DSLR recommendation

[ramminghard]

I have been looking lately at picking up a DSLR to play around with. My budget is around $500 but I do not have issues purchasing used gear as long as its in very good condition. To this point I have been looking mainly at canon since that is what I have owned in the past. There is not a specific reason I am buying one, more for a hobby and learning.

I have been trying to decide between the rebel line and something like a 20D/40D. I found that the rebels feel quite small in my hands but that may be better with a battery grip. The main thing I am trying to get is the better camera for the money.

A friend has a 20D with about 6k actuation's and a 17-85mm lens in very good condition that he wants $450 for. Is this decent or should I hold out for a 40D or one of the newer rebels.

TIA

[quazimoto]

Dont buy a 20D as a first time camera, that's solid advice. With the technological advancements in ISO alone you'd be selling yourself significantly short.

[ramminghard]

Originally posted by quazimoto
Dont buy a 20D as a first time camera, that's solid advice. With the technological advancements in ISO alone you'd be selling yourself significantly short.
What would you recommend looking at for around $500?

[quazimoto]

I'd honestly tell you to walk into the camera store or vistek and ask them if you can try out a couple nikon and canon bodies to see which suits you best and go from there. I know it's sounds very vague but it honestly might help. You'll find most of the features to be rather similar and honestly comfort in my opinion is quite important. I personally love the nikon ergonomics. For most hobbyists you won't notice much of a difference in terms of overall quality.

[Bukka]

I've seen used D90's going for around 500-600 bucks

[Mitsu3000gt]

In your price range there is nothing that can touch the Nikon D90 overall, IMO. They are practically giving those things away now at $700 new, and used they are a couple hundred cheaper.

I also would not recommend a 20D, especially given what is presently available. Things have come a long way.

[Xtrema]

D90. Bang for the buck, good for starter. More lens choices.

Memoryexpress has one with 18-55 kit lens for $840. D7000 is coming soon/here and everyone wants to clear D90s before it shows up.

[ramminghard]

If I go with the D90 what would be a good all around lens or combination of lenses? I have been looking at the Nikkor 16-85 and the 18-200. The 18-200 seems like a reasonable choice but seems to have mixed reviews. It will likely be shooting everything from hiking trips to snowboarding.

Any recommendations? Thinking around the $700 mark, possibly more or less depending on what it is. Not adverse to buying used if anyone has one for sale!

[EvolizePhoto]

Originally posted by quazimoto
Dont buy a 20D as a first time camera, that's solid advice. With the technological advancements in ISO alone you'd be selling yourself significantly short. Some of the best photos I've ever taken in my short career were with a 20D.

[EvolizePhoto]

However, for a first camera.

Buy the Canon 40D. I'm going to buy another one to go with a 5d Classic I plan on picking up shortly here. One of the best cameras I've ever used was my 40d, you cant go wrong with it.

[ramminghard]

Originally posted by EvolizePhoto
However, for a first camera.

Buy the Canon 40D. I'm going to buy another one to go with a 5d Classic I plan on picking up shortly here. One of the best cameras I've ever used was my 40d, you cant go wrong with it.

Thing with the 40D is that i can get a D90 for $200-$300 less which is fairly significant.

[EvolizePhoto]

I just sold my 40D for 600 dollars with a grip and 4 batteries last week, they are cheap especially if you find one kijiji or online from POTN or Fred Miranda forums.

[msommers]

Originally posted by quazimoto
I'd honestly tell you to walk into the camera store or vistek and ask them if you can try out a couple nikon and canon bodies to see which suits you best and go from there.

100%. You may love the specs of one camera vs another, hell everyone else might tell you it is better. But if it feels like shit in your hand, you'll never use it or you'll be so annoyed by something else (layout, grip feel, weight etc).

I followed that same advice when I got my first SLR and it saved me from buying the wrong one.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by ramminghard
If I go with the D90 what would be a good all around lens or combination of lenses? I have been looking at the Nikkor 16-85 and the 18-200. The 18-200 seems like a reasonable choice but seems to have mixed reviews. It will likely be shooting everything from hiking trips to snowboarding.

