Which camera?

[liza]

Hi,
I am buying my first DSLR camera and taking the right decision among such a broad range of products is very difficult, specially for beginner. I am generally interested in outdoor/travel/landscape/wildlife photography.
I have done a bit of research and have decided for semi pro (enthusiastic) camera. I don't want to go for entry-level model, I will probably have to upgrade it to quick. I have done some research and have narrowed my choice to 5 cameras Canon eos 50d or Nikon d90 on one hand (those two are cheaper, what is a big +) but I much rather spend more if it is worth the money. And Nikon300s, Nikon d700 and Canon eos d7 on the other hand.Sspecially last 2 cameras are more expensive, but have some very interesting features and I simply cannot see which one is the best since every model has some advantages and some disadvantages. On one hand I really like Nikon d700 which produces better results when shooting in higher ISO and crop factor 1.0. What bothers me the most with Nikon is its lower resolution in Mp. In comparison with Canon d7, which has more Mp and is faster, and so on. As you can see I am in big dilemma and would really need an advise after all taking wrong decision is an expensive mistake in the case of cameras. So which model would be the best for my needs and (the one that provides quality pics and is worth its price) which lens is the best to start with?
Thanks for help.

[clm738]

Have you tried going to a camera shop and holding them all, or as many as you can, complete with long and short lens, (battery grip and flash if you are going to get them). eliminate the ones that just don't feel right and go from there. How the camera feels in your hands and if you can touch all the controls with the right fingers makes it a lot easier to get used to the camera and you will enjoy using it more.
You're not planning on spending a small amount on your bodies so don't rush into it.

[swifty]

I agree that u should take your time. No rush really.
Write a list of what u consider important and what you intend to shoot.
One issue newcomers often make is overemphasing the camera itself and not enough on everything else. Arguably the most important consideration is the lens choice. Then there's supporting accessories, and don't forget to budget for thngs like tripods,bags etc.
Of the choices u have listed, in all honesty I don't think u can go wrong. IMHO but biased of course (as all opinions are) the D700 is the best all rounder, 7D makes a very compelling case for reach, speed, mp and not to mention possibly the best video available on DSLR currently (if that interests u).
But all the other choices are strong in their own respects.
Good luck on ur decision.

[bigdazzler]

You know what i reckon ?? I reckon youre confusing the hell out of yourself by looking at specs, and resolution and MPs and bla bla ...

Take a deep breath and slow down ;) :)

First, what level of experience do you have ?? Where are your skills at ?? Do you have an understanding of how to use a DSLR correctly ?? No point worrying about 17 v 24 MPs if you dont have the an understanding of the basic fundamentals.

So tell us a bit about where youre at, what you would mostly like to do with the camera, and your upper limit budget. This will get you the best advice possible on where you should be looking to spend your money :)

[jim]

One issue newcomers often make is overemphasing the camera itself and not enough on everything else. Arguably the most important consideration is the lens choice.

If your budget is tight it's probably a good idea to buy a cheaper camera (all those on your list are very capable I believe) and spend your money on the best lenses you can get. You'll probably be using them long after the camera is gone.

[ving]

bigdazzler is correct...

personally if you are just a beginner, and you arent going into business why not go the cheaper option and buy a d90 (or canon equivalent) and use the money you saved for lenses, cause trust me the more you get into it the more lenses you are likely to want :)

and also remember nikon and canon arent the only makes out there, you might be able to get a better deal on say an olympus, pentax or sony for example. shop around, see what system suits your needs best.

[liza]

You know what i reckon ?? I reckon youre confusing the hell out of yourself by looking at specs, and resolution and MPs and bla bla ...

Take a deep breath and slow down ;) :)

First, what level of experience do you have ?? Where are your skills at ?? Do you have an understanding of how to use a DSLR correctly ?? No point worrying about 17 v 24 MPs if you dont have the an understanding of the basic fundamentals.

