Everyday, do-everything rig camera?

[Townsend]

What I'm trying to say is that there are a lot more nice DSLRs out there older than the D3000 series. If you are looking for the best and newest sensor camera out there by all means get a brand new one. If you are looking for one to bang around in your truck and take photos when you need it I would go with an older model for a better price.

That's all I needed to hear! That's what I'd love - an "old faithful" kind of camera that, although "outdated," still takes great photos. Any suggestions other than the D70?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nwoods]

I don't know anything about the Nikon line, but when I first started shooting a DSLR, I chose a Canon 20D because the EFS (white dot) lenses where much cheaper than what Nikon offered at the time. I shot with EFS lenses for a year and never much liked the results, other than the super wide 10-22mm which is outstanding. However, when paired with good glass, like the 70-200 F2.8 or the 16-35mm F2.8, that 20D did great. Most of the photos on my site are shot with that (nwoods.smugmug.com), certainly all the older pictures. I upgraded the body to a 7D two years ago to shoot video, but still use the same lenses, including a 10-22. But the key here is the glass. I spent over $4k on lenses to make the cheap camera body work well. I suspect the Nikon line will be similar. That's why I suggested the Canon G12 or newer. Same DSLR sensor, excellent metal body construction, decent speed and battery life, with built in good quality glass, and a fantastic LCD screen on the back. For a fraction of the cost, it will do what you need.

Here is a good comparison photo. This is Rock Creek near Mammoth, CA.
First shot, Canon 20D, 16-35mm F2.8 L lens ($1600 lens)

Same shot by my wife, using her Canon G10

 

[nwoods]

another interesting comparison shot. This is Joshua Tree, about the same spot and approximently same time of day and year, but shot a couple years apart from each other.

Shot in 2011: Canon 7D with 16-35mm lens - total cost $3600

Shot in 2009: Canon G10, total cost $400 when new

 

[stioc]

Hmm, I see what you're trying to say Nathan but to my very untrained eyes, even if I didn't know which camera took which picture, I would say the DSLR pics above are definitely richer in color and depth- on my monitor Perfect pics for comparison though!

For what it's worth when I was recently looking for a non-DSLR I too was looking at the Cannon G[x] but ended up finding a good deal on a Cannon S95 - the reviews and customer-uploaded pics on Amazon convinced me it's plenty for our needs and gives you lots of manual control over the $100 P&S cameras.

 

[Townsend]

If I was going to go with a DSLR, I've read a lot of strong things about the Nikon D3100 as mentioned, as well as the D40 and D50. There's tons of great deals on these all over my local craigslist.

What about Canon? The 20D has been mentioned, but I also have seen some killer deals on 40D's, surprising deals on the 50D with glass as well - which seems like a hell of a setup.

I definitely have the G12 in my mind, but if I'm exploring the DSLR options and looking to the future of possibly wanting to grow my photography prowess and passion - would getting a DSLR make more sense because even if I ended up changing to a higher end body down the line, I'd be able to use any investments in glass with the new body?

EDIT : Thank you all for all the advice already - I appreciate you sharing any and all knowledge and I'm open to all suggestions.

 

[dstn2bdoa]

Exactly what I was wondering.

I'm tired of my crappy iPhone pics, but I'm not necessarily a photo hound that wants to lug a huge camera bag everywhere.

Mmmmm....what to do?

 

[Townsend]

Exactly what I was wondering.

I'm tired of my crappy iPhone pics, but I'm not necessarily a photo hound that wants to lug a huge camera bag everywhere.

Mmmmm....what to do?

If size WAS more of an issue, and it was something that I would be lugging around all day, then I already would have gotten the Canon G12 or G15.

Also, the plus/minus of the nikon D3100 is how small it is. For many, that's probably a huge plus. For me (ex D1 lineman), I'm worried it will feel too small in my hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nwoods]

So another thing to think about is editing and archiving. Most people who get a DSLR, besides spending several thousand dollars more than budgeted on lenses, cards, etc..., also end up wanting to spend money on a new computer and more robust software to process the images. It's another cost point that should be thought about. DSRL imagery is unparalleled, but it comes at a cost. This thread started off with a $400 budget. You aren't looking at DSLR's no matter how cheap, because it's only part of the equation.

