Which DSLR?

Those who say that Canon and Nikon are the only ones worthy of consiration, are either wrong or lying. Pentax are definitely still alive and well, even if they aren't as big as the two big ones. The latest Fujifilm DSLR has been well recieved.

I wouldn't touch any other brand out there, even Sony
Even Sony? Why is Sony an even, when you don't even mention Olympus, Hasselblad, Konika Minolta, and so on and so forth. They may not be major players, but they still exist and buying one, if it fits your needs, is definitely not a mistake.
 
Yep Nikon and Canon have been doing SLRs for ages and its just now that these other companies have jumped in, so its common sense that their products are going to be inferior.

As for Medium Format... sadly its still film unless you have $25000 to spend on Hasselblads :(



Those who say that Canon and Nikon are the only ones worthy of consiration, are either wrong or lying. Pentax are definitely still alive and well, even if they aren't as big as the two big ones. The latest Fujifilm DSLR has been well recieved.


Even Sony? Why is Sony an even, when you don't even mention Olympus, Hasselblad, Konika Minolta, and so on and so forth. They may not be major players, but they still exist and buying one, if it fits your needs, is definitely not a mistake.
The OP was talking about entry SLR's not Hasselblad MF cameras, he does not have the money to blow on that. Minolta is owned by Sony now so theres no decision there. Olympus is ok but they have a VERY different sensor format size wise, so they are not compatible with a lot of products and who knows how long that format will be around. Sony is an "even" because they have been making pretty much just little point and shots lately. Sure they have the Alph, but from what I've seen/heard its not all that great. The main feature they always tout is that it has in camera VR...whoopydoo.

As for Pentax: I can't tell you how many times I've seen their cameras returned for broken parts at the local camera store. They may be good for a really really cheap slr, but their quality is horrid. Not to mention their lens selection. I have heard good things about the new Fuji, but honestly I'd rather just stick with proven companies.

Lets just say this: When you go to buy a new car, you dont go buy a brand thats new to making cars, you stick with people who have been building them for years. Sure it may not be flashy, but it does its job and it works.
 
Yep Nikon and Canon have been doing SLRs for ages and its just now that these other companies have jumped in, so its common sense that their products are going to be inferior.

Pentax has been making dSLRs for years too, and even their newest cameras are completely backwards compatible with 30 years worth of K-mount lenses. Pentax may not be as big a company as Canon or Nikon, but their products are still DEFINITELY competitors. Also, pentax dSLRs are built a lot more solidly than canons, which always feel plasticy to me.
 
Pentax has been making dSLRs for years too, and even their newest cameras are completely backwards compatible with 30 years worth of K-mount lenses. Pentax may not be as big a company as Canon or Nikon, but their products are still DEFINITELY competitors. Also, pentax dSLRs are built a lot more solidly than canons, which always feel plasticy to me.

The low end Canons do feel plasticy, but the XTi is a bit better. Nikon has the best feel of any of the lower end cameras. From what I've seen return wise: the Pentax's come back in droves usually with little parts that came loose or got stuck.

Just remember that you want something you can grow with and something that will have lenses and other options for you down the road.
 
As for Pentax: I can't tell you how many times I've seen their cameras returned for broken parts at the local camera store. They may be good for a really really cheap slr, but their quality is horrid. Not to mention their lens selection. I have heard good things about the new Fuji, but honestly I'd rather just stick with proven companies.
I've herad the *ist wasn't very good, quality wise, but my K10D feels like a brick of cast iron wrapped in rubber. Very solid. Most reviewers seem to agree.

As for lenses, I'm using Sigma. I will probably add the 18-200 Tamron as well; it's supposedly very good. I don't see the problem. Sure, Jessops and the like (big chain in the UK) don't stock K-mount lenses, but Jessops are shit anyway.