So tell us a bit about where youre at, what you would mostly like to do with the camera, and your upper limit budget. This will get you the best advice possible on where you should be looking to spend your money :)

Hi
Thanks for all comments.
I have to agree with you I am really confusing myself and more information I get, more confused I am becoming. What can I say about my skills. I haven't done any shooting with SLR, yet. Right now I am using Canon Powershot camera. I have been taking my photography a bit seriously for the last year or so. I have understanding of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc. Honestly I even don't understand really what is actually the difference between SLR and compact camera (except in technology and in fact that SLR produces better pics) - I mean in terms of usage (hopefully the question doesn't sound to silly, but as I just wrote I haven't used SLR yet). I try to practise as often as possible and try to take photos practically of everything, but I enjoy the most in shooting landscapes and wildlife.
I haven't limited the budget. Right now I am doing a bit of research and I'll probably weit for a couple of months to save some money - how long I'll have to wait before buying depends of the camera price :) (but of course, I rather spend less than more if it is possible).

[dmdigital]

Don't get too concerned about the megapixels. Canon and others make a big deal of how many mp's they have on their sensors. Whilst at first it may stand out a scream "buy me I'm bigger" it's not really that much of a big issue. All of the cameras you've mentioned will take excellent pictures regardless of how many pixels they have.

I would recommend looking at the lower spec bodies (eg D90) and spending more money on better lenses. As you learn you will want to upgrade the body, but a good lens is an investment.

But what ever you do, try the body out at a camera shop. Personally I hate Canon, not because they are inferior to Nikon, but because I can't stand the ergonomics of the camera body. Others will have the opposite opinion.

[I @ M]

(but of course, I rather spend less than more if it is possible).

We all want to do that :)

Quite frankly, there have been some brilliant photos posted on here (AP) as well as the rest of the web that have been taken with far less than professional level cameras and it has all come down to the ability of the photographer to see the scene and to understand the functions of their camera and its' limitations.

My advice -- go forth and buy whichever semi entry level camera suits your budget and the feel of your hands using it, use it it constantly and wear it out inside of the warranty period to the stage that you KNOW that you are being held back in your photographic endeavours by the level of equipment and then unleash the credit card on the next level of lenses and bodies to get the result you want.

In the meantime, read heaps on here, join in, post some images for critique and have a ball. :th3:

[bigdazzler]

Hi
Thanks for all comments.
I have to agree with you I am really confusing myself and more information I get, more confused I am becoming. What can I say about my skills. I haven't done any shooting with SLR, yet. Right now I am using Canon Powershot camera. I have been taking my photography a bit seriously for the last year or so. I have understanding of shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc. Honestly I even don't understand really what is actually the difference between SLR and compact camera (except in technology and in fact that SLR produces better pics) - I mean in terms of usage (hopefully the question doesn't sound to silly, but as I just wrote I haven't used SLR yet). I try to practise as often as possible and try to take photos practically of everything, but I enjoy the most in shooting landscapes and wildlife.
I haven't limited the budget. Right now I am doing a bit of research and I'll probably weit for a couple of months to save some money - how long I'll have to wait before buying depends of the camera price :) (but of course, I rather spend less than more if it is possible).

ok now were getting somewhere, we have a starting point ... :D

First of all ... Keep an open mind. You can rest assured that every camera manufacturer in the market today is making great products and ALL are very capable of producing outstanding results. The camera is a tool, a means to an end, and like any tool, it will only perform as well as its operator can operate it .. so never forget that bit :) However, in saying that, there is one major advantage to sticking with Canon or Nikon over the other brands, and that is the availability of second hand lenses. Other than that, all the manufacturers including Pentax, Sony and Olympus are producing outstanding gear these days. So as I said, keep an open mind.

