for the 10^6 time which camera

<p>I got the itch for a digital camera and know nothing about them.<br>

I want to spend less than $5K<br>

So what should I buy Sony, Canon, Nikon?<br>

Is there any of them with a clear advantage in the long haul?<br>

I tend to keep using cameras for ever. I still use my Minolta SRT102 all the time.</p>

<p>Joe</p>

 

<p>Canon 5D Mark II.....excellent camera.</p>

<p>Canon is nice my son loves his.</p>

<p>go to Pentax shorter money and darn good camera like the K20-D or the K-7 D or the New K-5<br>

The nice part you can use the older lens with the newer camera : Not like canon!<br>

I went from Canon to Pentax and am very happy with the switch: But that's Me:</p>

<p>EOS 5D MkII</p>

Why not tell us what sort of photography floats your boat, and then maybe we can make some informed

suggestions? Otherwise all you'll get will be variations on "I use X. You should buy X."

 

Better yet, get down to a large photo or electronics store and start fondling everything within your budget. You might just find that a new iPhone suits your needs better than does a $5K snappencruncher.

<p>As many others here I consider the Canon EOS 5D-II the best all-round dSLR of the highest standard. And it also gives you access to the excellent line-up of modern Canon lenses (and accessories).</p>

<p>I have the older Canon EOS 5D, but second (or rather x <em>n</em>) the recommendation of the 5D mkii. It's an actual bargain at the price it sells for, even if you don't care about the video one way or the other. If you don't mind APS-C format, since you're really going to have to get new lenses anyhow, then the Canon EOS 7D is slightly newer, has a slightly more sophisticated AF system, and actually has plenty of pixels, even if the sensors are smaller.</p>

<p>I'd also recommend the EF 24-105mm IS L lens, often available at a discount in a 'kit'. It's a wonderful lens. The two together should still fit in your budget.</p>

<p>Of course, you'll keep your Minolta. I've shot more film than ever, since I went digital (it's a long story...).</p>

<p>Buy whatever the hell you want. If you want a digital camera, a used Canon 40D, or Nikon D300, will likely do just about anything just about as well as the new, sickeningly expensive stuff. <br>

Or, if you simply MUST spend $2000 or more to make yourself feel you've spent well, just get a good scanner, keep your Minolta, and rest secure in the fact that, perhaps very low light situations excepted, you'll have gear capable of besting the best "full frame" dslr available.<br>

None of it matters if you don't know how to make good pictures. Do you?</p>

<p>Do you want to go for the cheaper, lighter APS-C size camera or the full-frame type? The Canon 5D II as recommended above is a full frame camera with a sensor the same size as 35mm film - 36 x 24mm. The APS-C size, sometimes called the 'crop sensor' size, is good too. The sensor is about 23mm x 26mm. For example the Canon 7D model and the 550D are the samller APS-C size. I am quoting Canon but Nikon and Sony are similar. I think Pentax only make the APS-C size. Full frame cameras are biger and heavier. I suggest you try to get a look at some cameras or at least have a look at sizes, weights and prices before you make any decisions.</p>

<p>Persoanlly I would also go for either Canon or Nikon as they have the widest range of lenses.</p>

<p>Joe, could you say more about what you like to shoot, what sort of lenses you like and in what way your Minolta isn't cutting it? I mean, I could just spontaneously name some cameras (Sony A850! Nikon D7000! Panasonic GF2! Minolta X570!) but that would be pretty useless.</p>

<p>Agreed. It's completely pointless to make suggestions without at least some sense of the context/lifestyle/creative-urges/etc that are driving the interest in the purchase.</p>

<p>Well, the clues are he has quite a lot to spend and he wants to keep it forever. Given he wants to keep if forever, then a high resolution, state of the art, full frame DSLR would seem to be most appropriate (least in nor needing "upgrading") and in that case I'd still say to go with the EOS 5D MkII. Canon and Nikon have the most flexible and expandable systems, so I'd stick with them.</p>

<p>Of course the concept of a "DSLR" and "Keeping it Forever" doesn't really compute, but that's an entirely different argument.</p>

<p>If you're "keeping it forever" then what you want now may not be what you want later, so might as well get the best you can right at the start.</p>

<p>Perhaps if you define digital "forever" as 5 years and "until the end of time" as 10 years it might be more realistic. Or perhaps "forever" means maybe between 1 day and 10 years (depending on your luck) after they no longer make the electronic parts to fix it when it breaks.</p>

<p>Out of your $5K, spend a third or so on the camera for you will need the rest... or more, for lenses and other ancillary equipment, given that you might already have an adequate computer with some software etc..</p>