Any recommendations? Thinking around the $700 mark, possibly more or less depending on what it is. Not adverse to buying used if anyone has one for sale!

The 18-200 VRII is the "Jack of all trades, master of none" lens. It covers a huge range and has excellent VR but doesn't excel at any one thing other than convenience. That said, it's the best of the 18-200's and if you are shooting still subjects or have good light it will likely work quite well for you.

The 16-85 VRII is another variable aperture lens that is slightly better than the 18-200VR, but doesn't cover as much range. It's still fairly slow on the long end (85mm). Again, if you have good light, a flash, or a still subject these lenses are great and extremely convenient in most situations.

The 18-105VR is actually another great lens, very cheap in comparison to the 16-85 and 18-200 and I doubt you could tell any difference image quality wise. It's not built quite as well but that's about it. Definitely one of the best kit lenses I've seen.

Personally, I think a great setup would be a 18-105 VR for convenience, landscapes, etc., a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 for walk-around, portraits, etc. and a 70-300VR for everything else. You could buy all 3 new and be a little over your budget, or even under if you went used. Or, you could save up for a 70-200/2.8 of some kind for the long end but you're looking at quite a bit more money there.

As others have said, make sure whatever you get is comfortable to hold, etc. Also consider the entire system as camera bodies are roughly on 2 year product cycles and come and go.

The D90 is so cheap right now, and has a 2 year warranty in Canada. If you like the way it feels I don't think you will do any better for your money.

[ramminghard]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


The 18-200 VRII is the "Jack of all trades, master of none" lens. It covers a huge range and has excellent VR but doesn't excel at any one thing other than convenience. That said, it's the best of the 18-200's and if you are shooting still subjects or have good light it will likely work quite well for you.

The 16-85 VRII is another variable aperture lens that is slightly better than the 18-200VR, but doesn't cover as much range. It's still fairly slow on the long end (85mm). Again, if you have good light, a flash, or a still subject these lenses are great and extremely convenient in most situations.

The 18-105VR is actually another great lens, very cheap in comparison to the 16-85 and 18-200 and I doubt you could tell any difference image quality wise. It's not built quite as well but that's about it. Definitely one of the best kit lenses I've seen.

Personally, I think a great setup would be a 18-105 VR for convenience, landscapes, etc., a 35/1.8 or 50/1.8 for walk-around, portraits, etc. and a 70-300VR for everything else. You could buy all 3 new and be a little over your budget, or even under if you went used. Or, you could save up for a 70-200/2.8 of some kind for the long end but you're looking at quite a bit more money there.

As others have said, make sure whatever you get is comfortable to hold, etc. Also consider the entire system as camera bodies are roughly on 2 year product cycles and come and go.

The D90 is so cheap right now, and has a 2 year warranty in Canada. If you like the way it feels I don't think you will do any better for your money.

I checked out the D90 at the camera store and liked the feel of it. The next issue was with the lens selection. It seems everyone has a different opinion about what is best! Thanks for the advice!

[AccentAE86]

The 40D is my favourite camera... it's my most used camera in my bag, even for professional work. And that's despite the fact that it's by FAR my cheapest camera too.

I was also considering a D90 a couple years back, but went with the 40D for the higher FPS (makes it all the more flexible for faster action) the native ISO100, CF cards (more compatible with my other cameras) and the D90's live view was horrid compared to the 40D. (For manual focusing, live view is a Godsend)

But it looks like you've already made your decision. :)

[blitz]

Nothing wrong with the 18-200mm as a starting point. My advice would be to buy one used ($550ish I think), use it for a few months and then look at what focal length you're using the most and think about what (if anything) bugs you about the lens.

Then, if you want, you can resell for essentially what you bought it for and move on.

I'd also recommend getting the 35mm 1.8 right off the bat. Will give you some DOF control to play with an a small low light option to throw in your bag.

[clem24]

This is what happens when you visit a photog forum full of overzealous users with no budget. Come on guys, his budget is $500. For $500, you cannot get a D90 with an 18-200. Not even close.