Second of all .. Given you have stated that you havent used a DSLR as yet, before you even think about buying anything, I would STRONGLY recommend you go into your local store and hold and feel up as many cameras from as many different manufacturers as you can get your hands on. Ergonomics can vary greatly. Some will feel great in your hands, others will feel awkward and uncomfortable. Take note of obvious things like can your right index finger reach the shutter button comfortably ?? These are the types of things you cant learn on the internet. YOU need to hold the cameras for yourself.

Thirdly .. Once youve decided on a brand, be aware of the fact that youre not only buying a camera and a lens, youre buying into a system, and over time this usually equates to quite a substantial financial investment. Once locked into Canon or Nikon or whatever else, and you have accumulated a few lenses, flashes etc, for most of us it is simply too expensive to go changing. So take into consideration the different lenses that are available from different brands that might suit your needs. As I mentioned before, in this regard the BIG 2 have a distinct advantage over the others for 2 reasons. One, they have a wide variety of lenses available for pretty well all applications from ultra wide angles for landscapes, right through to super telephoto lenses for sport and wildlife, and 2, there is an abundance of second hand gear floating around, much more than you will be able to find from the other brands.

So have a think about what kind of kit your like to get you up and running. Given the genres you mentioned, you will most likely want a body, lenses covering say 18mm to 200mm, and a sturdy tripod. Dont discount second hand bodies either, most photographers look after their gear very well and you can find a lot of very good second hand gear going cheap. Your money is better invested in lenses than bodies. Bodies will come and go. Lenses (at least QUALITY ones, for the most part) are with you for life :)

Theres a few things to think about before you go shopping anyway .... Im sure there will be a lot more advice coming your way but just remember to do your homework, heed the advice of the guys around here, and be patient. Youll end up making wiser decisions and end up with a more suitable kit bag if you spend a little bit of time thinking about things ... :th3:

[arthurking83]

Most of the advice has been to save the money on the body(by skimping) and using those savings to purchase better lenses.. yet the reality is that as a beginner, you probably have no idea on what lenses you want right now! That knowledge comes after having been shooting for a while, and coming to a scientific conclusion that you need a lens with ---mm focal length and a maximum f/X.Y aperture.. etc.

I say, of the bodies suggested, do it right the first time, and get either the D700(or Canon 5DMkII) and then forget about requiring a body upgrade for the next 10 or so years as you invest more time and money on your lenses.

No point is spending $1K on a body now, only to want to upgrade again in the future(because of your comment that the D700 does better high ISO).. and thus eventually wasting that $1K(you never get your money back, especially after a coupel of generations of new bodies).

That $1K(wasted) may have been better spent on the original body in the first place!

That's just my POV, and it's worked for me over the last few years.
It takes up too much energy to have to think about upgrading both the body and the lenses at the same time.

My recommendation is for the D700(from your list) for general outdoor, landscape, most travel situations.. and can do great wildlife pics in a pinch too... at any light level.
Some of the lenses I]required[/I] to achieve what you want, will cost a small fortune.. and with the Nikon system, you have access to many golden oldie lenses(for cheap!) that work as well as, or better than the modern stuff too.

Only because of your willingness to learn more about the hobby, the level of expertise in operating a camera such as the D700(or D300s) is not going to be an obstacle!
If you're eager to find out as much info as you can on which camera is the right one for you, I bet you're going to be more than capable of learning how to use aperture/shutter priority on the cam. It's not science!

We've planned a meetup for Feb where there seems to be quite a diverse range of members attending with their concomitantly diverse range of camera gear. A perfect way to experience first hand what each camera is going to be like form the people that use them. All you have to do is attend.

See HERE (Who'd have thought it possible?)(it's going to be in your neck of the woods anyhow :D)

[bigdazzler]

thats a fair point AK ... Of course the other side of the coin is there is nothing stopping someone just starting out, buying and sticking with lets say a 450D or a D90 for a few years anyway ... Lets be honest, how many of us actually outgrow our camera bodies ability wise anyhow ?? Unless you are a working sport tog that requires 10fps or a full time wedding shooter that requires ultra low noise at high ISOs, we really only upgrade our bodies to satisfy our lusts and desires anyway right ?? :D

[Gregg Bell]

Right it seems that you're very confuzzled. So heres the deal the whole point of owning a dSLR is because the lenses are interchangeable. Buying the greatest and best camera, and using cheap lenses. Besides the way cameras come and go, you kinda lose half its value within 6months, where as lenses hold their resale value.