<p>Some answers to questions<br>

1 type of photography mostly land scape and nature</p>

<p>2 largest lens 600 mm (so far) not counting some experiments with telescopes, not good</p>

<p>3 I can take a fair photograph I am not as consistent as I want to be.</p>

<p>4 I agree with the scanner approach but I am finding it more difficult to develop film and do darkroom work. <br>

4A I want to do more color work.</p>

<p>5. I have several el cheapo digital cameras they don't cut the mustard.</p>

<p>Next question why no recommends for Sony Alpha 900?<br>

Joe</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon are the main camera's that professionals and hobbyist seem to use the most. Just go look them over and pick one out. I had a number of SRT's over the years. Great camera's. I shoot Nikon these days. Film and Digital.</p>

<p>Why Canon / Nikon?</p>

<ul>

<li>Market share around 80% means that most people recommending stuff have one or the other as they're familiar with their own systems.</li>

<li>Market share also dictates the size of community and resources available for learning</li>

<li>Market share also means that lens and accessory are more easily available and can be more competitively priced.</li>

<li>Ergonomics (my personal taste is that my Nikon D90 felt better in my hands than the comparative Canon / Sony)</li>

<li>User Interface (again, personal taste</li>

<li>More lenses available than Sony</li>

</ul>

<p>Why not Sony?</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#Controversy">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#Controversy</a></li>

<li>Memory Stick instead of more ubiquitous CF / SD</li>

<li>Looking at online prices it seems that the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D Mk II are both cheaper than the Sony A900</li>

<li>Less lenses than Canon / Nikon systems.</li>

</ul>

<p>I can't think of any very good reason not to go to the Sony A900 (or the less expensive but mostly the same A850). An A850 with a 28-75/2.8 is $2600 now, that's a heck of a deal. You can use Minolta lenses (but not the ones for you SRT - they changed the mount when they introduced auto focus). If you're looking for "full frame", try that, the Canon 5DII and the Nikon D700 and see which you like. If telephoto shooting is a priority, consider a small-frame model like a Nikon D7000 or Sony... what are the new models... A580 or 55V.</p>

<p>I always said that only you know what's best for you. None of us would know. But since you asked the question for a million times I guess I better give you an answer.<br>

Get the Sony A900 and the Carl Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8. That should be enough for a while.</p>

<p>Look at dpreview.com for very detailed reviews of a variety of digital cameras.</p>

<p>If you are spending $5K on a DSLR and lenses, I would stuck with market-leading brands. That mean either Canon or Nikon. Both of those brands have extensive systems with far more accessories than most of us will ever need, and you know that those brands will be around for a long time. It is also much easier to buy and sell used equipment in the popular brands.</p>

<p>Buy the cheapest Canon or Nikon DSLR you can possibly find. Spend the rest of the money on good lenses.</p>

<p>Joe! You are still using the SRT102 that means you don't see much to gain in using something like the Canon EOS-1v or Nikon F6. With the Sony A900 you sure can buy quality lenses from 16mm to 300mm. With a teleconverter you could get 600mm reach. With 24MP I don't think there will be lenses that can resolve much better than that. I failed to see camera lenses gained resolving power by much in the past 30 years so I don't think they will in the next 30 years. The A900 is fast enough in my opinion. I had camera that shoot 5fps in the early 80's and today 5fps is still fast enough.<br>

The fact that the Sony can't shoot video or has a live view is considered a plus in my opinion. Like I said, only You know what's best for you. But since you asked 10^6 times.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone. I have more research and thinking to do.<br>

Joe</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Buy the cheapest Canon or Nikon DSLR you can possibly find. Spend the rest of the money on good lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This was really good advice before digital when the only role (roll) of the camera body was to hold the lens at the right distance, and keep the film flat. Now, it's just living in the past to say this.</p>

<p>Nowadays, the body IS the film, so to speak, and the kind, quality, speed, noise, etc. of the sensor is an important variable in the total equation. You need to get a decent body with a quality sensor with low noise and lots of pixels AND get good lenses. Fortunately the low end is always getting better, but so is the top end.</p>

<p>Its sort of analogous to the difference between shooting GAF 500 Slide film ("the worst slide film ever made" according to a review article in <em>Popular Photography</em> once) and shooting Kodachrome 25. The lens can only do so much, and on GAF 500, that wasn't nearly so much as on Kodachrome.</p>

<p>Here's a slide on GAF 500. It was shot with a Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 lens. I think the film was probably pushed to ASA 1000 (as ISO was then). The optical quality of the Nikkor was moot, only the speed counted. Without the GAF film, this picture would not exist, and that's why we used it back then. Nowadays, we're shooting at ISO 3200 and up, and that's why the camera matters as well as the lens. ;)</p><div></div>