This is a frequently asked question and some even expect a brief answer.

Many of you probably know that there in no single good answer to this question.

I would rather suggest a way more important question: "What do you want to do with your camera"

I just want to list a few of the many more questions you should answer for yourself:

- Do you like to work with the computer and Photoshop? If not, then digital might be not for you.
- How large do you want to print on a more regular basis? Try to be reasonable.
- Do you plan to use a solid tripod and carry it more often than not?
- What kind of subjects do you like to photograph? Birds require very long lenses, sports fast cameras, ...
- How important is photography to you?
- Of course the budget is important too. Buying a camera and a few lenses is not all!

Uwe

Uwe-
That's a great post. And I would add one more thing to your list - do you already own Canon, Pentax, or Nikon lenses. If you do, and a digital SLR fits your needs, then you should seriously consider sticking with the brand you already own. For most people, there's no need to reinvest the money they've already spent on lenses just because a different camera manufacturer has a newer, flashier camera.

>one more thing to your list - do you already own Canon, Pentax, or Nikon lenses

Interesting, I wanted to write that but did not. Reason is that owning lenses from Nikon or Canon is not good enough for making a decision. Only true if you own top lenses. When I bought my Nikon D1 we had many Nikon lenses from the last 25 years. Later I only used new top AFS lenses (means having Nikon lenses did not help) and zero of my old ones!

Reason: New top zooms and tele lenses are a lot better than old lenses. Why use zooms? True I am lazy but then there is the dust on the sensor introduced by too many lens changes.

When I later bought a Canon 1Ds it helped to buy the right lenses right away.

Here is my list of lenses I would buy over and over again (fortunately I have both for Nikon and Canon now):

24-70 (or 28-70)
70-200 (IS/VR is possible)
100mm Makro
90mm Tilt/Shift
300mm for wildlife (starter level)
1.4x tele converter

Did I forget the wide angle? No, not so much for us. Although we also have:

17-35 Nikon
17-40 Canon

But I could live without wide angle for a long time.

Uwe

Reason is that owning lenses from Nikon or Canon is not good enough for making a decision. Only true if you own top lenses


If I'm understanding this correctly, then I think I disagree with you. Just to confirm, are you saying that you need top quality glass if shooting with Nikon or Canon DSLR's? If so, surely you would accept that this is another area of subjectivity and debate?

Choose me for example; I used to shoot with nothing but the highest quality lenses (like the Canon ones you mentioned). Eventually I decided that weight was a factor so replaced my entire kit with lighter weight (non-L) glass. I replaced the 28-70L with a 24-85 f/3.5-4.5. I also use the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 70-200L f/4 instead of the heaver options that you mention above. I also use the Tamron 90mm macro instead of Canon's 100mm version although I admit I'd like to own the Canon instead due to the focusing motor and manual focusing ring. I've been very happy with this kit.

Moral; If top quality "optics" isn't your priority, you don't need the manufacturers best lenses.

Trevor

>Moral; If top quality "optics" isn't your priority, you don't need the manufacturers best lenses.

True, but your lenses are not bad either. I would recommend your lens kit (except I don't know the Tamron 90mm) to anyone who looks at weight and tighter budget. Actually I would love the 70-200mm f/4 if it had IS.

The new 70-300 DO IS lens could be my travel kit lens.

Again, you have to know yourself.

I wanted to explain why having lenses from Canon/Nikon may not mean too much (as in my case).

Uwe

The best DSLR is the one you use.

>The best DSLR is the one you use.

Right. But some plan to buy their first :-)

Uwe

Then the best DSLR is the one you can afford at the time. If you don't think you would be satisfied with what you can afford then I suggest the person should wait.

I do think, if you have use for the fully featured cameras over the cut down ones, example 10D over the 300D, then you get the 10D. I thought about getting the 300D instead of the 10D, but decided on the 10D as it is close to my EOS30 (Elan 7).

Uwe,

This is a good topic as well as a learning experience. I agree with all you said for the most part. My only exception is from my personal experience, which regards enjoying the computer portion (I don't!). But I still feel the Rebel 300D was the best choice for me.