Because I own Nikon. I will give you the POV and your choices in the Nikon Department. You said you wanted to do Wildlife, and Landscape. This is quite a contradiction if you are on a budget. Wildlife photographers tend to get a cropped sensor because it gives them that extra reach. Landscape photographers would ideally use a full-frame dSLR. So which is the higher priority?

As for travel, and the rest, well both cameras will do as good as each other.

I wouldn't recommend a D300s unless you know what you're doing with a camera. The D300s only has Manual, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, and Program. With tons of custom features. Its a great camera if you want to get the best for wildlife. The Canon 7D rivals with the D300s. However The 7D is known to be rather soft in comparison to the Nikon D300s.

I don't see why you need more then 12 megapixels. Unless you REALLY need to print 1meter x 80cm prints, then get the Canon 7D. the Nikon D300s making prints of 150DPI you would get a maximum 72.6cm x 48.2cm prints. Is that too small for you?

On the other hand I would recommend a Canon 50D or Nikon D90 or any other consumer equivalent. They are prosumer, definitely great value for $. They do everything the D300s but they have pre-set functions, and are dumbed down.

If you choose a full-frame camera, and you want to do wildlife, then your lens choices suddenly becomes seriously expensive, if you want to shoot birds with the D700 you better save $16,000 and get the 600mm. This of course is the Ideal solution.

For the lenses, depending on which format you choose, both nikon and canon offer a plethora of lenses. for landscape on the DX formats, you have the 12-24DX from nikon, and the 10-22mm for the canon.

the 24-70mm from both cameras are marveled for being a fantastic combination. A nikon D700 & 24-70mm will be the ideal landscape, and travel lens. If you are serious about your landscapes you can drop just over $2K and get the legendary 14-24mm.

so here's a few Ideal setups for the genres you chose, I even broke it down into Full-frame and DX for you.

Full-Frame Nikon D700 $3000
Landscape: 14-24mm f/2.8 ($2400)
Wildlife: 200-400mm f/4 IF ED VR ($8,600) OR 80-400mm f/4-5.6 ($2,200)
Birding: 600mm f/4 IF ED VR ($13,600) OR 300mm f/2.8 IF ED VR + 2x TC ($8500)
Travel: 24-70mm f/2.8 ED VR ($2,500)

Full-Frame Canon 5DmkII $2990
Landscape: 16-35mm f/2.8L ($2,000) 17-40 f/4L ($1,200)
Wildlife: 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L ($2,300)
Birding: 800mm f/5.6L ($15,000) or 600mm f/4L ($12000)
Travel: 24-70mm f/2.8L ($1700)

Cropped Nikon D300s $2,000 D90 $950
Landscape: 12-24mm f/4 IF-ED ($1,600) OR any third party which ranges from $400-1200
Wildlife: 80-400mm f/4-5.6 IF-ED VR ($2,200) OR 70-200mm f/2.8 IF-ED VR ($2,400)
Birding: 80-400mm f/4-5.6 ED VR($2,200)
Travel: 17-55mm f/2.8 IF-ED DX G ($1,600) OR 24-70mm f/2.8 ED VR ($2,400)

Cropped Cannon Canon 50D $1,200 Canon 7D $2,100
Landscape: 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ($1,165) OR any third party which ranges from $400-1200
Wildlife: 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L ($2,300) or 70-200mm L ($1,100 - 2,200)
Birding: 400mm f/5.6L ($1,700)
Travel: 17-40 f/4L ($1,200) OR 24-70mm f/2.8L ($1700)

So think about it like this IF you go Full-Frame the lenses will cost you alot more.If you do however want to do birding, and willing to fork out for a nice lens purely for birding you can get the 400mm f/5.6L for $1700, something that Nikon does NOT have.

