Worth the expense to upgrade my Canon 35mm?

[j.e.t]

Hi all. For the past several months I have enjoyed reading the

informative (and sometimes combative!) discussions posted in

these forums. This is my first question for the forum and I am

hoping to glean advice from any and all those out there reading.

I know there has been heated debate regarding Canon vs.

Nikon, but I have more of a specific question I was hoping some

of you could answer.

 

I am just starting out my photography business and am

re-assessing my equipment needs. I am a food and travel

photographer and use a Mamiya 645 and a Canon Rebel 2000.

The problem with the Mamiya on location is that it isn't as

convenient as my 35 mm, for obvious reasons. I am looking into

purchasing a new Nikon SLR but am unsure if the extra expense

is worth it. On several of the forums, people raved about the

quality of the Canon Rebel. It has definitely taken good

photographs, but would you consider it to be a professional

quality camera? I consider to be more of a high-quality

consumer point and shoot, rather than a professional quality 35

mm. I know that the choices for photographic equipment are

endless, but if I am looking to spend about $2000 on a new

Nikon SLR, 1) is it worth it? 2) which Nikon body would you

recommend for this price bracket (including lenses)? 3) Will I

notice a big difference in the quality between the Nikon and the

Canon?

 

Thank you all so much for your help!

 

PS: Are any of you based in North Carolina? I just moved here

and would love to talk to you about your success as a

photographer being based somewhere other than a big city....

[bernhard]

If you thought, new 35mm gear could FULLY replace MF: Forget it.

 

The light-tight box (camera body) is one of the less important parts of the whole system, more imortant are the lenses and In doubt that you will see a bigger differences between 355mm systems, than between 35mm and MF.

So the answers are:

1) No

3) No, not a BIG difference

 

What are your specific problems with the rebel? What can't it do that you need?

 

You said you are a food and travel photographer. I think that most people feel that MF is minimum for food, so the question you ask only applies to travel.

 

For travel: What are the problems you are having? Final picture quality?

If I were in your shoes, I'd start asking what you want or have to do, that your equipment can't do and then begin asking what to buy. If you're happy with the rebel, wht change?

[daniel flather]

When shooting what shots do you miss with the rebel that you would of got with a new

$2000 body. Also, lenses and photographers take photos, not camera bodies.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>It's not a professional quality 35mm camera. But does that really matter for how you're using it?</p>

 

<p>If you need the ability to set shutter speed and aperture, or pick one and let the camera pick the other, it will do it just as well as the pro bodies will. If you need to run serious flash equipment using PC cords, it won't do it - but I think you can get a hotshoe adapter that will add that capability. For food photography, I don't think you'll need anything faster than the 1.5 fps of the Rebel, so there's no point in upgrading to a camera that shoots 5 or 10 fps. And so on.</p>

 

<p>If it does everything you need, but you don't feel you're getting professional-quality pictures out of it, chances are it's the lens. A lousy lens will give you lousy results even if it's mounted on a professional body. A very good lens will give you very good results even if it's mounted on a cheap consumer body. Pop the 50mm f/1.8 (around USD100) lens on that camera, for example, and your pictures will be very sharp - sharper than if you take the kit lens that probably came with the Rebel and use it on the top-of-the-line EOS 1V.</p>

 

<p>If you go out and buy a nice new Nikon system, or if you go out and buy a nice new Canon system, and you're picking from about the same point in each lineup, you should get pretty much identical results from the two. There are some areas in which one company beats the other, but they both make a wide range of cameras (from the entry-level models, like your Rebel, up to serious professional cameras) and lenses (from cheap, mediocre kit zooms up to superb high-quality professional lenses).</p>

 

<p>Don't pick a brand - don't even pick anything - until you've decided what it is you need. It may be as simple as buying a better lens for your Rebel.</p>

[richard_cochran]

The Rebel has pretty flimsy looking construction, based on

the samples I've handled in stores. On that basis alone, I

definitely wouldn't call it a professional quality

camera. I suspect it won't last very long under heavy use.

Nevertheless, I'm sure that, with a decent lens,

it's completely capable of taking professional quality photos

that are virtually indistinguishable from those of a top

of the line Nikon or Canon body.

<p>

I read of an experiment where musicians played a passage a cheap

student violin and a Stradivarius. Listeners were asked to pick

the best violin without looking. Only slightly more than 50%

of the listeners picked the Stradivarius. However, every

single one of the musicians knew exactly which violin they

wanted to play!

<p>

Likewise, the difference between a top quality camera and a

Rebel is a difference which is far more important to the photographer

than to the one looking at your prints. The <em>feel</em> of

the camera is sometimes more important than the feature list.

<p>

Personally, with that budget, I'd choose a Nikon F3 with MD-4,

plus a few lenses, probably starting with a 24/50/105 combo.