Honestly the 20D really isn't bad and for $450 that's not that bad of a deal including that particular lens. Sure there have been big advances in ISO but the 20D already had some spectacular ISO performance to begin with. AccentAE86 could shoot some spectacular shots with his old 20D that I still couldn't do with my D200.

You guys are forgetting it's all about the photographer. Driving a Ferrari won't make you become a better driver.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I thought his camera budget was $500 and $700 for lenses, that is how I understood it. If I was assuming no budget, I'd have recommended some vastly different things. In his first post he asks specifically what camera to buy for $500, then in a later post, specifically what lens(es) to buy for around $700. I think thats how others understood it as well - OP: please feel free to clarify if this is not the case

It's not ALL about the photographer IMO. Better equipment can without a doubt get some pictures you wouldn't be able to with a "lesser" setup, and make it easier to do so. It doesn't automatically make the pictures good, of course, but to imply that equipment doesn't matter is false IMO. You don't see any wedding photographers using P&S cameras - they could be the most skilled photographer in the world and the equipment would simply not work in many situations. To use the car analogy, driving a Ferrari wouldn't make someone a better driver, but they could certainly do things in that Ferrari that they could never do in a lesser vehicle.

The 20D was good in it's day, but these days I would take a D3100 or D90 over it in a heartbeat.

Will a first camera user tell the difference between a 20D and a D90 right away? Probably not, but what about in a couple weeks when they start to learn their way around the camera? I would say almost for sure by then, and if it were me I'd be wishing I hadn't settled on a very old used camera. I would definitely not recommend getting a 20D.

[Go4Long]

you can get a brand new D3100 for $550 that destroys a 20D in EVERY way.

I'm sorry, but recommending a camera with 10 year old technology is just a bad idea. Sure a better camera doesn't make you a better photographer, just like driving a faster car won't make you a better driver. But if you're starting with a Porsche you're still going to be able to get better results than if you're starting with a beat up old honda accord.

*edit* hahaha...we both posted the same analogy at the same time :-P

*edit again* I would also recommend the D90, or the D3100 for the record...from what I've seen the auto focus on the D90 is a little better...but optics wise they're both very good cameras.

[AccentAE86]

But really, having used a 20D for quite a while, it represented a new standard of high performance cameras. It was miles ahead of the 10D in usability and response. It was basically one of the first dslrs to have instant response, almost no shutter lag, short viewfinder blackout, instant previewing, instant wake-up, great FPS at 5, great high ISO performance, and resolution big enough for billboard sized printing.

Basically, the usability, image quality, and operational performance is hardly far behind most modern cameras coming out today that are within it's class. I could still be shooting a 20D very happily. But the 10D certainly *IS* a dinosaur, but the 20D really set a new standard.

The major things it is missing in an operational sense is:

Live view (which is why I use the 40D), movie modes, spot metering, larger LCD. But it will allow you to SHOOT just as quickly and easily as a D90 or D3100.

The 20D is FAR FAR FAR from a camera that would limit most amateur photographers. (or even pros for that matter)

[Go4Long]

Yes, it's better than most point and shoots, there's not many people are going to argue with you there...but preaching the virtues of a 20D is just silly when there's SO many better options out there, and for some reason the depreciation on old bodies just makes it not worth it to buy a 10 year old camera when you can get one that's just a couple years old for damn near the same price.

[ramminghard]

I will very likely have the D90 this week, just need to finalize everything. So it is now down to lens choices.

Saw a couple on kijiji that looked reasonable:
-Nikon, Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D, comes with VITACON 52mm UV filter for $120
-Nikon, Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6G, comes with HOYA 62mm Skylight (1B) filter and Nikon HB-26 lens hood for $120

Any others I should consider? Thanks for all the help!

[msommers]

I would opt for a 30 or 35mm instead of a 50mm. I have both and much prefer the 30mm. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lens.

You can probably get a better deal on that 50mm if you're set on it.

[blitz]

And that 70-300 is non-VR, which I believe isn't the greatest lens.

