in so many ways that I won't repeat what you can find all over the web. A large number of publications and web sites have called it the best DSLR ever. I like it a whole lot. I bought a lot of really good glass with it, and the total price tag is something I'm almost embarrassed to admit. But the D3 still has some issues that annoy me. And the one that really irritates me is that the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Lens ($1,800) noticeably vignettes when wide open on the D3 ($5,000). That's just wrong. On the other hand, I've gotten some incredible pictures out of the D3.

But every time I look at the resulting images, which are damn good, I still miss my old medium format film camera and the quality of images it took. I switched to digital because of problems in getting medium format processed (I can no longer do it myself due to health issues) in any reasonable cost and time frame. So now I lust after something like the Leaf AFi. And if I ever get that, then I'll probably want something else.

[luciengordon]

Originally Posted by crazyfly1

Hi all.
I can’t imagine that this hasn’t been done before, but if it has I suppose it’s a subject that needs to be revisited once a year.

I’m wondering if some of the pro photographers would share their preferences for high end cameras.
Let me qualify that, I don’t have $37,000 usd to spend so the top end Hasselblad is out, way out.

I don’t really have a preference for name brands. I used a Nikon and got mad at it because at the time, Photoshop didn’t play well with their raw format. I’m over that now and would be willing to give that relationship another try.

I'm also curious to get your feedback on digital backs. I don't have a camera at this point so it's not like I have a bunch of equipment that I could salvage by purchasing a back. So... do backs still make sence or should I focus on the camera?

Thank you for your input.

buy a cannon D1 the only Dslr that gives you almost as good quality as a medium format digital back

[DiamondsDr47]

Hi, first you have to know your subject, what kind of work you do or intended to do, sports or still life or etc etc and go from there. I still have my LF-Sinar F for a reason.
If you were a cab driver you would buy a cab right!? Also not cheap but it's the pro tool to generate your income... Also the mf film is still there, and it's great!
Best regards,

[Ant]

Originally Posted by luciengordon

buy a cannon D1 the only Dslr that gives you almost as good quality as a medium format digital back

disregard this foolish statement.

[MrAlexajlex]

Having a great camera is very nice but I think the end product is ultimately what you will be judged on.

This is my list of what is important when it comes to making a great picture.

1)Light
2)Composition
3)Editing skills
4)Lens
5)Camera

If you are looking for a camera realize that you are more likely buying into the system (lenses, etc.) since the bodies get upgraded fairly quickly within a few years.

For Sports (if you are running a business where return on investment is key):
40D, great AF, 6.5fps in RAW, great glass.
If money is not an issue 1DMKIII.

Of course buying into a camera system will have a direct impact on your lens lineup (40D 1.6x vs 5D full frame). Your lenses would have to be geared up towards that aspect.

Canon has a good variety of glasss (85 1.8, 1.2 for portraits, 17-55 2.8 IS (for 1.6 bodies like the 40d), 70-200 2.8IS; 24L, 16-35L for best for 5D, etc.


Nikon has very good gear. The D3 is perhaps one of the greatest (technically) DSLRs right now. The high ISO performance is truly out of this world and at this time Canon cannot touch it (talking 3200-6400ISO+).
Yes the 40D, 1D(s)MKIII can do 3200 and some 6400ISO but the Nikon D3 is cleaner once you pass 3200.

The reality is that recently when I sold my 10D and got the 40D I did not see any improvement in my pic quality.
I still think it was $950 well spent but not in the way most people would think.

It was $950 well spent because it made me become more driven to improve my pics and stop relying on the body.

I have an XTi+grip as my backup and for most situations it does just fine.

Rarindra shoots with an XTi but when he is done with the processing his pics are truly masterpieces.

http://photo.net/photos/rarindra

I don't think I could get the same pics as he does even though I have an XTi as well.

Why?

His light knowledge is a lot better.
His light zone transition is really good.
He shoots at the right time of the day.
His editing skills are a lot better.

I may have the same camera body but yet I can't get the same product out (yet).

I show pics to some people and some say "What a great camera you must have!!!".
What they don't understand is that it is all in the processing.
I bet if I showed them the RAW files they would say that my camera sucked!!

[JD Spears]

Originally Posted by MrAlexajlex

Rarindra shoots with an XTi but when he is done with the processing his pics are truly masterpieces.

http://photo.net/photos/rarindra

When your largest output size is a small jpeg it doesn't really matter what camera or glass you use. (Within reason). When you output 20x24 prints and larger is when you will see a significant difference.

[MrAlexajlex]

Originally Posted by JD Spears

When your largest output size is a small jpeg it doesn't really matter what camera or glass you use. (Within reason). When you output 20x24 prints and larger is when you will see a significant difference.

When I look at Rarindra's work I am impressed with his overall finished product (his editing techniques, light knowledge). One thing I know is that it is his skill and not the camera that makes the pics.

