If you could have one camera...

[daniel_murphy1]

So, here's a broad question. I'm in a bit of a camera limbo. Sold 1, returning

1, e-bay consigning one. Using none. When the smoke clears, I need a camera by

say the start of August. I will have about $1500 for a camera and one good lens.

Landscapes through portraits, all purpose. That's not much money to start with

either. I like medium format, but don't have heaps of experience. I don't want a

huge lunk, and have to shoot handheld. I like digital too, but don't want a

6x8mm sensor and cheap construction. I tried Canon digital Rebels, but the

fragile bodies and cheap plastic lenses I had didn't appeal to me. What would

you do?

[rick_helmke]

Actually you can do an awful lot with that much money. You could by a Nikon F2,F3,F4,F100 or N90s. Actually you could buy 2 of them. You always need a back up. If you stick to the manual focus Nikkors you should be able to put together lens from maybe 24-200 or 300 and still have money left over.

 

Medium format? Any of the 645 bodies. Mamiya 645's come in many versions and all are cheap right now. I know where there are 3 nice clean Mamiya 654's for sale, all under $500. He also has 60, 80 and 210mm lenses. You'd still have money left over.

 

Digital? Canon 20D but only lens or two and you won't have any money left by the time you are able to take photos. A good clean D100 will leave more room for glass and a D70 would do.

 

I guess if I were doing what you are doing right this minute I'd go with the first option. Actually I am looking at a bag full of Nikon bodies and glass, 2 F2's,one on MD-2, an F3, 28, 50, 55 micro, 85 and 80-200, all manual focus Nikkors all in super condition and a total of maybe $1200. Just one camera? An F2, MD-2 but I need at least 2 lenses.

 

Rick H.

[klix]

645 - Fuji GA645 AF

 

6x6 - A used Mamiya c330s, 55mm, 85mm and 180mm gets you there -- although its heft makes it better on a tripod rather than handheld.

 

6x7, 6x9 - Fuji GW670 or GW690 II or III

[b_hall1]

The D200 busts the budget a little while the 20D or 30D makes the budget...

 

A Bronica 645 rangefinder if still dependably available busts the budget a little...

 

An F100 makes the budget and is still available from professional suppliers...

 

A Zeiss 35mm rangefinder busts the budget but is half the cost of a Leica...

[michael_madio]

Medium format + handheld + portraits = Mamiya TLR (C330f gets my vote).

[robert lee]

"I will have about $1500... Landscapes through portraits... don't want a huge lunk... ike digital too, but don't want a 6x8mm sensor and cheap construction"

 

Used Canon EOS-3. Lenses:

 

1. Bunch of non-L primes: 24mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm. Or,

 

2. Canon f2.8 24-70L. Or,

 

3. Third party f2.8 24-70L, and Canon non-L telephoto primes.

[dwm1953]

Depends a lot on whether you want to go with film or digital. If film, then the medium

format recommendations of others look pretty good to me if you can find them at the

prices mentioned. Of course film, processing and scanning add to the cost over time and

need to be factored in if money is tight. If digital, in addition to the other

recommendations, consider the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 with Leica lens - don't know

when and don't know how much though. Sony Alpha is another possibility, plastic yes, but

supposedly has a sturdier feel than the Rebel - $1000 with a kit lens that nicely covers the

range you are interested in, and with the possibility to add a Zeiss lens 24-120 mm-e in

November. If you're not turned off by a fixed lens camera, consider the Sony R1, comes

with a very good Zeiss lens with a landscape to portrait range, fixed-lens so no more

sensor dust, and I can tell you from personal experience that it feels great and has well

laid out controls for a manual shooter like myself.

[jim_mcbride]

Hasselblad: nice body, filmback, and 80mm lens all in decent cosmetic and operating

condition used from KEH. Properly maintained, this kit should last you a lifetime.

[peter_yee]

I basically agreed with Robert. The my change to his list, I prefer the 28 F2.8 (cheaper) instead of the 24 and add the 75-300 non-IS version. The latter is a decent but not great telephoto lens for the price and will get you a longer reach when needed.

[tristanlaing]

My vote would be nikon D50 and the 18-200. That leaves 200$ left over for another lens.

The body is cheap plastic, but the images are supposedly fantastic, and identical to those

produced by the D70 or D100.

