OT - Camera advice

[Elmer Fudd]

I've always sworn by Canon gear myself ever since I bought an EOS600 35mm camera.
Even though Nikon is supposed to be the creme de la creme, just watch the newspaper photographers at football matches and in Downing Street, most of them are toting Canon gear (Spot the top quality Canon gear at football matches dead easy, the long focal length lenses are white).
My mate has just bought a new lens for his 40D camera (I actually preferred the 30D, slightly bigger body), cost £300, it's a 28-135mm zoom, that is for 35mm film, for digital increase the focal lengths by c.35%, so that equates to roughly a 38-180mm zoom and it has "image stabilisation"! Doesn't matter how cold you are / beers you had last night, you can wobble all over the place and still get a pin sharp perfect image !

Go Canon Young Man !!

Don't go down the road of Sony etc.. They are experts in electronics which are probably in most major brand cameras. Go Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc., they make there names with the quality of their optics. No good having a super-duper all singing digi camera with a milk bottle stuck on the front, you'll still get shite pictures.

As an ex semi-pro wedding / portrait photographer I'm saying Canon, but it all depends what feels good in your hands. Next Nikon

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Cheers for all the replies, lots of food for thought there. I missed the Nikon - it was on ebay and went for more than I could afford in the end - but am now thinking about going for a Pentax K10D. Well within budget and I used to use Pentax kit in the days of film so I know it's pretty good quality. I haven't bought anything yet though so may yet be tempted to go for a Canon if I can find one at the right price.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Cheers for all the replies, lots of food for thought there. I missed the Nikon - it was on ebay and went for more than I could afford in the end - but am now thinking about going for a Pentax K10D. Well within budget and I used to use Pentax kit in the days of film so I know it's pretty good quality. I haven't bought anything yet though so may yet be tempted to go for a Canon if I can find one at the right price.

Had a Pentax ME & MX back in the 70's, good affordable kit, but I would , honestly, if it needs another £50 / £100 to go Canon or Nikon, hold on, and go n play with yeself 'til you saved the extra tad you need and you can get ya hands on ya new toy ya really wanted
Oh, a word or two of advice, go to Jessops if you have one local and have a caress stroke / play of whatever you fancy, but walk out to think about it, unless you can barter their price down (which aren't too bad to be honest) buy elsewhere, their after sales nowadays can be pretty poor (I'm being polite there, not like me, must be sober !! )

 

[Aperitif]

I like Canon too Elmer. The USM lenses are fast and quiet...everything seems to be 'to hand' on the camera I have. I'd like an EOS1 or something blingy - one day!

 

[Elmer Fudd]

I like Canon too Elmer. The USM lenses are fast and quiet...everything seems to be 'to hand' on the camera I have. I'd like an EOS1 or something blingy - one day!

YES PLEASE !!
Must admit , still got the EOS600, it rarely (never) gets used now but was so comfy in my hand, just fitted if you know what I mean. I know Canon get criticised at times for doing 'good' medium and 'cheap' lenses, but anything medium up is cracking kit. But even the 'cheap' are good, just not up to hard abuse a pro would put them to.

 

[ajevans]

I'm biased towards the Nikon camp. Remember your effectively buying into the lense fittings, and Nikon pretty much make the best optics unless you're going to be doing a lot of high-speed sports photography where Canon may make more sense.

Check out a review of the D200 here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200.htm

One question are you going to be shooting in RAW or Jpeg? I ask because I've read the Canon underexposes slightly by default where the D200 gets it spot on. It matters less if you're shooting in RAW, as you crank the exposure up a little notch later.

 

[Cab]

Not yet. I don't know much about modern digital cameras, so am open to any suggestions. I think the Nikon is the way to go though.

As others has stated, the Nikon has a lot going for it. If I might be so bold as to sing the praises of the Sony, though...

The Sony A100 is basically a Minolta digital SLR. Minolta merged with Konica and were bought by Sony, specifically to get into this market, and their first effort is clearly where Minolta were going. Looks like a minolta, feels likea Minolta, handles like a Minolta, even the shutter sounds like a Minolta. Has image stabilisation built in to the body and works with the excellent Minolta auto-focus lenses, which together with a good high resolution chip gives you a wonderful image and, in my opinion, better colour depth than any other digital SLR on the market.

Doesn't have quite the range of lenses for it as you'll find for a Nikon, but unless you're into some serious 'look at that speck on the horizon' stuff you won't be disadvantaged - you can get some decent lenses for it. Its faster than the Canon, easier to handle, and its in-built image stabilisation means that if you're not totally steadied it easily knocks seven shades out of canon models.

Check out some of the online reviews of the sony alpha 100. I think you'll be surprised by how well it was received.

 

[bobbyp]

I'll put in another good word for Canon. I've got a Canon 20D that I bought when it first came out. Lovely camera, built very well, not had a single problem and the pictures look great. Great ramge of lenses and accessories, both Canon and 3rd party. My wife has a 5D that she loves and I covet.

If this is your first SLR don't get too hung up on features, go for the one that feels right to use. Picture quality will be virtually indistinguishable between cameras unless you're really enlarging. You need to be careful of some of these photo forums, they'll rubbish perfectly good cameras for really obscure issues. They don't get much sadder than a photo geek...

Whichever way you go I'd stick with Canon or Nikon. basically you're on to the Shimano/Campag debate. Both sides have people that swear the other is rubbish. In reality there's little difference and it comes down to playing with both and seeing which one feels best, has buttons in the right places for your fingers and menus you can understand.

 

[Eat MY Dust]

Why not go for a Canon 350D. You'll be saving a fair bit of money and still getting a very good camera. People might try and shoot me down for saying this, but a 350D probably would suffice even pro photographers!

 

[Elmer Fudd]

I ask because I've read the Canon underexposes slightly by default where the D200 gets it spot on. It matters less if you're shooting in RAW, as you crank the exposure up a little notch later.

Strange you should say that aj, as I always used to under expose between 1/3 or 1/2 a stop with film cameras, depending on the minimum I could set, you get more saturated colours.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Why not go for a Canon 350D. You'll be saving a fair bit of money and still getting a very good camera. People might try and shoot me down for saying this, but a 350D probably would suffice even pro photographers!

Yes agree, It's now "defunct" so shops will be discounting them like mad. try a search for Jacobs.