Semi-Professional Camera Purchase Question

**WinterlessIceness** · 04.11.07, 04:59 AM

Many of you guys posted your way cool photography in the other thread I, and since I started to receive a highly positive feedback on my myspace profile I thought it's about time I move on from my 5mpixel $200 bucks Panasonic to something else. I love that camera and I manage to take very good shots with it, however it has it's limitations when it comes to low-light settings, work with focus, etc.

I'm thinking of getting a camera in $1,500-$2000 price range, however when I read the descriptions of different models I'm lost, coz they all seem to have either very similar features, or the features I have absolutely no clue about. I'm sure they're all good cameras in their own way, however having worked with professional film cameras we have at my uni I got to know that brand name makes the difference, say equal cameras by specification give very different footage even when shot at the same time, in terms of colors, tone gradient and overal feel of the picture.

I would definately get Panasonic if they'd have SLR cameras on the market, however they don't appear to specialize in this field so I have an option of going for either Canon, Nikon, Sony or Olympus. Any personal experience with any of those cameras?

**CaboBrian** · 04.11.07, 07:19 AM

I recommend Canon. I have a little 3.2 MP digital elph that I've been taking pictures with for a few years and have always been amazed at how well the pictures come out. I borrowed a buddies 6 MP digital rebel a couple of weeks ago to take pictures in Las Vegas for our wedding and they all came out perfect. The colors and clarity are always great. Even the pro that took the pictures for our wedding was using a Canon. I also work with a couple of people in our office that run photography businesses on the side and use the newer Canon Digital Rebels and their pictures are always great.

**namedmydaughterHALEN** · 04.11.07, 07:48 AM

well, i am a loyal film fan. hard to break away from film. i am also a nikon fan
i have a nikon 6006 35 mm with assorted lenses. hard to take a bad picture with that thing. all the digitals that i have used do not have the speed that film has. digital has a problem with shutter lag. if subject is moving....forget about it. i have not played with the nikon d-slr. i have read some bad things about the low end d-40. the d100 might be the ticket but still some concerns about shutter lag and expensive. if they can match the shutter speed of film then i will convert.
i have a fuji digital camera that takes beautiful photos but really disappoints in the speed of focus.

**te5150** · 04.11.07, 11:58 AM

I've been shooting with a Canon 10D for 4 or so years and I'm always happy with the results.

You might look into Canon's digital Rebel. It's a single lens reflex camera, with basic lens, and it's priced affordably. It goes full manual control, or lets you play with appeture or shutter speed. With the money you save on it, you could look at a decent wide-angle lens, which are great to have in the bag.

In any case, I'd go with Canon or Nikon any day over Sony or Olympus.

**WinterlessIceness** · 04.11.07, 02:20 PM

Thanks for the replies. I checked one good review on this website, http://www.trustedreviews.com/digita...on-EOS-400D/p1 , which covers exactly the range of the cameras I'm looking up, and I'm pretty sure I'll go for Nikon D80 . What's great about the articles, it provides the list of all specifications/features and finally clear unedited images taken by each camera in loads of different settings, and the bottom shot on This page just did it for me. It's about $400 more expensive than Canon EOS 400D (aka Digital Rebel XTi), and I'm sure that Canon is great for the money, but I'd rather save for one month more and get a camera I'd love and use for years without feeling a need to upgrade it.

namedmydaughterHALEN, I'm more into taking still shots so since the shutter lag wouldn't be a problem that's one more reason to go for Nikon, thanks!

**te5150** · 04.11.07, 10:41 PM

I think you'll be more than happy with that one. I shot with a Nikon film camera for several years and always liked the results. Canon or Nikon, like I said. Make sure you buy a spare battery and a good, protective bag. Oh, and a wide-angle.

Oh, and...

(Damned expensive hobby, it is.)

Let us know when your flickr site is up!

**Aristotle** · 04.12.07, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by WinterlessIceness

Thanks for the replies. I checked one good review on this website, http://www.trustedreviews.com/digita...on-EOS-400D/p1 , which covers exactly the range of the cameras I'm looking up, and I'm pretty sure I'll go for Nikon D80 . What's great about the articles, it provides the list of all specifications/features and finally clear unedited images taken by each camera in loads of different settings, and the bottom shot on This page just did it for me. It's about $400 more expensive than Canon EOS 400D (aka Digital Rebel XTi), and I'm sure that Canon is great for the money, but I'd rather save for one month more and get a camera I'd love and use for years without feeling a need to upgrade it.

namedmydaughterHALEN, I'm more into taking still shots so since the shutter lag wouldn't be a problem that's one more reason to go for Nikon, thanks!

Its definately between Canon and Nikon. Sadly with digital photography too much focus (no pun intended) has been placed on the electronics and not enough on the optics. When it comes to semi-professional photography you HAVE to think about lens quality. And that leaves you with two brand names. Forget about what Sony labels as "Karl Zeiss lens" its crap. The Karl Zeiss brand is a marketing gimic and does not have the quality that you would expect from Zeiss.