I dislike working on the computer since I do so much of it at work. However, since I've used the 300D, my photography has improved immensely, and I enjoy it even more. I'm not a pro, but I do fairly well with little post processing, as I try to get better results right from the camera. I'm sure my images would improve greatly by increasing the work on the computer, but I can't do that, and really enjoy photography as a hobby and an outlet. My photography time is very limited, and my enjoyment comes from the actual out in the field work vs computer.

Since purchasing the Rebel, I have changed my equipment by selling most of the lenses I used before and purchasing fewer, but better glass including the Canon 200mm/f2.8L (first L lens), 85mm/f1.8 and 50mm/f1.4. I still get good results from the 28-135 IS lens. I too have to take weight into consideration.

Thank you for posting this list, as it made me stop & think things over a bit.

Liz

This is a frequently asked question and some even expect a brief answer.

Many of you probably know that there in no single good answer to this question.

I would rather suggest a way more important question: "What do you want to do with your camera"

I just want to list a few of the many more questions you should answer for yourself:

- Do you like to work with the computer and Photoshop? If not, then digital might be not for you.
- How large do you want to print on a more regular basis? Try to be reasonable.
- Do you plan to use a solid tripod and carry it more often than not?
- What kind of subjects do you like to photograph? Birds require very long lenses, sports fast cameras, ...
- How important is photography to you?
- Of course the budget is important too. Buying a camera and a few lenses is not all!

Uwe

>which regards enjoying the computer portion (I don't!).

I should have written "you should not hate working with the computer".

>but I do fairly well with little post processing, as I try to get better results right from the camera.

Good idea. I try to do as little as possible myself. But this was the result of just 4 years of experience of what to do and not to do (still learning). I try to make the life of the readers of my e-books easier by avoiding bad techniques. Of course today there is more good info available than 4 years ago.

Look at this shot from a 2.7MP Nikon D1:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/outbackphoto_db/t_photos.php?RollID=2003_added_01&FrameID=02_1406_Capitola_percept&TopicID=nikon_d1

Uwe

what is the smallest digital SLR within a $1500 budget???
A few weeknds ago I held a couple of the SLRs available and found I CAN't comfortably hold any of them....are there any smaller and non plastic body ones coming out by anyone even if it's not Canon or Nikon.

I'm doing research this year so all viewpoints are welcome...

thanks
nat

What about one of those 28-200 (or 35-200 or somesuch) pieces?
Is that pushing the limits of zoom lense quality?

- Yaron



Here is my list of lenses I would buy over and over again (fortunately I have both for Nikon and Canon now):

24-70 (or 28-70)
70-200 (IS/VR is possible)
100mm Makro
90mm Tilt/Shift
300mm for wildlife (starter level)
1.4x tele converter

>What about one of those 28-200 (or 35-200 or somesuch) pieces?
>Is that pushing the limits of zoom lense quality?

I very much think so. 3-4x zooms can be pretty good.

Uwe

Nat-
You might want to repost this as a new thread. I think it's a subject that deserves to be a separate dusicussion.That said, take a look at the Pentax *ist D. I believe it's the smallest digital SLR,and there are tons of good used Pentax lenses available.

Good idea for a post - there are no easy answers here. I have to disagree with some points, but this is a time when it's probably easier to decide if you've got the right gear as opposed to the time when you replace a film SLR. I say this because all of your lenses (at least those of us with smaller-sized sensor DSLR's) have now changed their effective length.

With a Nikon system, you can get the 12-24 DX lens for about a grand. Sure, the 80-200 f2.8 basically gives you a 300 f2.8 but you lose the wide end. Add another thousand to the package if it's something you need. This will be true of both Nikon and Canon, one (expensive) full frame sensor camera available per brand. I'm sure Canon has or will have a wide zoom like this, the 17mm or 20mm just isn't that wide anymore on a DSLR.

