Buying a SLR - 7D, K7, D300s, a550??

[conradcjc]

I am looking into buying a SLR camera. I use a really old Canon SLR now at work so I am very familiar with cameras and how to use them. I am looking at the following 4 cameras.

Pentax K7
Canon 7D
Nikon D300s
Sony a550

Which is the better option from the list above?

Any thoughts?

Thank you
Charles Conrad

[Anbesol]

Those are not exactly ideal comparisons. The D300S and 7D both cost over twice as much as the listed Pentax K7 and Sony A550. Sony has an A850 which is closer in price to those, but also closer competitively to Nikons D700 and Canons 5D. Sony's A550's Nikon/Canon equiv is the D5000 and the Canon T2i.

But anyway - 'better' is not the operative word, because 'better' can be related to a variety of things. Its also subjective to your photography, does the huge resolution of the A850 mean something to you? The superfast AF of the 7D, the cutting edge high iso image grain of the D700, the excellent live view mode of the A550, the video of the T2i or the D5000, etc etc. Not one can be factually stated as above any other in practicality (particularly realistic to cost).

Assuming the price was no different, and someone just offered to give me one of any of those, and I didn't already have a full system of lens, I would easily pick the 7D. For what thats worth.

[conradcjc]

Yes. You are right they might not be fair comparisons. I was actually looking at the Canon 7D more so then the ones I mentioned. Why do you say 7D?

[Franglais]

Perhaps the best thing to do is tell us what you want to do with it anyway. You talk about having a camera at work, is this professional or more for you?

[conradcjc]

This is more for me. I would be shooting indoor and outdoor stuff.

Indoor: weddings, receptions, bday parties
Outdoor: animals (zoo), beach, parties, birds

[Anbesol]

Well, 18 megapixels to start. Its got the polycarbonate/magnesium alloy build that ups both the Pentax and Sony, the manual interface I prefer over Nikons, its got the brighter pentaprism with 100% view, and the fastest AF of any listed.

Though I'd pick full frame with A850 over any of those. For weddings/receptions/bday parties you would have a serious advantage with full frame, to really make good use of the 15-30mm focal range. The outdoor specific features aren't neccesarily a major advantage for full frame, but it is still nice. Of course, spend a little more still and the A900/5D/D700 also become options.

All ultimately falls to how much you are wanting to spend, your question is very vague as to budget, and different options are better at different budgets. Common rule for starting an investment in gear is to use a good chunk of the budget on quality optics, rather then spending all on the camera body. If your budget for example is $2k, then its good to spend some $700-$1k on Camera body, and the rest on good glass. Optics are usually something that outlasts several camera body upgrades.

[OldClicker]

Here is an interesting take on the design philosophies of three of the companies - Canon, Nikon and Sony/Minolta/Zeiss.

http://karasevstudio.com/photo/artic...ch_dslr2.shtml

TF

[conradcjc]

Thanks for the advice.

[Photo-John]

This is more for me. I would be shooting indoor and outdoor stuff.

Indoor: weddings, receptions, bday parties
Outdoor: animals (zoo), beach, parties, birds

The main strength of the 7D is its excellent auto focus system. Although the image quality is good, it's not awesome. I consider it an action sports camera. For Canon shooters who primarily shoot people and landscapes I usually recommend the 5D Mark II because it has far better image quality. Since you aren't invested in any system yet, I'd probably point you to the Sony A850 that Anbesol mentioned, because it has a full-frame sensor that will deliver far better image quality. My next choice would be the Nikon because Nikon is the current image quality leader. The D300s doesn't have a full frame sensor, but for the past couple of years the Nikon DSLRs have blown everything else out of the water when it comes to low light image quality. The Sony should still be better because of the larger sensor. But for an APS-C sensor, the Nikon will be the best. And if you're going to be shooting mostly people and a lot of indoor photos, then I think image quality should be your top priority.

[conradcjc]

Thank you Photo-John for your advice. I am going to start reading about and looking at this Sony a850.

Thanks again for the help.

[Photo-John]

Happy to help. And for what it's worth, I actually own the 7D. But I shoot a ton of outdoor action sports and my priority is speed and acuto focus accuracy. If I were mostly doing people photos and landscapes, I'd probably be using a Canon EOS 5D Mark II or Nikon D700.

[Anbesol]

Why not A900?

[LightBright]

I would say (just my opinion)

Sony A900/a850, full frame, nice colors, great for wide angle lenses, great ergonomics, a little nosier than the 7d and d300s (but than again the d300s color goes down quite a bit trying to suppress noise) and , Sony,Minolta and Carl Zeiss lenses.

The Sony a550, plastic body, very good iso performance for its price point, sony,minolta and carl zeiss lenses, swivel screen, blazing fast live-view auto focus.

Canon 7d, better auto focus system, also nice colors, noise performance, great selection accessories, video

Nikon d300s, good AF, good noise performance, accessories, great feel to the camera body and again video,

Pentax k7, cheapest recent DSLR that offers weather sealing, video, smaller body, noisy at higher iso's, I also heard that there SDM lenses have problems with reliability.