To put it another way I know that if you gave him a 39MP Blad he can create the same fantastic shots.

If I gave someone that lacked talent, skill, eye for color the same 39MP Blad the images would still suck.

Then again I'm pretty sure everyone that does any kind of large print work uses GenuineFractals.


I've done dozens of 20"x30" from the 10D which is 6MP came out just fine.

I've seen 60" x 48" @ 150-233dpi from an XTi and they looked fantastic at 5 feet (which one would agree is a pretty reasonable viewing distance for something this size).

I have a friend that did 8'x10' prints for a trade show using Genuine Fractals.

GenuineFractals is quite popular with people that do large prints (talking 20"x30" and higher) and billboards.


Between USM and other local contrast techniques when properly applied you can go a long way.

The DSLR images come out a bit soft because of the anti-aliasing filter that sits in front of the sensor (to prevent moire issues).

It all depends on your workflow but for large prints most use some form of sharpening.

It is not always about the MP size it is also about pixel density.

I just got word that Phil Askey over at dpreview.com has added a pixel density field to their camera reviews. This is a great indicator that the MP number is only part of the equation and the density is an even more important point.

[luciengordon]

Originally Posted by Ant

disregard this foolish statement.

Why? What is wrong with that statement? Do you not think a cannon D1 is the best DSLR on the market? EOS-1Ds Mark IIIt has 21 mp witch is almost as good as a medium format digital back is it not? and about 10 grand cheeper.

Try not to be such a prick!

[Ant]

Originally Posted by luciengordon

Why? What is wrong with that statement? Do you not think a cannon D1 is the best DSLR on the market? EOS-1Ds Mark IIIt has 21 mp witch is almost as good as a medium format digital back is it not? and about 10 grand cheeper.

Try not to be such a prick!

No. You are wrong. You made an ignorant statement and I called you out on it. With your reply you made more ignorant statements. No DSLR is the same as a digital back. I have no wish to educate you, do it yourself, but as it stands you're an idiot.



RE: GF and big prints.

Genuine Fractals does phuck all different than PSs' interpolation, same as other similar programs.

What looks good enlarged and how enlarged is very subjective and image, etc. dependent

[luciengordon]

If you did not have your head stuck up your ass so far you would go back a re read what i wrote and you would see that i said almost! (in no way did i say better or the same) and then also you would see that this is topic about DSLR not digital backs and the closest you can get in terms of quality from a DSLR to a digital back is the cannon d1

Again try not to be such a prick!

[Ant]

It's not almost. STFU already. You graduated with a BA in photography from where Take my money Photography School.co.uk ?

[luciengordon]

I am sorry but are you trying to say that all! digital backs are of better quality than the D1 M3t? because if you are i well maybe it is you who need to go back to school.

[luciengordon]

Well lets talk about price if you spend 6,000.00 pounds! On a top of the range out this year D1 or spend the same amount on a digital back what would give you the best quality?

Also witch type of camera do you think the majority of professional photographers use a DSLR or a Digital back?

Also by the way i graduated from the 3rd most respected photography degree in the Uk .

[DiamondsDr47]

You comparing apples to oranges, 22 mega pixel count yes, but not the sensor and photosites physical size, do you actually have personal expirience with those toys... I can tell you even polaraoid instant print from my 4x5 blows my lovely Canon 5D in terms of details in some specific task...

[JD Spears]

Originally Posted by MrAlexajlex

When I look at Rarindra's work I am impressed with his overall finished product (his editing techniques, light knowledge). One thing I know is that it is his skill and not the camera that makes the pics.

To put it another way I know that if you gave him a 39MP Blad he can create the same fantastic shots.

If I gave someone that lacked talent, skill, eye for color the same 39MP Blad the images would still suck.

Then again I'm pretty sure everyone that does any kind of large print work uses GenuineFractals.


I've done dozens of 20"x30" from the 10D which is 6MP came out just fine.

I've seen 60" x 48" @ 150-233dpi from an XTi and they looked fantastic at 5 feet (which one would agree is a pretty reasonable viewing distance for something this size).

I have a friend that did 8'x10' prints for a trade show using Genuine Fractals.

GenuineFractals is quite popular with people that do large prints (talking 20"x30" and higher) and billboards.


Between USM and other local contrast techniques when properly applied you can go a long way.

The DSLR images come out a bit soft because of the anti-aliasing filter that sits in front of the sensor (to prevent moire issues).

It all depends on your workflow but for large prints most use some form of sharpening.

It is not always about the MP size it is also about pixel density.

I just got word that Phil Askey over at dpreview.com has added a pixel density field to their camera reviews. This is a great indicator that the MP number is only part of the equation and the density is an even more important point.