Other things to consider if you switch brands - all of the accessories that accumulate, like flashes and electronic cable releases. However, they may or may not be compatible to some extent with a DSLR. There's also the lingo, Nikon calls it matrix, Canon calls it evaluative. I suppose they handle differently too but I don't have experience with Canon. All of the recent Nikons seem to handle pretty similarly. If you change brands, you've got to learn more about how the new camera works. All just part of a big learning curve.

Nat-
You might want to repost this as a new thread. I think it's a subject that deserves to be a separate dusicussion.That said, take a look at the Pentax *ist D. I believe it's the smallest digital SLR,and there are tons of good used Pentax lenses available.


The Pentax uses the newer Pentax lenses, but if you own a lot of the old (and very high quality) Pentax-M lenses you're out of luck; they won't work on the new cameras.

I think I'll go with the Oly four-thirds system, might as well start from scratch!

what is the smallest digital SLR within a $1500 budget???
A few weeknds ago I held a couple of the SLRs available and found I CAN't comfortably hold any of them....are there any smaller and non plastic body ones coming out by anyone even if it's not Canon or Nikon.

I'm doing research this year so all viewpoints are welcome...

thanks
nat

Natalie,
I went from a lightwieght digital to a very heavy DSLR and found that it took a while to get used to the wieght but it was actually easier to control, even with a lens that wieghs the same as the body. There seems to be much less camera shake.... even when shivering in the the cold.
John

Natalie,
I went from a lightwieght digital to a very heavy DSLR and found that it took a while to get used to the wieght but it was actually easier to control, even with a lens that wieghs the same as the body. There seems to be much less camera shake.... even when shivering in the the cold.
John

That's a very good point, more mass equals harder to move, which helps to deaden shake. Plus a heavier body helps to balance heavier lenses. It all is a tradeoff though depending on what your priorities are.

I'm not sure exactly what era the M lenses are from. But as far as I know, almost all Pentax lenses and even a lot of Cosina and other K-mount lenses will fit the *ist D.
It's only newer features like autofocus, auto exposure, etc, that might not work. But the lenses will fit.

what is the smallest digital SLR within a $1500 budget???
A few weeknds ago I held a couple of the SLRs available and found I CAN't comfortably hold any of them....are there any smaller and non plastic body ones coming out by anyone even if it's not Canon or Nikon.

I'm doing research this year so all viewpoints are welcome...

thanks
nat
Hi Nat,
The Pentax-ist is the one for you, its tiny. Well actually its more the size of a film SLR. I am 6' 2" and have large hands and found it a bit too small. I like big bulky cameras coming from a medium format background, hence I have a Sigma SD10 - its a monster! Hope this helps.

Hi

I too am starting my camera gear from scratch. What is your thinking behind adopting the new standard? I haven't been able to get my hands on a new E-1 yet, but the light weight (for use as a travel camera) seems to be a plus, along with physically small but high quality lenses.

What do you think about the picture quality. Most reviews are slamming the noise and insisting that the Canon D300 and Nikon D-70 are better.

thanks
David

The Pentax uses the newer Pentax lenses, but if you own a lot of the old (and very high quality) Pentax-M lenses you're out of luck; they won't work on the new cameras.

I think I'll go with the Oly four-thirds system, might as well start from scratch!

Hi

I too am starting my camera gear from scratch. What is your thinking behind adopting the new standard? I haven't been able to get my hands on a new E-1 yet, but the light weight (for use as a travel camera) seems to be a plus, along with physically small but high quality lenses.

What do you think about the picture quality. Most reviews are slamming the noise and insisting that the Canon D300 and Nikon D-70 are better.

thanks
David
Let me jump in here for minute about cameras. I have been around them for about 65 years and am now just getting into digital.
First and foremost the end product is what is iimportant and always, always starts between your ears. The best, most expensive camera in the world won't take a good picture without a good photographer using it.
Second, whatever you buy, master it before moving on to another one. These digital cameras are tricky to master especially for old dogs like me.
I started with the Kodak DC5000, then an Olympus C2100 Zoom and now own the new Pentax *istD. I like the Pentax very much. The only real draw back is that I took it out into a very hostile dusty desert for about 10 weeks. I made the mistake of changing the lens in the field when it was a little windy. I didn't notice any dust in the air but the camera sure did and collected some. When I returned home I had to send it back to factory for cleaning. It was a mess.
So jump in and no matter what camera you buy master it and you will end up with great photos.

