FAQ: What is the best digital SLR?

[SigmaSD10]

[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.

[gnnyman]

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

[DanaG]

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!!

[Bodryn]

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

[PuckJunkey]

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.

[JSPhoto]

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

[carney2]

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.

[yogestee]

>The best DSLR is the one you use.

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

Jurgen
Australia

[danag42]

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.

[Ronnoco]

>

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

[Andy B]

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.

[Ronnoco]

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

[Andy B]

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.

[Homer]

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

[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

[mwfanelli]

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.

[greghalliday]

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.

[Ronnoco]

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

[Ronnoco]

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

Ronnoco

[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.

Ronnoco

[drg]

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'.

[boomtap]

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.

[Ronnoco]

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

[gilliamhome]

: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.

[gubak]

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!