I wouldn't pay more than $100 for a 50mm 1.8. Don't put any value on filters included with lenses when looking at used adds. Especially the 50mm 1.8, it's element is recessed so much it doesn't need any protection.

You should be able to get a 35mm 1.8 for $200 used, much better lens IMO.

[Go4Long]

you're missing a short zoom there, the 50 is good, but a short zoom is a really good starting point...Mitsu went over the best choices earlier in this thread, so I won't do it again ;)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by AccentAE86
But really, having used a 20D for quite a while, it represented a new standard of high performance cameras. It was miles ahead of the 10D in usability and response. It was basically one of the first dslrs to have instant response, almost no shutter lag, short viewfinder blackout, instant previewing, instant wake-up, great FPS at 5, great high ISO performance, and resolution big enough for billboard sized printing.

Basically, the usability, image quality, and operational performance is hardly far behind most modern cameras coming out today that are within it's class. I could still be shooting a 20D very happily. But the 10D certainly *IS* a dinosaur, but the 20D really set a new standard.

The major things it is missing in an operational sense is:

Live view (which is why I use the 40D), movie modes, spot metering, larger LCD. But it will allow you to SHOOT just as quickly and easily as a D90 or D3100.

The 20D is FAR FAR FAR from a camera that would limit most amateur photographers. (or even pros for that matter)

I don't think anyone is arguing it wasn't a great camera in its day, only that it isn't very good now when compared to some fairly low priced cameras currently available. Many years ago I'd be happy to be using a 20D, not so much anymore. The lack of a spot meter alone, to me, would be a deal breaker and is a ridiculous oversight. I use spot metering constantly. That would likely be something a beginner wouldn't know they were missing until they went to use it and it wasn't there.

A 20D can shoot just as fast or faster than a D90 or similar on a static subject, but it's AF is not as good as the newer cameras. For a moving subject I would rather be using a D90 or even a D3100. Again, this is not to say a 20D can't take an action shot, just that AF has improved over the years as well.

-------------------------------------------------------

On another note, and not just in this thread, many people keep saying that a pro wouldn't be limited by camera X, equipment doesn't matter, it's 100% the photographer, etc. etc. Not only is this false, but I find this hypocritical because none of the people saying these things use the cameras they are recommending for pro work or anything else. If they truly believed those things they would all be using P&S cameras, Canon 10D's, or whatever their first DSLR was. The fact is that everyone likes using better/newer gear (regardless if they need it or not) because it makes their lives easier and helps them nail the shot. When someone is looking for a new camera, they are obviously looking for the best they can get for their money. Suggesting 7+ year old technology IMO is not good advice, especially with how far things have come. It won't be long until they are wishing they had got something newer & better in the first place.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by ramminghard
I will very likely have the D90 this week, just need to finalize everything. So it is now down to lens choices.

Saw a couple on kijiji that looked reasonable:
-Nikon, Nikkor 50mm 1:1.8D, comes with VITACON 52mm UV filter for $120
-Nikon, Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4.5-5.6G, comes with HOYA 62mm Skylight (1B) filter and Nikon HB-26 lens hood for $120

Any others I should consider? Thanks for all the help!

Forget that 70-300, it's a pretty average lens.

The newer 70-300VR, on the other hand, is an excellent lens and represents perhaps one of the best overall values of any entry level lens I'm aware of. Especially with a 70-300 focal length you will love having VR. It's incredibly cheap for what you get.

As already mentioned don't let people include the value of a cheap UV filter in a lens price. Digital cameras don't even benefit from UV filters other than the physical protection. They were designed for film cameras.

I would suggest the 35/1.8 over the 50/1.8 but both are good lenses and if you are on a really tight budget the 50 will be the cheaper of the two for sure.

This is what I would recommend to get you started:

18-105VR or 18-55VR (much cheaper and still good)
35/1.8 or 50/1.8 for a low cost wide aperture option
70-300VR for everything else (55-200VR wouldn't be bad if you wanted to save a bit more money here but not in the same league as the 70-300VR)

You can shoot just about anything with that.