Just remember that you want something you can grow with and something that will have lenses and other options for you down the road.
That was a concern for me as well. Then I realized that the K10D is more camera than I will need for a very long time. By the time I will gain more from upgrading the camera than the lenses, Pentax will have a newer and better model out. Honestly, if you want to improve your equipment, just buy lenses.
 
Is that for just the camera? Because that seems steep for the D80, you can get a D200 for almost that price. Check out BHphotovideo, as they are THE premier camera sales company in the US and most of the world.
I would stray away from the D40 line of cameras, as they are for the most part complete shit. You will want AF down the line and eventually you will just toss that camera.

The $1200 for the D80 includes the 18-135mm zoom lens. However, the lens does not have the VR feature, and the lens's bayonet mount is made of plastic, making that lens quite overpriced for what it offers. Moreover, the 18-135mm suffers from a lot of barrel and pincushion distortion. Instead, I'd spend $200 less and get the same body, but with the lesser-ranging 18-55mm lens.

As for the D40 line of cameras, it's okay - but its sensor is a bit noisier at ISO 1600 than the one in higher-end Nikon cameras with the same megapixel rating. And that line of cameras have an AF system with only three focusing points (versus five on the D50 and 11 on the D80), limiting its usefulness a bit. And of course, the D40 line's AF works only with those lenses that have the motor in the lens, such as the DX and the AF-S series of Nikkor lenses. (I wouldn't recommend the 18-200mm Tamron lens for any of these modern digital cameras, since that lens lacks image stabilization, and its maximum aperture (wide-open) at 200mm is only f/6.3, which will cause autofocus problems with many AF sensors. And the Nikon-mount version of that lens has no autofocus motor.)

On the other hand, I prefer focusing all of the non-motorized lenses manually. This is because the autofocus motor built into the higher-end bodies is itself very loud and noisy. And the autofocus sensors are optimized for a slow aperture of f/4.5 to f/5.6, and may not be accurate at large apertures wider than f/2.8.
 
Yep Nikon and Canon have been doing SLRs for ages and its just now that these other companies have jumped in, so its common sense that their products are going to be inferior.

i beg to differ. Pentax has been making cameras for a very, very long time as well. So has Olympus. In fact, some of the best and still sought after cameras ever made were by Pentax and Olympus (Pentax K1000, MX, ME Super, ZX, Olympus OM-1 thru OM-4).

As for Pentax: I can't tell you how many times I've seen their cameras returned for broken parts at the local camera store. They may be good for a really really cheap slr, but their quality is horrid. Not to mention their lens selection. I have heard good things about the new Fuji, but honestly I'd rather just stick with proven companies.

please, indulge me, how many times have you seen them returned? funny that MY local camera store says that Pentax is among the LEAST returned DSLRs and among the highest quality and most solidly build cameras you could purchase today. The K100D and K10D are very hot sellers, they can hardly keep them in stock.
 
and as for lenses, the Pentax "pancake" primes are often rated as the best primes available today (the 21mm, 40mm and 70mm), their 18-55mm kit lens blows away the equivalent Nikon and Canon offerings, they have lenses that cover the ranges and requirements for most photographers, and third-party support is there for just about anything else. Not to mention that Pentax cameras are backwards compatible with every K-mount lens ever made, which opens up a very, very large collection of fine lenses spanning almost 40 years.

so let's not draw negative conclusions about a system just because its not made by Canon or Nikon. I've owned cameras from all three, and they are all capable of making excellent cameras and equipment.
 
Well I recently got my first DSLR after doing a lot of research. I was coming from a digital P&S camera and was pretty much of the opinion that I shouldn't bother upgrading until the camera was holding me back.

Some of the stuff I should have thought about I still missed. Like lense availability and the quality of 3rd party lenses available for the system. I should have educated myself more about the automatic in-camera processing quirks of the various systems as well.

Shop for glass first. I looked at lots of online reviews with big photos, but when shopping for a body and lense ona given budget, the kit lense on one review or the $1000 nice piece of glass on another review are not apples to apples. 90% of what will look at in an image and say "that's good" or not is the lense and not the camera... compostiion aside.

