Best Digital Camera

[ediewho]

Compact: Lumix or Canon
SLR: Canon 5D Mark II (but only if you gonna invest on lenses) if not i would say 50D is pretty awesome or even the rebels are pretty cool. The lens is an important investment...if you are not gonna make it dont buy the most expensive its like throw away money.

 

[seanutbutter]

^ Definitely agree on the lenses. You can have the fanciest camera out there, but if you don't have the nice lenses to go with it your photographs aren't going to turn out nearly as good as they could be.

I'm upgrading from my Nikon D40x soon and have narrowed it down to a few cameras. I'd really love to buy the D700 or even the D3 but can't afford to replace my DX lenses with the FX ones, so I'm looking at the D300/D300s. I also tested out the Canon 50D the other day and was impressed with the high ISO capabilities, so I might look at that or the new 7D that is coming out later this month. Decisions, decisions...

 

[Ryan Weld]

^ get a D90, it does high ISO better than a D300. D90 and D300 have the same sensor and are pretty much the same except for the alloy body, 51-point AF, 14bit NEF etc etc, all of which you probably don't need.

Get a D700 if you are willing to buy FX lenses, you can get used ones for decent prices, or even just use a FX 50mm 1.8 which cost about 150USD for a bit, and save up for a 2.8 zoom.

Don't buy a Canon.

 

[CherryBomb01]

^There's nothing wrong a Canon DSLR

 

[Ryan Weld]

I was just kidding, only trying to stir the pot LOL. Canon make great cameras, it's just that their lower-end models feel like toys.

 

[michyed]

I use a Canon EOS 400D- from what I've seen, it's not really the camera that matters (well when it comes to CANON of course) but the lens.

Oooh for point and shoot cameras, canon is certainly superior. ;D

 

[Ryan Weld]

^ I agree completely. You don't need an expensive camera to take good shots. I still use my D40 occasionally and it takes great photos, even with an average 3rd party lens.

If I were to buy a P&S, I'd buy a Canon or Panasonic (Leica Jnr)

 

[CherryBomb01]

That's all very interesting about the lenses being the most important. I tend to agree with that. Also not a fan of the point and shoot. Sorry to those who like them but I feel like I need more control over the settings.

I want to get the Canon 50D. I'll then have to save up for a really good lens. Not sure what one I'd need there.

What sort of really good lens do you guys have or recommend?

 

[Ryan Weld]

I played with a friend's 50D with a Canon 17-55mm f2.8 (the best DX lens in that zoom range) on the weekend and I have to say I was unimpressed. Compared to my other friend's D90 with the equivalent Nikon lens, the Canon sucked. Sorry but it's the truth.

You should seriously consider a Nikon D90, it's cheaper too.

 

[CherryBomb01]

When you say it sucked, what exactly about it sucked?

Part of the reason why I want the Canon 50D is because I have a friend with the 40D who loves it & I figure the 50D should be at least as good. Her photos are pretty awesome too and I know her lenes aren't the best of the best. Also, I have a couple of lenses which I believe will fit it from my old EOS 500n which is a 35mm camera. It's about 8 or 9 years old now and I don't use it anymore. I'm 99% sure the lenses fit the current DSLR range.

 

[Ryan Weld]

I don't want you to think that I'm just being a dick here, but I actually played with the 50D and D90 side by side and from what I remember the auto WB was really bad, the colours weren't as good and the high ISO was noisier. The lens (which cost well over 1K) felt like cheap plastic and the ergonomics of the body was also lacking. I mean, the 50D is still a good camera but I think the D90 is better and cheaper.

If you have lens that you can use with the 50D then I guess buying a 50D would be the sensible thing to do, but I'm not sure if the film lens would work with a DSLR (I know Nikon DSLRs have excellent compatibility with film lens) and keep in mind that the film ones are FX so the photos would be cropped on the 50D. For example, using a FX 50mm prime on a DX camera is a pain in the **** because it's so narrow.

 

[CherryBomb01]

Hmmmm ok, very interesting post. Gives me something to think about that's for sure.

 

[ettebe]

I am trying to get my hands on a Nikon D80. They are so hard to come by. I'll keep checking ebay for a deal.

 

[Ryan Weld]

I imagine that those would be very hard to find these days. I hope you can find one in good condition for cheap, they are a very good camera.

 

[tangerine]

...Also, I have a couple of lenses which I believe will fit it from my old EOS 500n which is a 35mm camera. It's about 8 or 9 years old now and I don't use it anymore. I'm 99% sure the lenses fit the current DSLR range.

I believe the 500n uses EF mount lenses, which will work on the 50D, albeit there is the crop factor that Ryan mentions. This means that, for instance, your 50mm lens will become effectively an 80mm lens. This is not inherently bad; Canon's L lenses are all full frame (aka FX) lenses, and they are excellent and highly recommended for use with the 50D.