However if you are doing wildlife and birding then Nikon offers the 80-400mm, which will be great for shooting large birds, medium birds, and zoos, even going on safaris. The Canon have their 100-400mm that rivals the nikon as well.

So maybe you should think about your priorities and think what you would like to photograph, if you want to photograph all these genres and use quality glass like the ones mentioned, then you don't have to get them straight away but building up and get what you would use most. As you can see Canon is cheaper

[Jasmar]

Hi Liza.
I agree completely with Gregg.
My first DSLR was the Nikon D70 ( which I still have and use as my 2nd camera ). I learnt everything with that camera then progressed to the D300 when I knew I was ready for the next level. My advise is to go to your nearest camera shop. Hold and try out each one that has been suggested and see which one best suits you. Have fun.:)

[liza]

Hi
Thanks everyone for your advices. I'll definitely go into the store beforehand and see how every camera feels in my hands. But I'd like to stay with Nikon or Canon (if I broaden my choice to other brands, than I'll get even more confused, as I'm not enough right now:confused013).

Thanks Gregg for such a wide interpretation. From all that I have read so far, Nikon D700 seems to be my favourite (if the price wouldn't be so high I would probably go for that one straight away).
As it goes for what I like to photograph is like that. I like to take my camera everywhere I go. What means, when going to city I will take photos of architecture, city in night (this is why I would like a camera that produces (relatively) good pics at higher ISO); when going in parks (what is my favourite) I will take landscapes and of course wildlife (you wrote landscapes and wildlife are in contradiction, but from my point of view those two fields are actually very closely linked:)), when traveling I would take photos practically of everything, there are also family/friends gatherings, etc. Since I usually take photos outside it would be a big plus if a camera is environmentally sealed. So, generally I would probably need a good all rounder (at least for beginning) with maybe 1 or 2 lenses for beginning.
I cannot say I really know what I am doing with my camera (I am still learning), but I almost never (except in the case of sunset, and sometimes with sport) use scene modes (I usually use AV or Manual settings).
I must admit I still don't have a good understanding of lenses (can you advise me any good book or website, where I could find a good explanation). There are also many different books on SLR photography and I wouldn't like to buy just one, can you advise me a good book.
Cheers.
Sandra

[bigdazzler]

Hi
city in night (this is why I would like a camera that produces (relatively) good pics at higher ISO);

If by city night photography you mean cityscapes/silky water/reflections/light trails, this is actually best achieved with base ISO (usually 100 or 200), a good sturdy tripod, and a remote shutter release.

If you mean dusk/twilight photography and handheld, high ISO performance is definitely a factor to consider.

[kiwi]

There has been lots of fantastic advice on here.

Ill just say one word

Nikon.

[bigdazzler]

Ill just say one word

Nikon.

As always, offered without the slightest hint of bias ...:eek::D

[arthurking83]

As always, offered without the slightest hint of bias ...:eek::D

I think you're confusing bias, with experience :D

of course, I say that without any biases or prejudices either :lol2:

[bigdazzler]

haha .. I have to say its the most compelling one word argument ive ever heard ... :D

[Gregg Bell]

Hi
Thanks Gregg for such a wide interpretation. From all that I have read so far, Nikon D700 seems to be my favourite (if the price wouldn't be so high I would probably go for that one straight away).

As it goes for what I like to photograph is like that. I like to take my camera everywhere I go. What means, when going to city I will take photos of architecture, city in night (this is why I would like a camera that produces (relatively) good pics at higher ISO); when going in parks (what is my favourite) I will take landscapes and of course wildlife (you wrote landscapes and wildlife are in contradiction, but from my point of view those two fields are actually very closely linked:)).