 

[Townsend]

So another thing to think about is editing and archiving. Most people who get a DSLR, besides spending several thousand dollars more than budgeted on lenses, cards, etc..., also end up wanting to spend money on a new computer and more robust software to process the images. It's another cost point that should be thought about. DSRL imagery is unparalleled, but it comes at a cost. This thread started off with a $400 budget. You aren't looking at DSLR's no matter how cheap, because it's only part of the equation.

Very good point. Can't thank you all enough for all the wisdom and suggestions.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[off-roader]

The best camera is the one you're willing to use. Many don't like a dslr due to its complexity and if you think that could be an issue then a decent point and shoot might be the way to go. Even a mirrorless system (Sony NEX line, Fujifilm xf cameras, etc) would be good enough for your needs.

$300 is a big limiting factor though which means either the d3000 class camera (either nikon or canon) or low end mirrorless, or even a mid level P&S camera are what you should be considering.

oh, I'd take a d70 over a d3000 just because it incorporates an in-body focus motor. The d3000's only autofocus with lenses that have their own build in focus motors (afs lenses).

hth.

 

[Viggen]

Lots of Canikon suggestions but leaving out Pentax. OP, you can definitely find a great Pentax on the used market with the kit 18- 55 (or, sometimes something else/ nicer) for $300. There is a KX with the 18- 55 for $250 CAD on Pentaxforums right now. Do not overlook Pentax for the Canikon wagon. I upgraded to a K7 for with 5000 shutter count for $325 and have been more than happy with it. There are tons of high quality lens choices as well. Unlike Canikon which change their mounts very often, Pentax has been using the same K mount forever with little change. I run a few 1980s lenses on my K7 with zero issues whatsoever. Great size, great sensors, large and dedicated following. Also, many of the bodies, the K7 included, are weather sealed and Pentax offers many weather resistant lenses. One being an 18- 135 which is putting out fantastic images.

Here is my old ist DS (6.1 MP) did with the kit 18- 55 lens a couple of summers ago.

Here is what my K7 (14.2 MP) did last weekend with an old Sigma 28/ 2.8 (~ $40, no motors, metal body, auto aperture, manual focus)

 

[Ryanmb21]

Viggen ^ you are absolutely WRONG about nikon lenses and their mount. Old lenses work perfect on the newest cameras. I use film lenses all the time. Nikon also has outstanding modern cheap f1.8 primes (28,50,85 and soon a 35) that at the top of the performance value spectrum. High ISO performance and ergonomics are also outstanding.

Pentax stuff is very nice as well

 

[vicali]

Viggen ^ you are absolutely WRONG about nikon lenses and their mount. *Old lenses work perfect on the newest cameras.

*most

Our D3100 cant auto-focus the 1.8 50mm lens that lives on the D70s.. I actually bought it for a song from someone with a D40 who didn't do their research

 

[Ryanmb21]

that is not because of a mount issue, the lenses will meter and "work" but if the camera doesn't have a focus motor it can't focus a lense without a focus meter. The tiny dslr's dont have focus motors.

 

[Viggen]

that is not because of a mount issue, the lenses will meter and "work" but if the camera doesn't have a focus motor it can't focus a lense without a focus meter. The tiny dslr's dont have focus motors.

My fault. Perhaps it is Canon that changes all the time? The Pentax bodies are very compact and auto focus motors are in the lenses. It is super easy for a Pentax to run older lenses. I use M42 lenses all the time. The "green button" on the body exists to quickly meter for shutter timing in manual mode.

Everyone is so quick to jump to Canikon stuff but forgets a lot of equally great alternatives. The only thing that Pentax does not have is a digital full frame. That being said though, their APS-C sensors are pretty phenomenal.