I don't think noise would be to much of an issue if you buy a fast lens to go along with it. Any of these five cameras would be excellent choices.

[Photo-John]

Sony A900/a850, full frame, nice colors, great for wide angle lenses, great ergonomics, a little nosier than the 7d and d300s (but than again the d300s color goes down quite a bit trying to suppress noise) and , Sony,Minolta and Carl Zeiss lenses.

I would be really surprised if the full frame A900 and A850 have more noise than the Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s. That just doesn't seem likely to me.

[LightBright]

I would be really surprised if the full frame A900 and A850 have more noise than the Canon EOS 7D and Nikon D300s. That just doesn't seem likely to me.

Yes I was surprised to, because ever since the 5d mark II came out Ive heard people say that the bigger the sensor the less noise. Sadly, as much as I like the Sony a900, I have seen countless online high iso samples from the camera and it is very noisy. Hopefully the next version will be the opposite. Most people shoot landscapes with the a900 so they are pretty good in staying bellow or at 800 iso, so this isn't a problem for those types of shooters.

[Photo-John]

Yes I was surprised to, because ever since the 5d mark II came out Ive heard people say that the bigger the sensor the less noise. Sadly, as much as I like the Sony a900, I have seen countless online high iso samples from the camera and it is very noisy.

Interesting. Sounds like I really need to get one for studio tests. Don't forget that you have to take resolution into consideration. Looking at them on the computer at 100% isn't really an effective way to judge. You really have to make prints to compare.

[OldClicker]

Interesting. Sounds like I really need to get one for studio tests. Don't forget that you have to take resolution into consideration. Looking at them on the computer at 100% isn't really an effective way to judge. You really have to make prints to compare.

They're noisy because Sony doesn't use the filters and processing necessary to get the high ISO at the expense of color and IQ. - TF

[Photo-John]

They're noisy because Sony doesn't use the filters and processing necessary to get the high ISO at the expense of color and IQ. - TF

Heh heh - that sounds like marketing to me. Isn't noise an important piece of image quality?

[Anbesol]

Wait I'm with John, I find it hard to believe an APS sensor can outperform the sony full frame ones at high ISO.

I just looked at imaging-resources 'comparometer', at 1600 the A900 is clearly cleaner than the 7D, and hard to distinguish against the D300S, but thats 24 vs 12 pixel peeping on a monitor.

[LightBright]

Well I haven't taken print's into consideration . But I am basing things on what I have seen and what people tell me about its noise performance. I don't personally have this camera (i was put off with the iso issue). Old clicker is right about how they don't suppress noise all that much compared to the others. I know Nikon's d300 drastically has its colors reduced just to block out noise, I forgot which channel gets degraded the most but I think its the red channel, and they use the same Sony sensors, but they are cleaner. I noticed that the a900 have loads of noise in the shadows. Testing high iso performance in good evenly lit conditions isn't a good way to find how it performs overall, it just masks it.

There all great cameras, but some do certain things better than others.

[Photo-John]

thats 24 vs 12 pixel peeping on a monitor.

That's the key to the puzzle. They may look the same on the monitor. But if you print them both the same size, the noise in the 24 MP image will be effectively reduced to nothing. And that's why you compare with prints and not on the computer.

[Anbesol]

Okay I looked at some more noise comparisons and I definitely think the A900 does better high ISO image grain than either 7D or D300S. Though it isn't quite as clean at high ISO as the 5D Mk II, and of course its not as clean as the D700, but it is twice the resolution.

[Photo-John]

of course its not as clean as the D700, but it is twice the resolution.

Once again, if you made the same size prints of the same subject from both cameras, the A900 would probably have better IQ because the higher resoltuion noise would be so small compared to that of the D700. This is something that's usually missed by pixel peepers, but it's critical to real image quality evaluation. I do all IQ comparisons by making 8.5x11 prints of my studio test photos. That's the only method I really trust.

[Anbesol]

That is true I didn't print test, but I thought the D700's big (and only significant) claim to fame was its ISO 1600-12800 ISO image grain. If there is no quantifiable image grain difference between the D700 and A900 at 3200 ISO, then whats the point of the D700 at all? Which doesn't even exceed the resolution of prior generation full frame bodies. What other advantages does it have?

[Photo-John]

That is true I didn't print test, but I thought the D700's big (and only significant) claim to fame was its ISO 1600-12800 ISO image grain. If there is no quantifiable image grain difference between the D700 and A900 at 3200 ISO, then whats the point of the D700 at all? Which doesn't even exceed the resolution of prior generation full frame bodies. What other advantages does it have?

I don't know if there is a quantifiable difference at the same print size. I don't have comparable files from both cameras to compare so I can only guess. However, there are still a lot of variables to take into consideration when choosing a camera. Maybe you don't want to deal with 24 megapixel files? I know I don't. You'll be able to save more to a card, use less hard drive space, transfer faster, process faster, etc. Those are very real advantages for some photographers. I have a friend who sold all his Canon gear and bought thre D700 over the 5D Mk II for that very reason. And even if the A900 does ultimately have better IQ than the D700, that doesn't make the D700 bad. We don't all need the very best image quality. If we did, we'd all be shooting large format sheet film