If you want one walkaround lens that will serve most purposes, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is generally considered to be very good (though not as well-built as the L lenses). Ryan, you neglected to mention that the Nikon lenses cost significantly more than the Canon lenses where there is an equivalent lens. There are plenty of people who will support your assertion that if cost is no object, Nikkor lenses are better, but for most people the cost could well be a significant consideration.

It can also be argued that in the crop factor (DX) range, Canon's offerings are much more diverse and better than Nikon's, and it's not until you start comparing the FF (FX) lenses that Nikkor has the upper hand.

...I actually played with the 50D and D90 side by side and from what I remember the auto WB was really bad, the colours weren't as good and the high ISO was noisier. The lens (which cost well over 1K) felt like cheap plastic and the ergonomics of the body was also lacking.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to the ergonomics, but if you mean the comfort of holding the camera in your hands and operating the controls, this is something that to a large degree is subjective. (I have not compared the two cameras you mention, but when I compared a Nikon D60 to a Canon 450D, I also preferred the feel of the Nikon; not everyone will agree).

The noise issue is one that has been mentioned often with the 50D. The high resolution combined with the sensor size makes it even more important to have good lenses, preferably fast ones so you don't have to use the high ISO so much. I strongly recommend getting very good lenses if you get the 50D. If you know what focal lengths you are most interested in, I'll make some specific recommendations. And of course dpreview.com has pages and pages of (sometimes strongly expressed) opinions on this subject.

 

[MarionasMuse]

Nikon Digi Cameras maybe are The Best...

 

[Ryan Weld]

Tangerine, I'm pretty sure my friend with the 50D had the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM and he told me it cost him $1100AUD, whereas my other friend bought his Nikkor AFS 17-55mm f2.8 for $1200AUD, so it's only a $100 difference (both bought them second hand). I think even when it comes to the FX lenses, the prices are comparable. However I have no idea about the L series, only that they are very good, and I do agree that Canon has a better range of DX lenses.

Yes, ergonomics are entirely subjective but most people that I've talked to, both Canon and Nikon users, agree that Nikons feel better in the hand and have more intuitive controls.

I have no intent to incite a multi page debate about Nikon vs Canon because both are good (I came very close to buying a 5D MkII) but in this case I just think a D90 is better and cheaper, because as you said, "for most people the cost could well be a significant consideration."

 

[CherryBomb01]

I believe the 500n uses EF mount lenses, which will work on the 50D, albeit there is the crop factor that Ryan mentions. This means that, for instance, your 50mm lens will become effectively an 80mm lens. This is not inherently bad; Canon's L lenses are all full frame (aka FX) lenses, and they are excellent and highly recommended for use with the 50D.

If you want one walkaround lens that will serve most purposes, the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS USM is generally considered to be very good (though not as well-built as the L lenses). Ryan, you neglected to mention that the Nikon lenses cost significantly more than the Canon lenses where there is an equivalent lens. There are plenty of people who will support your assertion that if cost is no object, Nikkor lenses are better, but for most people the cost could well be a significant consideration.

It can also be argued that in the crop factor (DX) range, Canon's offerings are much more diverse and better than Nikon's, and it's not until you start comparing the FF (FX) lenses that Nikkor has the upper hand.



I'm not entirely sure what you mean when you refer to the ergonomics, but if you mean the comfort of holding the camera in your hands and operating the controls, this is something that to a large degree is subjective. (I have not compared the two cameras you mention, but when I compared a Nikon D60 to a Canon 450D, I also preferred the feel of the Nikon; not everyone will agree).

The noise issue is one that has been mentioned often with the 50D. The high resolution combined with the sensor size makes it even more important to have good lenses, preferably fast ones so you don't have to use the high ISO so much. I strongly recommend getting very good lenses if you get the 50D. If you know what focal lengths you are most interested in, I'll make some specific recommendations. And of course dpreview.com has pages and pages of (sometimes strongly expressed) opinions on this subject.

Wow, that's a lot of great info. Thank you so much for posting. I have a lot to learn about digital cameras before I make a purchase..... especially the lenses. I'm still leaning towards a Canon model because I've owned a few in the past and they have been excellent. I see no real reason to jump ship.

 

[CherryBomb01]

tangerine, in terms of lenses I'd be interested in... when I used my old Canon SLR I had a 28-80mm (which come with the camera) and an 75-300mm Ultrasonic which I bought later on. I hope that's not too vague. I found those 2 lenses pretty covered everything I needed but I guess now days they are old hat.
I need to do some research...

 

[Ryan Weld]

Team Nikon I have failed you, but I tried my best LOL