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by Go4Long
Yes, it's better than most point and shoots, there's not many people are going to argue with you there...but preaching the virtues of a 20D is just silly when there's SO many better options out there, and for some reason the depreciation on old bodies just makes it not worth it to buy a 10 year old camera when you can get one that's just a couple years old for damn near the same price.

Same price? $220-240 for a 20D vs $500-600 for a D90? I'd rather have a 20D + $300 worth of better or more glass. And that's being honest. It's just another point of view... threads would be boring if everybody just repeated the same thing over and over. ;)

And I wasn't comparing the 20D to point and shoots. I am comparing them to the current DSLR lineups. The 20D is hardly a step back in an purely operational sense. It certainly lacks creature comforts, but I don't think it would be any harder on a 20D to shoot all the same things that a D90 or 60D can.

And yes, sports is an area where you would notice a difference. But not many people are serious sports shooters. And I did fine with the 20D on sports for the rare occasions I did that.

cheers

[Tomaz]

Best advise ^^^

that last statement is so true. That statement applies to cameras, cars, clothing, women, toiletries, appliances, etc.


EDIT: Was meant for Mitsu's post. Damn, I am a slow reader...

[Go4Long]

slow reader :P

[quazimoto]

Originally posted by AccentAE86


Same price? $220-240 for a 20D vs $500-600 for a D90? I'd rather have a 20D + $300 worth of better or more glass. And that's being honest. It's just another point of view... threads would be boring if everybody just repeated the same thing over and over. ;)

And I wasn't comparing the 20D to point and shoots. I am comparing them to the current DSLR lineups. The 20D is hardly a step back in an purely operational sense. It certainly lacks creature comforts, but I don't think it would be any harder on a 20D to shoot all the same things that a D90 or 60D can.

And yes, sports is an area where you would notice a difference. But not many people are serious sports shooters. And I did fine with the 20D on sports for the rare occasions I did that.

cheers

Let me get this straight just so I know this you are saying he should go out and buy the 20D and spend the rest on glass?

You do realize no lens he'll be able to buy for that amount will make up for the limited ISO capabilities on a 20D as it is? It actually makes zero sense to buy a 20D.

Fact is the 20D is very limited on ISO performance, has a small LCD screen, doesn't have sensor cleaning and the build quality is not up to snuff with current modern day cameras.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by AccentAE86

Same price? $220-240 for a 20D vs $500-600 for a D90? I'd rather have a 20D + $300 worth of better or more glass. And that's being honest. It's just another point of view... threads would be boring if everybody just repeated the same thing over and over. ;)


considering one is 7 years older than the other, a couple hundred bucks is nothing.

and like quazi said...that 300 bucks isn't going to get you very far in terms of good glass...one decent short prime like a 50mm 1.4...

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by quazimoto


Let me get this straight just so I know this you are saying he should go out and buy the 20D and spend the rest on glass?

You do realize no lens he'll be able to buy for that amount will make up for the limited ISO capabilities on a 20D as it is? It actually makes zero sense to buy a 20D.

Fact is the 20D is very limited on ISO performance, has a small LCD screen, doesn't have sensor cleaning and the build quality is not up to snuff with current modern day cameras.



Originally posted by Go4Long


considering one is 7 years older than the other, a couple hundred bucks is nothing.

and like quazi said...that 300 bucks isn't going to get you very far in terms of good glass...one decent short prime like a 50mm 1.4...

What? The 20D is 4 years older than the D90. But that point isn't important. You guys are thinking in the gearhead mindset. I'm approaching it from an artistic and operational mindset. All I'm saying is that an older 20D will HARDLY limit your artistry.

And a $300 difference in price is huge, especially when your total lens budget is $700. Adding a sigma 30 allowing you to shoot at 1.4 rather than f/4-5.6 is a HUGE boost to a shooter's arsenal. You can shoot at a beautiful 400 rather than a grainy 3200 with the 18-200. I honestly don't think that it's a bad idea.