I cannot say I really know what I am doing with my camera (I am still learning), but I almost never (except in the case of sunset, and sometimes with sport) use scene modes (I usually use AV or Manual settings).

Sandra

hey Liza,

I know you have your heart set on the D700, but throwing your money away on that camera, and not having enough for at least one decent lens is like buying a Ferrari without the engine. Plus when you start talking about the D700, you're talking about more expensive lenses. Not that I'm saying thats a bad thing, but you're do sound like you don't have the money to get the lenses suitable for this Bad boy. Buying cheap lenses will like fitting a ford fiesta's engine into your ferrari.

Now Im not slagging off the cheaper lenses, some of them are good. However If you want an All-round lens thats versatile, you don't have the 17-55mm option going with the D700. The 24-70mm would be the ideal choice, but you're looking at $2500 for that. Do you have $5500 to spare?

The D700 is a great camera, but eventually it too will become antiquated eventually. There's no denying that with full-frame the lenses are expensive. There's no $210 18-55mm lens, because thats only for DX. Infact before 2007, all Nikon made was DX dSLRs. If you want a good camera that is cheaper, I think the Nikon D300s could be the one. it's cheaper, and this gives you leeway for a good lens.

As for the High ISO's the only time I think you really would want them, is for sports at night, thats the idea, why the D3s has 105,000 or whatever it is. so you can capture football in the worse conditions. If the object isn't moving then Darren's right using low ISO's is better. This photo (http://i951.photobucket.com/albums/ad355/GreggBell/Tokyo_Bridge_Daiba.jpg) was taken at ISO 100 with a 30 second shutter speed.

Well it all depends on what kind of wildlife you plan to photograph. if its Tigers, cheetahs, polar bears, panda's, even dogs. On a full-Frame camera you will want a 200-400mm VR or an 80-400mm. For Canon you will need the 100-400mm L. They are wildlife lenses, used for capturing animals, and also used for sports. If you choose the D300s you could look at cheaper alternatives, like the 80-200mm, or just get the 80-400mm, that way you could photograph birds as well. If you mean bugs, and insects than thats Macro, which would require you getting a Macro lens.

The reason why I say its a contradiction is because when it comes to lenses, landscapes, and wildife are at different ends of the spectrum. Getting a lens that does both is very hard, you end up losing on quality in order to achieve this feat. The lens would end up being so big, you would feel like your mounting a bazooka onto camera.

Landscape lenses are usually 10-20mm for DX, and 14-35mm or there abouts on full-frame. Wildlife on DX is about 100 - 400mm for full frame its about 200mm - 800mm. They're different ends of the lens choices you see.

If you were to get the D700 then maybe look at this setup...

Full-Frame system
Camera: D700 $3000
All-rounder: 24-70mm $2,500
Landscape: 14-24mm $2,300
Wildlife: 80-400mm $2,000

so thats what? about $7,500 -7,800.

DX system
Camera: D300s $1900
All-Rounder: 24-70mm $2,500 OR 17-55mm $1,500
Landscape: 10-20mm $650 OR 12 - 24mm $1,400
Wildlife: 80-200mm $1,300 OR 80-400mm $2,000

so even the most expensive option of two lenses is $6400. Ideally lets say you have 24-70mm and a 12-24mm thats $3,900. Even if you were on a budget, you could get the sigma 10-20mm and a nikkor 17-55mm and thats only $2,100 - less then the 24-70mm! and then you can get a D300s for $1900; totaling to $4000.

[cupic]

This is a safe question,but the only answer that can be given is what has been said above
1.Go to a shop
2.Feel
3.Does it handle well /do you like it?
4.Ask questions(that's why your here +1)see the opinion of others to see if problems arises
5.Mind up your mind base on the above question
6.Buy shot and enjoy

cheers

[mcmahong]

OMG Liza, I hope you can handle all of these answers to your question!!

