DSLR recommendation

[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.

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.

[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.