[ramminghard]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


This is what I would recommend to get you started:

18-105VR or 18-55VR (much cheaper and still good)



Is there any issue with the plasic mounts? The guy at the camera store was advising to stay away from them.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by ramminghard


Is there any issue with the plasic mounts? The guy at the camera store was advising to stay away from them.

No issue, especially for hobbyist use. I've owned plastic mount lenses before, it doesn't matter at all. I'm not sure about the 18-55VR but the 18-105VR should have a rubber O-ring seal at the lens mount too, in case of moisture. The plastic mount just makes them cheaper, and helps you get excellent image quality for a low price.

[quazimoto]

Originally posted by AccentAE86





What? The 20D is 4 years older than the D90. But that point isn't important. You guys are thinking in the gearhead mindset. I'm approaching it from an artistic and operational mindset. All I'm saying is that an older 20D will HARDLY limit your artistry.

And a $300 difference in price is huge, especially when your total lens budget is $700. Adding a sigma 30 allowing you to shoot at 1.4 rather than f/4-5.6 is a HUGE boost to a shooter's arsenal. You can shoot at a beautiful 400 rather than a grainy 3200 with the 18-200. I honestly don't think that it's a bad idea.

I'll tell you this is nothing about being a gearhead and more about giving accurate advice that 99% of industry professionals aka sales people in the store would provide him with. It's not a sales pitch either it's providing him with the most accurate information possible. As one person on this board recently discovered the 1D Mark II which came out after the 20D did wasn't up to snuff with some of the features on the 40D. It says a lot when some of the features on pro bodies from that era can't compete with mid range DSLRs of today. Yet you want to recommend he go out and buy a mid range camera of yesteryear.

For that matter nothing on the 20D even compares to the D90. Its a direct comparison to the D70 and the extra $300 is more than worth it.

As for the lens I would myself look for the 30 or 35. A 35mm lens is just about as true as your normal sight vision is so when you look through the camera it's basically going to appear just as it normally would. This is a great way to learn how to use prime lenses as it will make it a lot easier.

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by quazimoto


I'll tell you this is nothing about being a gearhead and more about giving accurate advice that 99% of industry professionals aka sales people in the store would provide him with. It's not a sales pitch either it's providing him with the most accurate information possible. As one person on this board recently discovered the 1D Mark II which came out after the 20D did wasn't up to snuff with some of the features on the 40D. It says a lot when some of the features on pro bodies from that era can't compete with mid range DSLRs of today. Yet you want to recommend he go out and buy a mid range camera of yesteryear.

For that matter nothing on the 20D even compares to the D90. Its a direct comparison to the D70 and the extra $300 is more than worth it.

As for the lens I would myself look for the 30 or 35. A 35mm lens is just about as true as your normal sight vision is so when you look through the camera it's basically going to appear just as it normally would. This is a great way to learn how to use prime lenses as it will make it a lot easier.

Isn't this kind of an oxymoron? Seems like it to me. Salespeople are trying to reach their sales quotas and boost their commissions. Of course they'll always want to sell Joe-idiot the latest and greatest, because it's also the most expensive.

Anyhow, you're still thinking in terms of technical features, specifications, and gizmos and gadgets. It still doesn't change the fact that a 20D isn't going to HOLD BACK the vast majority of people in their shooting.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I get what you're saying but I highly doubt the OP's focus is strictly artistic. If the focus was strictly on art, the OP would be just as well off buying a pinhole camera or a disposable camera as he would a DSLR, because art is what you make of it.

All photos are technically art but some people aren't really into the whole "art" aspect, and just want to take photos of whatever they want to make themselves happy. In doing so, they want the best equipment they can afford to make the job as easy as possible. I am guessing the OP, as well as most people, fall more into this category rather than the hard core "artist" category.

Recommending a 20D alongside today's camera offerings because you can still create art with it IMO is true, but also advise that would interest only a very small crowd.

[blitz]

All I know is AccentAE86's recent photoshoots are the best I've ever seen on this forum, and they were shot with a 40D.