I've used the D70, digital Rebel, and Canon 10d, and decided that the 10D was for me. The 10D is a wonderful camera--in terms of performance, I must admit the D70 matches it. The 300D is way behind...mainly, I found that the buffer filled up fast enough that I was left waiting--and feeling like I was using my old Olympus E10 (a point and shoot). Feel is important to me; the Rebel feels like it's worth $400 less than the D70, and the Canon 10D feels like its worth a few hundred more. This is where the E-1 SLR comes in--it feels wonderful, like the E10/E20 did, even better. It's also light and compact for something so rugged. Image noise? I mean, keep in mind, the aim of any 5 or 6 megapixel DSLR is to make really great 8x10 prints...which is also the aim of 35mm, which digital SLR's (most of them) replace. If you want bigger prints, use LizardTech or S-Spline PhotoZoom Pro software to "up-res" the image...but don't blame the camera.
Look at the lenses, too: Canon and Nikon both offer a lot, but if you're interested in high quality consumer zooms, the kit lens with the D70 is hard to beat. Canon has two great "L" pro lenses, the 17-40mm f/4 (a 28-70 35mm equivelant) and the 70-200mm f/4 L (112-320mm equivelent). These are around $650 and $550 street each, respectively. My point is, the cheapest Nikon pro lenses are hundreds of dollars more. So, if you're like me, and you want to eventually step up in the world, Canon's offerings may be better. Again, this is where Olympus comes in: a great first offering of lenses, but if you can't afford the tele zoom from Olympus and want one, you have no options. I have no doubt Olympus is dedicated to it's new system, and the lenses have a bright (pun intended!) future.
Nikon bugs me as a company. Nikon's "old" (like, six months old) "DX" flashes don't do "i-ttl" with the D70...and their SB600 flash has not been released. Also, no grip is available. Also, I couldn't BUY a D70 when I wanted to--everywhere had a wait list! I'm only getting into all this to state that there are a lot of other factors that sold me on the Canon system...even though I was a devout nikon manual FM shooter and love Nikon lenses.
Either Nikon, Canon or Olympus has a strong future system-wise for the professional or advanced amature. Any one of your choices offers great image quality (so long as you're not into 'fill flash'--the Rebel/300D is just not very capable in that area, due to no flash compensation on the body and the slower sync speed.)
Good luck! :)

Too many people have expensive cameras and still don't know what how to shoot a descent picture. I would advice photographers to focus more on their technique than their camera or lens.

The true answer is quite simple.

It is the DSLR that came out AFTER you just bought yours, and it is the same price but more STUFF built in.

Remember EVERYTHING is affected by either/both- Gravity or greed !!

[FONT=Arial]How many times has this old chestnut come up?
Its a question that always sets the Cat among the Pigions.
Personally speaking there is no point buying a DSLR unless it can give me the ultimate image quality possible for its price.
Thats how I came to choose my current DSLR over all the other competing models, image quality, which quite frankly blew the competition away.
Ok so it may not have the curvy, sexy body of its competitors but its image quality that sells SD10's, not the looks of their bodies.
The same can not be said for some of its competitors!
It was'nt cheap to buy back when I bought mine but now its about the cheapest DSLR out there and it still outperforms cameras costing 3-4 times more, and thats just for the bodies!
What I like most is that you dont have to spend a fortune on modern AF lenses to obtain great image quality with it, the sensor is that good.
In fact these days I only use sharp but cheap manual focus M42 and Mamiya 645 lenses and I did'nt have to go out and rob a Bank to get enough money together to buy them!
In fact one of my best lenses only cost me £6 including the postage!

Regards

Alf.