Way, way too many points to comment or debate about. You had mentioned Rarindra Prakarsa who's largest output image is around 700 px. At that size it wouldn't make a lot of sense to get a high end camera.

[MrAlexajlex]

Originally Posted by JD Spears

Way, way too many points to comment or debate about. You had mentioned Rarindra Prakarsa who's largest output image is around 700 px. At that size it wouldn't make a lot of sense to get a high end camera.

Is his skill in Photoshop, composition, light knowledge (the list goes on) limited by the fact that Photo.net (and pretty much every forum) limits the images you can upload to 700px or 1024px?

He shoots with an XTi which is 10MP and I'm pretty sure all his files are edited at 10MP but then resized for his web gallery due to space constraints.

His skills stand on their own as top shelf (backed up by the numerous comments on his portfolio) regardless if he is editing a postage stamp image or a 39MP one.

The point is that both Rarindra and I have an XTi.
The last time I checked however, my pics were nowhere near his quality level.

He is a master of chiaroscuro, composition, Photoshop editing.
These traits are his and independent of what camer he uses, or what the size of his pics are when resized for the web.

[JD Spears]

Originally Posted by MrAlexajlex

Is his skill in Photoshop, composition, light knowledge (the list goes on) limited by the fact that Photo.net (and pretty much every forum) limits the images you can upload to 700px or 1024px?

He shoots with an XTi which is 10MP and I'm pretty sure all his files are edited at 10MP but then resized for his web gallery due to space constraints.

His skills stand on their own as top shelf (backed up by the numerous comments on his portfolio) regardless if he is editing a postage stamp image or a 39MP one.

The point is that both Rarindra and I have an XTi.
The last time I checked however, my pics were nowhere near his quality level.

He is a master of chiaroscuro, composition, Photoshop editing.
These traits are his and independent of what camer he uses, or what the size of his pics are when resized for the web.

Actually were getting off the subject of the thread. I left a comment on " Amazing portfolio". You could put this comment over there. I double dog dare you too!

[MrAlexajlex]

Originally Posted by JD Spears

Actually were getting off the subject of the thread. I left a comment on " Amazing portfolio". You could put this comment over there. I double dog dare you too!

You're wish is my command.

[crazyfly1]

Hi guys, I've looked over everyones comments and looked into your suggestions. Ant your right, I looked at backs and I thought that they were more wide spread than they are. I only found a few makes and they are too pricey haveing you still by camera and glass.
I'm thinking the canon 5d 12.8 mp looks good at around $1800 usd.
The other option is the Nikon d300 12.3 at around $1600.

Sounds as though the 12 mp range is the best I can do without taking another $6000 leap. Sounds like I'd be OK with one of these and then just put another $1500 into a nice lens.

[DiamondsDr47]

I'd suggest take in consideration what you going to do, if it's all around camera, or you going shoot sports, wild life , weddings, etc. Then the take a look on glass line up, price performance availability. If doing any of those professionally you can lease the system
that will suit you.
Best regards,

[MrAlexajlex]

I'm on the same line with DiamondsDr47.

Theses days people have to a lot of different things to make money (studio work, weddings, portraits, fashion, sports, etc.)

This is the main reason why I went with a 1.6 crop system and ultimately with the 40D.

My lens lineup allows me to cover pretty much anything from weddings to indoor basketball with the 85 1.8:

85 1.8 | 50 1.8 | Sigma 20 1.8 | Tamron 17-50 2.8

The only other lens that would complete this perfect lineup would be a 70-200 2.8IS (which I rent on a per assignment basis). The other one would be a 50 1.4 to replace the nifty fifty.
This of course are more items that I want rather than absolutely need since there is a bit of overlap in my lineup and I also use my feet.

40D has 6.5fps RAW burst rate for sports, enhanced AF with special optimizations for lenses that are 2.8 or faster 14bit capabilities. LiveView (which I consider a bit of a gimmick and keep off most of the time; at the same time I can't argue with it if you do macro work and sell prints or if you use it's 10x zoom to make sure the focus is perfect; it's also great for getting really low angle shots with the camera on the ground which would previously require you to lay on the ground or try to just previsualize it and hope you got it).

The 5d viewfinder is larger over the 40D but the 40D is quite nice and they've improved it over past versions (brighter and bigger).

There is no question that the 5D is a nice camera but at the same time when most people talk about it the always say that they "like the image out of the camera".

This always puzzled me since you can match the 5D look in Photoshop on any camera with a bit of work.

Price wise there is no question that you can get nearly 2 40Ds for the price of 1 5D (2 x 40D = $1900 1 x 5D = $1800 so you just have to add $100).

From a business sense the 5D would have to perform nearly 200% better otherwise it would take you twice as long to amortize your investment (in other words you'd be working twice as hard for the same amount of profit).

With the new Nikon D700 out Canon is probably very close to a 5DMKII so the price on the original may be coming down.