[quazimoto]

BUT it will hold them back, or don't you understand. His recent posts were great, some wicked photos in situations where he is able to greatly control the lighting of every entire scene to the point where you could use a P&S camera and get great results. However life is not about being able to control and manipulate lighting perfectly in every single picture.

The d90 has 50% more megapixels, a substantially better AF system, a bigger LCD, way better ISO capabilities, better in camera metering, better build quality, heck the list can go on and on and on. I can see how the camera is worth the money with this alone.

The sales staff in most stores try to give you an unbiased opinion which is something you aren't giving him here. If sales staff were so over the top biased they'd be telling people to buy Sony instead of Nikon since many of the cameras share the same sensors. Oddly you rarely see them doing this.

Right now more than anything you just scream of a Canon fanboi. There is seriously no reasonable means to recommend a 20D over a D90. Not to mention there is no single way of verifying how many actuations are on that 20D.

[AccentAE86]

Originally posted by blitz
All I know is AccentAE86's recent photoshoots are the best I've ever seen on this forum, and they were shot with a 40D.

Cheers. Glad you like them. :)

I'm not afraid to use the 40D for anything other than commercial ad campaigns (they want ultra resolution), fast action, or in the pouring rain. So basically, 95% of what I shoot. It really delivers. Even fast paced weddings in poorly lit areas. I've even been considering selling all my full frame gear because I just don't use it enough, and they're bloody expensive. But my wife has talked me out of it.


Originally posted by quazimoto
BUT it will hold them back, or don't you understand. His recent posts were great, some wicked photos in situations where he is able to greatly control the lighting of every entire scene to the point where you could use a P&S camera and get great results. However life is not about being able to control and manipulate lighting perfectly in every single picture.

The d90 has 50% more megapixels, a substantially better AF system, a bigger LCD, way better ISO capabilities, better in camera metering, better build quality, heck the list can go on and on and on. I can see how the camera is worth the money with this alone.

The sales staff in most stores try to give you an unbiased opinion which is something you aren't giving him here. If sales staff were so over the top biased they'd be telling people to buy Sony instead of Nikon since many of the cameras share the same sensors. Oddly you rarely see them doing this.

Right now more than anything you just scream of a Canon fanboi. There is seriously no reasonable means to recommend a 20D over a D90. Not to mention there is no single way of verifying how many actuations are on that 20D.

Wow, canon fanboi? I actually love trashing canon WHERE IT'S DUE. But I'm a bi-shooter because I believe Nikon provides advantages where Canon sorely lacks, so I shoot in both camps. I believe neither camp is a slam dunk winner over the other. People often ask me why I shoot with Canon because I love to bitch about a lot of their products. My beefs are not brand-loyal whatsoever. If I were to choose one person on this forum who is the most fanboyish, it would probably be you. ;)

Anyhow, I think you guys are taking me too seriously. I'm not saying that it's a BAD idea to go with a D90. I think it's a GREAT camera. I know it's better in most ways than a 20D. I just think that a 20D + a high quality fast prime like the Sigma 30, for the same price as a D90 body only, is ALSO a great idea. People were saying the 20D is a flat-out BAD idea, which I simply just don't believe is the case. It's just another point of view so the OP has a broader base to make decisions on.

I probably used the wrong word in saying "artistry". I guess I mean "general photography". Basically what 95% of non-professional photographers shoot.

[quazimoto]

I'm probably the least fanboish person here. I just have extensive experience with canon and now roughly a year and half with the Nikon camp and it's not hard to see the glaring differences between the two systems.

I did well with Canon. I liked the system. I didn't like the lack of customer support and lack of them honoring a warranty on a $8,000 camera. I'm sure you could see why I switched. I no doubt understand those exact same things you are speaking. Do you see me telling people to go out and buy this or that camera, it's not something I do since I feel it's something people have to feel for themselves. Hence why I tell anybody to walk into a camera store and play with the cameras to see which feels right for you. There is no right or wrong answer.

What works for you or works for me may not work for somebody else right.

I did love my canon setup for what it's worth, up until the death of my 1D Mark III. Do I miss my canon setup? Not a single bit, I actually couldn't see myself ever going back unless Canon stepped up and started offering something with a significant advantage over Nikon which currently they just don't have unless you like video features.