[John Crowe]

Used Canon 10D - $600 USD

 

 

Used Nikon 180/2.8 AIS ED - $200 USD (Telephoto)

 

 

Used Nikon 50/1.4 AIS - $100 USD (Portrait)

 

 

Used Nikon 18 AIS - $400 USD (Moderate Wide)

 

 

Used Nikon 28/2.8 AIS - $150 USD (Standard)

 

 

Nikon to EOS adapter - $50 USD

 

 

Total - $1500 USD

 

 

I suggest the 10D over a Nikon DSLR because I know it, and it's cheap and it provides metering for the Nikon manual lenses which only the expensive Nikon DSLRs do. I suggest the Nikon manual lenses since they are extremely good and extremely affordable. I suspect you can find a Nikon 18mm lens (I forget the aperture) for much less than $400 but if not you may have to substitute the Canon EF 17-40/4 L for it and the 28/2.8. A DSLR provides for inexpensive picture taking with no film and processing costs however you do need a computer that is less than 5 years old with at least a 40 GB hard drive, CD burner, and at least Photoshop 6.

 

 

Using the Nikon lenses on a DSLR is much like shooting a TLR or medium format camera, except a heck of a lot easier. All the lenses suggested are appropriate for handheld photography unless you are in a room with no windows.

 

 

Of course I use several Nikon lenses on my 10D and don't have endless amounts of money to spend on lenses, so I am a little biased. Good luck.

[akajohndoe]

If I could only have one camera? Easy. Olympus OM3Ti.

[tristanlaing]

Crowe, good choices. Your set up would certainly produce better images. However, the grab

and go ability of faster, easier to use metering, autofocus, and zooming would make it a bit

easier to get the shot you need. Certainly from an art perspective though, more interesting

things could be done with the primes you recommend.

 

Why go digital though? An interesting compromise would be the primes you say, but a nikon

F4 (s if you want). That way you get the great primes, a split prism screen, even matrix

metering! You have to pay for film though..

[wai_leong_lee]

Film or digital. Once you have decided that, the rest is easy.

 

Eg. Digital, you could get a zLR, such as the Nikon 8800 or Sony F828. High quality zoom lens, long, wide and fast.

 

Film you could get a simple body (eg Canon Elan 7) + a cheap zoom lens such as a Vivitar 28-200 or a canon 28-105 mm (+ teleconverter if you need range).

[low light]

Maybe a Hasselblad Xpan? Panoramic function as well.

[michael_dimarzio]

Contax G2. Top three reasons-Hologon, Biogon, Sonnar. For 1500 bucks, you can get a body and three lenses.

 

I shoot MF, 35mm and have played extensivly with a Canon dSLR. A dSLR is nice, but a G2 does all that you could ask for. But I don't think one camera does it all well. Except for the usual arguments against the G2, it's film, it's not a "real" rangefinder", it won't focus, it's noisy, it eats batterys, the flash is a redeye factory (the only one of the criticisms that is correct), blah blah. But when you can put a body and 3 lenses in small backpack, shoot handheld at night with 3200 film, and if you read the posts that people that actually use the camera, it is really loved. Oh, did I mention Hologon, Biogon and Sonnar? As an aside, Leitz wanted the Zeiss 16mm Hologon, but Zeiss was prohibited from selling it due to it's contract with Kyocera.

 

I would also very seiously consider a Hassy 501 or a Mamiya RZ67, but anything in a MF format will have you schlepping around a big box and heavy lenses. Wide angle, RF rules, high speed sports is fast prime dSLR territory, landscapes 4x5 and larger is the ticket.

 

You don't need heaps of experience to shoot MF, aperture, DOF, shutter speed, it's all the same concept.

 

My advice is don't look for a do-it-all camera, they don't exist. Get the cheapest (yes a beater ugly scratched Rebel) that funtions perfectly, in the camera mount that you want (Nikon, Canon, etc.), then buy the most expensive glass you can afford. F8 at 1/250 second is exactly the same in a semi bent body as an unobtanium shrouded beauty queen. It's the glass that matters most there. As your budget allows, you can buy a newer better used body with more bells and whistles, and migrate 4 lenses rather then sell it all and start over again.

 

When you are old and rich, you can sit by the fireplace, smoke a pipe, drink 18 year old port and fondle a Leica. In the meantime, buy the least expensive (without sacrificing reliability) body, and the best glass offered for that mount. Your 1500 budget indicates an inexpensive body (film or digital, choose your mount carefully) and an expensive tele-zoom. Camera and a Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens (&1650 at B&H) will be about 4 lbs. A bit of a "lunk", maybe there are better models and cheaper on that auction site.

[lwg]

In this day and age you can easily have more than 1 camera for $1500. My take would be to get a decent point and shoot digital such as the Canon Powershot S3. Use this for your handheld shots and when you want digital. Then get a 4x5 with decent movements such as a Tachihara or Shen-Hao and 1 or 2 lens. This will give you higher quality for landscapes and other static images.

[walterh]

Funny thing is - you ask for ONE camera and get talked into a t least 2 :-)

 

We all start with ONE camera and end up with a dozen ^^.

 

My 2 cents: Nikon F100 35-70mm F2.8 + SB28 . Go for a trip for the rest of the money.

[HuskyMason1]

David you don't need medium format for good portraits or landscapes. Nice to have if you have the money.