I recently went through exactly the same process as you... I even made up a spreadsheet to look at pros and cons. In the end, I chose a Canon 50D with 18-200mm kit lens (because I wanted an all-rounder lens that I could use in many different situations while I got used to the DSLR functions). I also bought a 100mm macro and a 50mm f/1.8 prime, but only because it is so cheap (about $150). Technically, the 18-200mm is optically not as great as tighter-zoom or prime lenses BUT it is still great for beginners and you'll still produce stunning photos. It is great as a travel lens, especially if you intend going for long treks and only want to carry the camera and no additional lenses.

In hindsight, I've realised all my stressing over camera specs was in vain.

If you are just starting out like me, than the main consideration is just how the camera feels in your hands, and how much you like the controls. With the Canon 50D, I quite liked the spinning control wheel for browsing through photos (I hate having to button-push my way through all of my shots).

Whatever you buy, you will grow to enjoy and won't regret it. Even if you decide later that you would have preferred something else, you can always sell and upgrade and it won't cost you as much as what it does when you first started up.

Just be aware that some lenses cannot be used on full-frame bodies (such as the 18-200), but are designed for cropped frame bodies only. If you buy a 5D, you will be limited to the more professional range of lenses.

[mikec]

The other thing besides the ergonomics of the body / controls is to test browsing through the cameras menus. I use works D90 sometimes (and also have used some friends D40's) and I find Nikon very strange to use coming from Canon and I've had a play with quite a few Canon's now and they all seem to have had more intuitive menus to me than Nikon's. But my mates swear the Nikon menu system is much nicer to use, go figure.

Also I agree to buy better lenses than body at first, lenses is where most of your money will end up sitting in the future.

[bigdazzler]

The other thing besides the ergonomics of the body / controls is to test browsing through the cameras menus. I use works D90 sometimes (and also have used some friends D40's) and I find Nikon very strange to use coming from Canon and I've had a play with quite a few Canon's now and they all seem to have had more intuitive menus to me than Nikon's. But my mates swear the Nikon menu system is much nicer to use, go figure.



100% agree ... That is probably the main reason I went with Sony when I started out. IMO their menus are miles ahead of the other two in terms of quick and easy navigation and user friendliness. They are very very easy to use.

[TheGuru]

I tested the D90 and JB Hi-Fi and really liked it but decided to save myself tons of money and buy the Canon instead. So far I've been happy. The best thing you can do is search the camera groups on Flickr to see if they're capable of taking the photos you dream of one-day taking yourself then go out and buy the cheapest one that will do this.

[bigdazzler]

The best thing you can do is search the camera groups on Flickr to see if they're capable of taking the photos you dream of one-day taking yourself then go out and buy the cheapest one that will do this.

wrong wrong wrong ... Photography is 10% gear, 20% light, 70% photographer. ;)

[TheGuru]

Photography is 10% gear, 20% light, 70% photographer. ;)

I agree, I think I was misunderstood though when you said I was wrong because I'm trying to make the point that unless the op requires a more expensive camera then the op may take the same photos with a cheaper one. Perhaps dream was the wrong word.

[bigdazzler]

I agree, I think I was misunderstood though when you said I was wrong because I'm trying to make the point that unless the op requires a more expensive camera then the op may take the same photos with a cheaper one

Ahhh misunderstanding indeed .. That makes much more sense. Many apologies, I think I read it the other way.

EDIT: Some great work on your site there Guru. HDR not really my thing but theres some really great stuff there .. :th3:

[TheGuru]

Ahhh misunderstanding indeed .. That makes much more sense. Many apologies, I think I read it the other way.

EDIT: Some great work on your site there Guru. HDR not really my thing but theres some really great stuff there .. :th3:

Thanks! it's much appreciated :th3:

[liza]

Thanks again for every suggestion. Although all of those comments are useful are as well a bit confusing :). Anyway it seems like I'll decide for lower price range camera (either Canon 50d or Nikon 90d or I was just looking at Pentax k-7) and rather invest more in lenses, like suggested. It seems like all of those cameras will do the job (at least for my needs). According to your advices I don't see a point in spending so much many for camera since I probably wont do professional photography.