Well, I think I want to add my two pennies worth as well - the best digital camera is not yet invented.
The progress in digital imaging is very fast, the normal lifespan of one model in a store is maybe 9 months, for professional SLR's maybe 12-18months and then they are replaced by something which does more, has more pixels, more automatic, shoots faster etc.
Currently, as of today, I would rate the Canon 1DSMkII and the Nikon D2X as top of the line in the class of "35mm"type cameras. A totally different animal are the pro backs - 22MPx as top of the line, and the results you get with those backs show how far away any DSLR is from the real top of the line.
If money is no issue, try the two mentioned DSLR's and see which one you like more. A full frame sensor is not necessarily a knock-out feature and the math tells you that 12Mpx with a magnification factor of 1,5 equals 18Mpx with a factor of 1. Pixelsize is certainly not uninteresting (noise...) but the gaps between the pixels are also important (fillfactor). If you cannot/don't want to spend that much money, then I would rate the Canon 20D overall better than the same class competition.
So, that's my contribution to this question - George Nyman

I retract my earlier comment about the Pentax *st D. It will, in fact, use all K mount lenses that fit on Pentax cameras. That's pretty much any K mount except some Ricoh lenses that jam the mount.

I've been using my valuable old M lenses on the *st D for a while now. You have to use them in manual focusing and manual metering mode (DUH, they're manual lenses.....) but the process isn't amazingly different from using them on the old MX cameras.

The A lenses will give you more automation choices, if you're into that sort of thing. I personally have no problem with 1) take a meter reading and 2) shoot the photo. That's how I've done it for years!! But an A lens will give you all those fancy program hyper whatever modes so you can put the camera in "dummy" mode and snap away.

So the upshot is, get whatever camera your lenses will fit on. Cameras come and go, but good lens is a friend for life!!

I have an *istDS and have been really enjoying taking pictures of the night sky. I have an f/1.7 lens that came with one of my Ricoh cameras. I set the camera at 800 or 1600 ISO and set the shutter for 8 or 10 seconds to get pinpoint pictures of constellations even at f/1.7, showing stars as dim as the eye can see. I use the 2 second self-timer to eliminate vibration. Then all I do is mount the camera on a tripod and point it at different things and snap away. I just love the fact that all my good old Pentax and Ricoh lenses get to be used after being neglected for like ten years or so. I have a 2.8 135mm lens that I still plan to use and an old and very heavy 28-200 zoom which I may replace with something much lighter and more convenient.

The viewfinder is so good that I can get a very precise focus on closeup objects with the 1.7 lens.

It would be nice if the camera had image stabilization. Or should I say individual lenses? I also would like it if it had a full frame imager so I could take full advantage of available wide angle lenses. I suspect that in the future Pentax will come out with something like that. Canon is coming out with one but it will cost over US$3000

I'll post a late vote for the D70 / D70S. Good color performance, decent noise performance at 200 and 400, easy to set up and use, and lasts a good while on a single battery charge. My biggest complaints are the small LCD and the lack of a remote terminal. Otherwise great camera for the money. And a great backup once you move to something better.

Buying a camera, digital or film is not an easy task. When you buy one your looking for the best you can get for the money you have available. Sometimes though you need to go beyond your limits due to learning from others mistakes or your own.
I started out with a cheap Polaroid P&S, then went to an Olympus C2100UZ, wore it out and then moved up to a Canon 1D. After three years with it it is now a backup to a 1D MKII N.
How I went from the 1D to the MKII N is because the 1D needed repaired and it took so long to get it back I had to get something else as the 300D just couldn't handle it as a backup.
When I purchased the MKII N I went overboard on what I could afford, but considered more than just the "what I can do now" and looked ahead to what do I need for the future, as well as, can I make the money back. I finally decided that buying a used 1D was not the route to go, but buying a new MKII N was the route to go with the amount of work I had done this past year.
I also decided to purchase two lenses, which should cover all my needs for camera and lenses in the foreseeable future. It made sense then, and now makes more sense as I gotten additional work since buying the new camera and lenses.
So I believe that when purchasing a camera you need to not only look at what you can afford now, but what your future needs will be, and take a look into the future. Things may surprise you how they can fall into place.In my case I got two huge jobs coming now because of this purchase. Both are for a magazine, one is shooting 5 basketball games in one day, the other is 5 football games (state championships) in two days. There will be additional jobs coming out of these two as well from the rumblings I'm hearing from additional possible customers. Think ahead!