Digital is the way to go IMO. I prefer Nikon but the Canon 20D with a kit lens seems to fall smack into your money range. Pull the trigger.

Start saving for the best glass you can buy.

[maury_cohen]

Canon 20D and a good L-Series zoom. 28-100-ish.

[kevin conville]

Michael-

 

"Contax G2. Top three reasons-Hologon, Biogon, Sonnar. For 1500 bucks, you can get a

body and three lenses."

 

I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the Contax G systems and their Zeiss lenses, but your

post (I think) is a bit misleading. For $1500. you might be able to find a G2 body, a 28mm

Biogon, a 45mm Planar, and the 90mm Sonnar... used of course.

 

The 16mm Hologon is an expensive lens as is the 21mm Biogon (though alot less than the

Hologon) and I'm pretty sure one would not be able to include either of these into that

lens "trio" you mention. Not to worry though as ALL the lenses are excellent.

 

In regards to the G system itself; if one wants to shoot 35mm than the Contax is a great

choice IMO.

[awahlster]

Canon T-90 and about 8 lenses could be had for that amount of money.

[nelsonguda]

<p>Great to read this post, as I am in the process of migrating my equipment at the

moment also. I enjoy both film and digital for different reasons. In the past I have used

mostly 35mm Olympus, which had very high quality glass. I'd agree with people about

focusing on the quality of the glass. This is even important for digital!</p>

<p>In my recent research one of the things I have found most distressing is the amount

of artifacts that even the high end digital cameras can produce. I recently had to deal with

postprocessing of a number of digital images from a Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II, and I was very

disturbed by the amount of digital flare visible in the image. So I looked for other

examples of this. You can see very obvious examples on the web, and below I've posted

some examples from the sample image galleries at dpreview. For all of these, make sure

that you download the original image (large file). The examples I've posted examples are

from some of the more expensive cameras, but I imagine that these apply to less

expensive cameras as well. </p>

<p>Canon EOS-1Ds Mk II: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/

canoneos1dsmkii_samples/">http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/

canoneos1dsmkii_samples/</a> Look at the first image of a building looking up in wide

angle ("Little London Mill House"): Full res image at: <a href="http://img2.dpreview.com/

gallery/canoneos1dsmkii_samples/originals/vi7h3998.jpg">http://img2.dpreview.com/

gallery/canoneos1dsmkii_samples/originals/vi7h3998.jpg</a> <br />

On the full res image you will see digital artifacting in the form of red glare at the

outward edge of the windows and the underside of the overhang. In particular look at the

left side of the small white sign on the left side of one of the windows. </p>

<p>Canon ESO 5D: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/

canoneos5d_samples/">http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5d_samples/</a>

Look at the sixth image of a bridge in wide angle. Full res image:<a href="http://

img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5d_samples/originals/img_6783.jpg"> http://

img2.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5d_samples/originals/img_6783.jpg</a> <br />

You will see very clear red ghosting of the vertical stays for the bridge on the right hand

side of the image. </p>

<p>There are more examples that you can find yourself. I'm not trying to promote film

over digital - digital is incredibly useful, fast and has many benefits over film. The point is

that some of these problems may have been caused by rather lame glass, but others may

be from the digital process itself. Some of these problems can be avoided by not shooting

into glare, but the first example is clearly not due to glare.

 

The Markii ds image that I processed was for a wall-sized enlargement, which is

something that few people ever do. I found that equivalent 35mm slides were better for

this purpose, because there were no such artifacts to deal with. The client insisted on

using the digital image, and removing these artifacts was very time-consuming. This is an

extreme example, but it is clear to me from the examples above that even the best digital

cameras can produce artifacts that would be noticable on even a mid-sized enlargement.

</p>

<p>All of that said, I still enjoy digital very much, and with the right glass it can produce

stunning results. In particular, the lack of grain in digital is wonderful. The idea

mentioned above of getting a decent 35mm or MF and a cheap digital seems like a good

one to me. Digital technology is still advancing so fast that any money in that direction

will surely lose value rather quickly. </p>

<p>Best of luck in your decision, </p>

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Nelson, it's called CA and takes seconds to take out in software which can't be said for film grain. It is actually a lens issue shown by the sensor but dissipated by film grain.

 

I would also recommend the G2 if you wanted to stick with film, the 2nd hand prices are really silly considering the lens quality and the body is really nice. As someone else mentioned, Canon FD equipment is now sold for an almost criminally low price 2nd hand!

 

Keep in mind with a film camera how many rolls of film you would shoot before acheiving the difference of the price of a good digital SLR with appropriate lenses. As a working pro I would shoot that price difference often within a day.

[jim_gifford]

Backups are important. Park yourself on Ebay and bid on two (2) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AiS lenses plus twenty-eight (28) Nikon EM camera bodies.

 

Be well,