I'm not saying he couldn't work with the 20D. I know I could if I really had to. I know for fact though that the 20D would LIMIT my own shooting in many situations. I start to look back to six years ago when I started doing this professionally and it's hard to recall what I used to do when I was stuck at ISO 400.

The only thing that really really really puzzles me is how you are one of the very few that invests into both systems. It's an extreme rarity in this day and age. I find it completely interesting.

[EvolizePhoto]

The more money you spend on the gear the better photos you get. OP, save up 10 grand and buy a d3s and nothing slower than 2.8 glass.

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by EvolizePhoto
The more money you spend on the gear the better photos you get. OP, save up 10 grand and buy a d3s and nothing slower than 2.8 glass.

how's that old 1d workin out for you?
Buying cheaper gear isn't necessarily the right answer, don't you agree with that given your recent experiences of buying a "pro" body that is significantly worse than your 40d was?
No one's saying a $5000 body is the answer for this guy...in fact every nikon shooter in this thread has recommended the relative bargain body that is the D90, with a couple shout outs for the $550 BRAND NEW D3100...maybe being a smart ass here wasn't the right answer for you, but what do I know? you probably still think I only bought the D3s so I could rub it in your face.

[Mitsu3000gt]

I remember when I got my first DSLR, it was between a Canon 30D and a Nikon D80. I'd have *probably* bought the 30D if I had a bit more money, but I didn't so I went with the D80. The 30D had more fps, magnesium body, and better ISO performance. The D80 had wireless flash control, better AF, better metering, and better kit lenses. Had I been a little richer I'd probably have been in the Canon camp until the announcement of the Nikon D300/D3 when switching to Nikon would have been a no-brainer.

Where I am going with this though, is that it is a plain and simple fact that I am able to get pictures with my D300 I never could with my D80. Of course I could still be using the D80, but I'd have missed a lot of photo opportunities being limited to ISO 640, 3fps, and the inability to change key settings with the flick of an external switch just to name a few things. I agree with Quazi that something like a D80, 20D, etc. would severely limit my ability to shoot in many situations, especially with the kinds of pictures I like to take.

A 20D and a fast prime would be good for SOME situations (assuming the lens choice was appropriate), where a D90 or similar and the same lens would be suitable for considerably more situations. If you could have the latter at a minimal premium I'm not sure who wouldn't go that route. The OP is looking to shoot a huge variety of subjects judging by what he has said, and the newer cameras are much better at covering all the bases.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by EvolizePhoto
The more money you spend on the gear the better photos you get. OP, save up 10 grand and buy a d3s and nothing slower than 2.8 glass.

:facepalm:

Everyone in this thread is recommending bargain/bang for the buck products.

[Go4Long]

don't mind him...he's just trying to take shots at Kevin and I...lol

apparently me Quazi and Mike are all some kind of elitist photographer gang that's teaming up to point out the flaws in dave's arguments. :rofl:

[Bukka]

When it comes down to it, you only need a sensor, shutter release, and the ability to control your shutter speed, and aperture.

The 20D has this as does the D90.
Either way you're going to be able to make images

The 20D is completely capable. Even to this very day people are still making amazing images with that body. People are just spoiled by the smooth high ISO's, live view etc etc etc, that you get with new cameras. Yeah, all the new stuff is pretty awesome, I agree, though none of it is a need in order to make pleasing images.

Personally I'd go with an older body and buy some fast primes. I think it leaves you with a little more artistic control in terms of playing with DOF than getting a more expensive body, and slow glass. Heck that grain that everyone hates, can actually help the look of an image depending what the subject is.


As for the bickering that goes on in this forum, I just wish you would all shut the fuck up, keep it in PM's and just post images. Maybe some day..for now oh well.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Bukka



As for the bickering that goes on in this forum, I just wish you would all shut the fuck up, keep it in PM's and just post images. Maybe some day..for now oh well.

Never going to happen, the photo section is long past the point of rational discourse.