JS

I'm hoping it's the Nikon D200. I have not gone digital yet, and the D200 is the first camera that has me even a little excited.

>The best DSLR is the one you use.

The best DSLR is the one the other guy uses!!

Jurgen
Australia

Now we're back to the issue of: what lenses do you already have? If you have quality lenses there's no point to switching systems, the lenses are the most important part of your equipement.

>

But I could live without wide angle for a long time.

Uwe

I probably use my 28mm wide angle more than any other lens but then I often shoot in tight situations close up. Depth of field is great, lens speed is good and the only challenge is avoiding distortion. Even my flash works to 17mm.

Ronnoco

The answer to this whole question is simple really. The best Digital SLR is the one which produces images which your clients like. At the end of the day though, as a previous poster said - it's the photographer that counts. Cameras are stupid, photographers are clever.

In photography people have always got hung up on having the right label, right camera, right lens. I take photographs for a living, I am now moving away from Nikon lenses to Tokina, because from side by side comparisons I've done, they're better built as good or better optically and a third the price. But then maybe I've grown up beyond being a label snob.

In photography people have always got hung up on having the right label, right camera, right lens. I take photographs for a living, I am now moving away from Nikon lenses to Tokina, because from side by side comparisons I've done, they're better built as good or better optically and a third the price. But then maybe I've grown up beyond being a label snob.

Interesting that Popular Photography's lab results and testing placed Tokina at the top of the "other lenses" in terms of quality and value for money spent. Your experience would seem to confirm that finding.

Ronnoco

Interesting that Popular Photography's lab results and testing placed Tokina at the top of the "other lenses" in terms of quality and value for money spent. Your experience would seem to confirm that finding.

Ronnoco

I have a whole bunch of lenses and the Tokinas are stunning. They're built like tanks and you just feel like you are handling something that would survive a nuclear war. I am a big convert. Sad thing is that it is getting increasingly difficult to find stockists in the UK.

What camera is the best, will I think it's been discussed quite a bit already. Bottom line, to each person that question means so many different things. I for one went with the Minolta 7D because I had a good assortment of Minolta glass already. Within a year of having the 7D I had a problem and had to have it repaired, because I shoot a lot of sports I ended up buying another 7D. Now that I have been shooting sports solid for about 1 1/2 years I've come to the conclusion that I need to make a change and move to Canon. Right now I'm saving all my pennies to get the Canon EOS - 1D mark IIn. This I'm doing for two reasons. I want the 8.5 shots a second, and the better glass that Canon has over Minolta, also because of all of the great feedback I read about Canon. If I could have afforded the Canon from the get-go then I would have bought it, but I couldn't so I stayed with Minolta. So I guess what I'm trying to say is what is the best is not always what we can get.

Jim

If you take the question quite literally, the current answer is the 16.7 megapixel Canon 1Ds Mark 11 but here is the interesting part with Leica lenses on the front. The Leica lenses were much better than the top Canon lenses in all areas of lens comparisons.

Ronnoco

If you take the question quite literally, the current answer is the 16.7 megapixel Canon 1Ds Mark 11 but here is the interesting part with Leica lenses on the front. The Leica lenses were much better than the top Canon lenses in all areas of lens comparisons.

Ronnoco

Interesting. What is the reference for this data?

Cheers.

Where do you get Leica lenses for Canon SLRs? Sounds strange.

Besides, Leica does not make zooms (M-mount anyway). I love zooms for better or for worse and nothing is more annoying than comparing zooms to primes. They serve completely different functions and it's comparing apples/oranges. Yet people will keep doing it.

Interesting. What is the reference for this data?

Cheers.

Photo Techniques, March/April edition, the author has a Phd in Physics as well as his photography in several art museums of contemporary and modern art.

Ronnoco

By the way there is a Leica-to-Canon EOS convertor for using Leica lenses on Canon cameras.