[0Z320]

Thanks again for every suggestion. Although all of those comments are useful are as well a bit confusing :). Anyway it seems like I'll decide for lower price range camera (either Canon 50d or Nikon 90d or I was just looking at Pentax k-7) and rather invest more in lenses, like suggested. It seems like all of those cameras will do the job (at least for my needs). According to your advices I don't see a point in spending so much many for camera since I probably wont do professional photography.

Hi guys,

I'm currently also deciding which SLR to purchase and have also been eying the Canon 50D. I have been reading every magazine article I can get my hands on and from what i have read, the 50D is not that great of an advancement from the 40D (i.e. the 50D has a better LCD screen, 15.1mp and a buffer upgrade).

In addition to this, the 50D came out in the 4th qtr of 2008 and I am afraid that Canon might introduce a replacement in the next 12 months (I'm not the person who likes buying something over 1k that will soon become replaced).

I have been trawling internet sites and I can get the Canon 7D body (which has recently come out) for $1650.00 compared to the 50D body which is $1100.00

My lens of choice is the Canon L series EF 17-40mm from DWI (for now...) which is approx $900.00

I'm having second thoughts about the 50D, but what I wanted to ask you guys is will the 7D be too complicated for a beginner like myself? I've read a few comments from people on the forum with this camera and I have picked up that this camera has a LOT of features.

If you were in the same position as me, would you spend and extra $550 for a newer camera?

My aim is to buy quality gear for the long term and I love taking pictures of cars and landscapes and have used a Pentax K 20 on occasions. Budget is around the $2500 mark.

Any feedback would be more than welcome.

0Z320

[Ozzi Paul]

There is a lot of good info here but I have not seen a mention of the "other" lens manufacturers. Sigma, Tamron & Tokina all make some very good lenses at a much cheaper price than the "name" brands. Some of them are just as good as the brand name equivilents to. Some people prefer to stick with the one brand but there is nothing wrong with using an off brand lens. Sticking to the one brand of camera and lens doesn't mean you are a better photographer.

[ravescar]

7D over 50D IMO as it is gaining rave review, but if faced with this choice I would just probably try to pick up an 40D 2nd hand for cheap, and spend the rest on getting decent lens/flash.

7D although new and great, would eventually become obsolete too, but good glass stay for life.

Have you ever used a DSLR before?

[0Z320]

7D over 50D IMO as it is gaining rave review, but if faced with this choice I would just probably try to pick up an 40D 2nd hand for cheap, and spend the rest on getting decent lens/flash.

7D although new and great, would eventually become obsolete too, but good glass stay for life.

Have you ever used a DSLR before?

Yeah, I'm moving forward from a Pentax k20d.

I ended up choosing the 50D becuase the 7D is a bit too advanced for me.

I guess it was a good thing, I ended up buying 3 L series which hurt my my backpocket:lol2:

[Tildababy]

I started out nearly 4 years ago with a Canon 350D with the twin lens kit. I have just bought my first L series lens (24-70mm f2/8) and I still have the 350D body. I will be upgrading to a 40/50D body soon but at this stage I would rather save my money for additional lenses than spend a fortune on a 5DMkII or the like.

The main reason for my upgrade is to have a larger camera for the L series lenses as the 350D is a small body to hold once you start using heavier lenses. I have used my friends 40D and it helped me to balance the lens much more easily than I can with my 350D body.

I would only be looking at the more expensive end of the line IF my photography ever got to a standard where I was making enough money to cover the costs. In this instance where you are upgrading to a DSLR to improve your photography....why spend a fortune. If you don't follow through or lose your passion...then you haven't outlaid a ridiculous amount of money. OR if you do become more passionate...you will have more money left over for lens purchases!

Good luck!

Tilda