The sigma 17-70 is a killer starter lense. Not obscenely priced, a lot of range to learn on, sharpness is very good for the money, and the F2.8 at wide angle gives you some chance of dealing with ambient light to get the feel of it. It's made for damn near everything too. Hit up pbase.com and search on 17-70 and you'll see plenty of examples on a lot of cameras. If you go canon or nikon mount, screw the kit lenses and get this instead.

Next, know what kind of photography you WILL use it for, and have an idea of what kind of photography you WANT to use it for.

For me I KNEW I wanted it for product photography type shots including some light macro work. Lighting not necessarily always optimal. I alsow wanted to try my ahnd at landscape shots as well as some light "sports" kind of shooting. For the action 3fps would suffice, and I needed at least a 10 frame buffer. For landscape, i wanted lots of dynamic range, and good performance in shadow areas. For my version of product shots, anything that helped with less than optimal lighting would be good. Solid performance at ISO800 would be a must though.

For me, I looked at Canon, Nikon, Pentax, olympus, sigma, and fuji.

Sigma lost quickly because of poor low light performance and sketchy support.

The fuji was crossed off next. Although the sensor rocks, and the nikon mount means lots of lenses across a broad price range, it just wouldn't fit in the budget.

Canon lost next because I handled all the ones i could afford and they were WAAAYYY too tiny for my mits given that none of the features appealed to me and good glass for it was so pricey.

So basically I read up on the offerings from nikon, pentax and olympus. The 4:3s system didn't appeal to me , so olympus went bye bye. Basically, it came down to the nikon d80 and pentax k10D.

Myself, I'll buy a handful of lenses.. if that that are "good". However, I would deifnitely pick up used oddities to play with. Both mounts have been aorund for a while, so that was a push.

Affordable glass is available on both, but the affordable pentax glass seemed to be of better average quality.

The anti-shake for the pentax defintiely appealed to me, and the pentax is well liked for landscape photography. Especailly with the weather sealing.

The d80 seemed to be a bit on the heavy handed side when it came to low light noise reduction.


Beyond that it was ergonomics and features. Both were a good size in my hands. both had front and rear control wheels. The k10d has lots of nice features easy to hand with a lever or button, or a button-dial combination rather than buried in menus though. Then there was the TAv mode, which was cool as well as the green button for someone getting the hang of things. The nikon had a better seuential mode, but that was about it. The d80 largely appeared to be relying on the 10mp sensor and slightly improved price pioitn for a pro-sumer/expert DSLR as it's innovation.

The only place it soundly kicks the K10ds butt is availability of 100% compatible flashes. Which although not a concern for me, is for a lot of people.

That and the fact a kit with a decent kit lens for the k10d was $899 vs $1200 for the nikon pretty much sealed the deal.

Now if i was a wedding photographer, I'd probably have gone fuji because of the nikon mount, dynamic range, and good noise qualities of the sensor in low light. It makes it easier to keep the customers happier.

If i cared about being able to rent lenses, it's be nikon or coanon. In my case, that would have tipped me over to the D80. But it doesn't apply to my situation.

The truth is there is good glass out there for every camera if you have the money. Check what the good glass costs and consider it in your budget.

beyond that, every body can take VERY nice shots. Digital is all about being able to control the "processing" and the "darkroom". So allocate some of your budget for dealing with that and read reviews about all the major software like lightroom, silkypix, bibble pro, etc. Then go back to the forums on the brnads you are cnsidering and search on those and read up.

THen buy something and take lots of pictures.

Me, i'm very happy with my k10d, with 20/20 hindsight, I'm still more happy with it than I would ahve been with a D80 at the moment, but less so than i thought I would be.
 
Thanks for your input :)
Glad you like your camera.
I'm still researching and I have plenty of time to decide cause i'll be purchasing it around summer time :)
 
Back
Top