Ronnoco

Where do you get Leica lenses for Canon SLRs? Sounds strange.

Besides, Leica does not make zooms (M-mount anyway). .

Leica makes R series zoom lenses, so there is no apple/orange comparison here at all.:p

Ronnoco

The Photo Techniques article is certainly interesting in light of the impending introduction of Leica lenses in other mounts (Nikon and who knows what else may appear).

As an article focusing on the Quality of the image produced, it makes some interesting if not altogether supported conclusions. For a technically thorough article, including detailed testing protocols, it was amazing that nowhere in the article does the author describe ANY of the lenses used except to say that for the Canon he was using an 'L' type.
There is a disclaimer regarding this, but I wonder if they were limited to one or two lenses per camera? If both Canon and Leica were tested with a 50mm/1.4 and the author said so, I'd be a little more confident in some of his assertions. From the photo at the beginning of the article, it looks as if zooms of one type or another are mounted on both the Leica and the Canon. We know all too well that not all 'L' units are created equal nor are they necessarily the same in image quality from one zoom combo to another or in fixed focal lengths.

In the April 2006, "Black and White Photography", a U.K. publication, there is an article about the 'glow' of Leica. It's primarily a contrast issue for the Leica lens. I mention this as it appears that the improvements he describes, [the printed samples in Photo Technique are all but worthless for meaningful evaluation] seem to be as a result of the different or better contrast of the Leica glass. Sometimes different is better, but contrast can bite you hard in the digital world under many lighting conditions. Also, if you should happen to read the B/W article, note how different films can affect the image quality. Again, it may be a matter of desired end result.

The cross mounting of the Leica Lens to the Canon body almost seems to be counter intuitive to his premise in this article regarding testing of 'systems'. Early digital cameras be they DSLR type or MF backs all suffered undue criticisms as people tried to mate their favorite lens to the new camera. I am not a fan of mix and match without extensive testing, not the least reason being the loss of one or more functions such as AF or Ap control.

Regardless, I'm glad to see my favorite DSLR listed as the current 'best'.:D

I weighed all the options and then balanced them with price. I new I needed something entry level to get my feet wet, and I wanted a reputable company. That left me with few choices, Nikon, Canon, and a couple others. I was looking at the entry in all cases, and I found that I could get a Canon for about $659.00 with the packaged lense from Beach Camera, or I could get a refurbed Nikon for $370.00 body only from Beach Camera and then buy the lenses seperate. I read every single thing I could on the web and it seemed to be a tossup, with the Canon taking a slight edge. (I am sure everybody will argue this for days). Bottom line is I read where somebody said it is not the camera that makes the photographer, and I figured either option would probably be suitable for my entry camera. I opted the Nikon route because I could find some great deals on lenses on ebay, and it brought my total for the camera and 2 lenses to under $600.00. It might not be the best system in the world, but it has allowed me to have fun at a low expense. I think it is clear that the best DSLR would be one of the two main brands's flagship model, and we all could probably argue which one is better, but I would wager that the one that is weilded by the better photographer would win hands down.

Nikon rules.

I totally agree. I previously posted that there is no such thing as a professional camera. It is the guy or girl behind it that may or may not be professional.

Ronnoco

:thumbsup: Appeal - what do you like? What do you want to feel in your hands when using this camera? What features do you regard as important to help make your images what you desire them to be? What is your price ceiling? How much are additional lens' and accessories? What is your cost or desire for post production, (are you going to be happy with 4x6" prints?). A camera should be an extension of your soul. It should convey to anyone you share with, a moment. This moment is captured, hopefully in a pleasing way to share your idea, or thought excercised at the exact moment of exposure. So the BEST? Your best bet is a value based judgement, getting the most bang and satisfaction for your buck. My first camera was a plastic .79 cent Diana, bought from Green's Drug Store on Western Ave., in Gardena California in 1955. I have had many cameras since - I have been totally content with each camera at each level of my growth. I have much growing to do - and am certain, that my heart and pocket book will experience more cameras in the future. Go for it - don't hesitate the joy and satisfaction of sharing your soul with the fortunate folks that get to share in your imaging moments.