The 400D is right now the highest selling digital SLR in the world, and for good reason. If you buy the kit the 18-55mm lens that comes with it is great. From there on don't buy any Canon lenses unless its an L lens. Costs a load of money for each lens, but the difference is remarkable. Also the processing speed and the general electronics of Canon digital cameras are currently better than Nikon (something that Nikon is trying to rectify).

One other thing about Canon is focusing speed. It is amazing how much faster than Nikon it is. If you are shooting wildlife, city life or sports (basically any fast moving objects) then you should go for Canon. Note that 99% of ALL sports photographers around the world use Canon for this very reason.

BUT, Nikon lens clarity is something else. Its costs more than Canon but its money well spent. I say this because I have full sets from both brands and I see the strengths and weaknesses of both when compared to eachother. Actually I am very much a film man and would not trade my F5 Nikon or my Canon EOS3 for anything but I recently bought a D80 and found it a lot of fun. Then again I have spent years building up a good lens collection and that really helps. But you should only take Nikon seriously if you are going to be doing a lot of portrait or still life photography.

Forget about Panasonic, Sony or JVC. They only got seriously into the photography game when digital electronics became very important. Sony's only strength is the seamless compatibality of the photo technology with the consumer and IT electronics.

OK, I have go on long enough.

**te5150** · 04.12.07, 03:08 AM

Originally Posted by Aristotle

Its definately between Canon and Nikon.

Aristotle's whole post nailed it. Canon for capturing moving objects. Nikon for portraits - but only if you're getting true Nikon glass. Don't skimp and buy a knock-off lens.

So, Aristotle, are you a pro or a hobbyist?

**WinterlessIceness** · 04.12.07, 04:53 AM

Aristotle, your post definately convinced me to go for D80 because my passion lies in still photography, and especially urban exploration. Plus I could see your pictures first-hand in 'post your hobby outcomes' thread and I love them! Thanks for you opinion, it was very helpful!

Originally Posted by te5150

I think you'll be more than happy with that one. I shot with a Nikon film camera for several years and always liked the results. Canon or Nikon, like I said. Make sure you buy a spare battery and a good, protective bag. Oh, and a wide-angle.

Oh, and...

(Damned expensive hobby, it is.)

Let us know when your flickr site is up!

I'm definately buying a spare battery coz I plan on having long city-to-city trips, and extra power supply can be life saving. I most probably be getting D80 kit with a wide angle included, and building up the lense collection as my budget would allow me. Thanks for the advices!

By the way I already have a myspace page up, that I co-run with my friend - http://www.myspace.com/telescope_iceness , the pictures I have there reflect pretty much the style of my photography, and the topics I'm interested in, check it out

**Aristotle** · 04.12.07, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by te5150

Aristotle's whole post nailed it. Canon for capturing moving objects. Nikon for portraits - but only if you're getting true Nikon glass. Don't skimp and buy a knock-off lens.

So, Aristotle, are you a pro or a hobbyist?

My whole life has been about photography.

But this is not why I recommend these two brands. I love cameras too much to BS about something so serious. It just pisses me off the way Zeiss has sold out and now the Karl Zeiss name is appearing on all sorts of crap cameras including the Sony ones which really are toilet.

**Aristotle** · 04.12.07, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by WinterlessIceness

Aristotle, your post definately convinced me to go for D80 because my passion lies in still photography, and especially urban exploration. Plus I could see your pictures first-hand in 'post your hobby outcomes' thread and I love them! Thanks for you opinion, it was very helpful!

The pics you saw were all taken with my Canon EOS3 (24-70mm L lens) on Konica 100asa or 200asa film. Nikon lens clarity is beyond even those pictures. You are making a good choice. Make sure you put some money aside for some good lenses. My first recommendation is a 17-35mm zoom. Its costly but it will give you the most dramatic pictures and you will have greater ability for your urban exploration in small spaces. Just dont forget a tripod.

**Axxman300** · 04.12.07, 12:53 PM

My next camera:

I already use a Canon Rebel and I love it because it's almost idiot-proof, which means it was designed for a guy like me. The only reason I'm upgrading is because I'm blowing a lot of cash on film and processing. I'm taking in two rools today and that's going to run me around $25.

In the SLR world it comes down to Nikon or Canon , which is a vertual tie. Once you commit then you've made a commitment for a long time (unless you've got serious cash) because all of your lenses will only work on the brand you've bought. You're going to need a 300mm telephoto lense and a wide-angle to go with the set lense that will come with your camera. Especially if you're into Urban Exploration, there are some shots that you won't have enough space back up and that wide-angle will come in handy. I use the 300mm exclusively because I'm into detail and I don't need the wide shots, but I do miss out on a shot here and there due to tight spaces.

Also, for UE you're going to need a tripod because of low-light conditions. The SLR is amazing because it does all the work with the shuttler-speed, I just have to line up the shot. You'd be suprised how much a Mag-Light can light up a big room.

**WinterlessIceness** · 04.13.07, 11:43 AM

That's the camera that Motts from Opacity takes his shots with! And it was actually that website that inspired me so much on doing photography and Urban Exploration and I owe you a huge 'thank you' for posting a link to it in 'hobbies outcome' thread. Hooked my up majorly, and put me into a whole new perspective about what I want to do with my career in film as well.

Thanks for the advices, I'll get back to this thread once my wallet is thick enough