I totally agree. I previously posted that there is no such thing as a professional camera. It is the guy or girl behind it that may or may not be professional.


You are right! This is exactly my oppinion about professional cameras!

Is there any consideration for cameras that have wide dynamic ranges? It would seem to me that strictly talking senor quality, the one that most closely mimics what the eye sees would be the best.

Is there any consideration for cameras that have wide dynamic ranges? It would seem to me that strictly talking senor quality, the one that most closely mimics what the eye sees would be the best.

Great idea, but the problem is that all cameras are shooting 12 bit colour and most editing is in 8 bit lesser range colour. The technical reason is that more colours and greater dynamic range in the image create bigger files, slower processing, longer time between taking pictures, greater capacity flash cards, and more sophisticated technology to edit and print.

From a tech standpoint, we are simply not there yet and all cameras are at a less than ideal, limited level of quality, but progress is being made and the trend is toward better quality and a more reasonable price.

Ronnoco

The answer to this whole question is simple really. The best Digital SLR is the one which produces images which your clients like. At the end of the day though, as a previous poster said - it's the photographer that counts. Cameras are stupid, photographers are clever.


And my customers dont give a rat's @ss what I take the photo with, as long as it suits their purpose. When I did archatecture, it was a 4x5 TOYO. Now that I'm doing a lot of studio photography, I'm using DSLR's. Since I have a stable of top-notch Pentax lenses, the *st D was the obvious choice, the lens is what counts. The body just holds the film/sensor so the lens can create an image.

Now the K10D is a hopeful sign that Pentax is going to enter the pro small DSLR market, since medium format (their usual pro market) is kind of drying up. In New York, the big ad agencies demand zillion megapixel MF backs so they can print a double-gate spread through a 150 line screen, effectively using the same resolutin that a 5 or 6 megapixel camera produces. But they've been hoisted on their own petard, they swallowed their own propaganda!

Pixelitis is a serious condition. There is no known cure. Perhaps medical advances will allow the poor suffering clods to be cured, but I'm not holding my breath!

I knew I wanted a dslr that was easy to hold and use and my oly e500 meets those needs. I love taking pictures, I've got two kids so my oly is a part of my body of course!

I love how it fits in my hand, and, with the kit lens, 14-45mm, it is not too heavy to work with during a photo session. Based on other reviews of other lenses that I hope to acquire soon, it looks like this is the case for most of the lenses oly has for the 4 thirds system.

I also appreciate the easy to read manual, since this IS my first dslr camera and the camera itself has been fun and not too hard to figure out which is important to me since I took no photography classes in school and therefor am learning on my own by trial and error and research of the manual and places like this site!

Although it's true that you need to know how to take good pictures no matter what camera you get, it's probably good to know your camera and how it works as well! (I'm still playing with the apeture and shutter speeds!).

I am a professional Photographer in SF; I have a Nikon System, including D70; I am thinking of purchasing a Nikon D80 or D200 or a Fuji S5; I realize the price points range from $1,000 to almost $2,000;

Which one to choose?



bram

Hey..

Right. Well..I've read virtually all the comments here and I'm royally confused.

I'm extremly new to photography but don't get me wrong..I am totally passionate about getting into it.

I really want a DSLR but like I said before - completly and utterly confused on which one to get. I've been looking at the latest models 400D/D80 and also the older models 300D/350D, the D40/D50. I've read the consumer reviews on Which? and also your comments as well as comparing them all.

But I'm on a budget, I'm willing to wait until I have the money saved to get one and to get all the experience in as I can using my parents Fuji S9500 (which is on permanant loan at the moment!)

So..can you help me?

Thanks!

Bec

I can remember a long, loooooonnnggg time ago when my mother used to buy my pants two sizes too big. She said, "you'll grow into em"!

Do the same with a camera system. Buy the best you can afford, best camera, best lenses, best tiipod, etc. You will grow into it. Biggest problem is knowing which is real quality. Find yourself a mentor if possible. Someone that is already where you're headed. I bet they will be glad to help.