That's a top quality rugged combo, long lasting,

built to professional standards,

with a full line of accessories available, lots of

versatility, and wonderful ergonomics (except that lousy

viewfinder light!). It doesn't feel the least bit like a

Rebel. But my choice has very little to do with what

you ought to choose -- for one thing, I'm not a big fan of

autofocus, and I've metered enough with predictable

simple meters that I prefer them over "smarter" matrix

meters.

<p>

You don't say what features you want that are

lacking from your Rebel. If you trade up just to get

sharper clearer pictures that are better exposed, I

suspect you'll be disappointed. And NO 35mm will

give the same image quality as your 645.

[gannet___]

If you're happy with your Canon, there's no particular reason to switch to Nikon (and I'm a 30-year Nikon user). The only thing different about a "professional quality" 35mm camera body is that it's more rugged and it has certain (often little-used) features.

 

If you're concerned about it not holding up to rough handling (maybe you're going rock climbing) then maybe a pro body is for you.

 

If there is some particular feature that you *know* is keeping you from getting some shots you need, and the pro body has it, then maybe a pro body is for you. If it's a feature you would only use very rarely, then maybe renting a pro body on occasion is for you. :)

 

Finally, if reliability (as opposed to ruggedness) is important, in order to protect against failure on am important shoot, then a *second* camera body is much better than a single high-end body, no matter how good. 2 Rebels have a much smaller chance of malfunction on any given day than one F5 (imo).

 

The Rebel is fully capable of taking professional-caliber *photos*, and that's the bottom line. If you need some other specific feature that's a separate question, and doesn't have anything to do with professional vs. amateur, but simply what tool is appropriate for taking specific kinds of photos.

 

If I were in your shoes, I'd be more inclined to move up the Canon food chain, if anything. The Rebel can then become a nice backup body. Backup bodies are important, imo.

[vedearduff]

I'm not sure from your question whether the Nikon is intended to replace the Canon or the Mamiya. If you want to replace the Mamiya with a Nikon system, I think you are going in the wrong direction.

 

As a Nikon user, I don't think you would regret switching to the Nikon system.

 

However, I'm not too sure that I would reccommend the switch unless you are unsatisfied with your Canon kit.

 

Which Canon lenses do you own/use?

 

What is it about your current kit that you are un happy with?

 

If you have a selection of Canon mount lenses, it may make more sense to upgrade to one of the more capable Canon bodies. If the lenses you have are not providing the image quality you want/need, you may want to upgrade your lenses instead of the body.

 

As has been mentioned, the body is just a light tight box that holds the film and the lens. It provides a means to expose the frame.

 

If you are set on switching from Canon to Nikon, here are my suggestions.

 

If you want/need VR, the F100 or the F5. Both of these bodies will meter (center weighted and spot) with the manual focus AI and AIS lenses. If you have no interest in manual focus lenses, the N80 would be worth consideration if cost is an issue.

 

If you don't care about VR and want or need AF, the F4s or the N90s would be good choices, keep in mind that both of these bodies have been discontinued although the N90s (F90x) can be found new.

 

If you don't care about AF, the FM3a is a good body that provides Aperture priority and the full shutter speed range (1 - 1/4000 sec) even without batteries. The F3HP would be a great choice if you don't mind used.

 

For your stated use, I would probably select either two to three pro level Nikkor zooms or five or six primes. In either case, I would try to cover the range from approx. 20mm to 200mm.

 

I have the N90s and the FM3a bodies, two zooms (35-70mm f/2.8 AF-d and 70-300mm f/4~5.6 AF-D), and six primes (20mm f/2.8 AIS, 50mm f/1.2 AI, 50mm f/1.8 AIS, 85mm f/1.4 AIS, 105mm f/2.5 AIS, and the 180mm f/2.8 AIS ED). I plan to add the 35mm f/1.4 AIS when I can locate a good one. I also plan to add the TC201 for use with the 180mm to get 360mm f/5.6.

 

About the quality difference between Nikon and Canon. As much as I dislike admitting this (Nikon fanatic that I am. VBG), comparing pro level to pro level and consumer level to consumer level you will not see all that much difference in quality.

 

That being said, there are differences between the two (and other makers). Contrast and color characteristics for the lenses, ergonomics, focusing systems, and metering systems for just a few areas in the bodies.

 

Before you make the final decision about switching, go to a shop and handle as many camera bodies as the shop has available, and compare features and functionality. Don't switch just for the sake of switching.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Vernon

[j.e.t]

Thanks all for your responses. They are very helpful. Sorry if my

question was a bit confusing - I in no way want to replace my 645

with a 35mm (I love my Mamiya!). I wanted to potentially replace

my 35mm with a new 35mm, but from your responses, it seems

like that is unnecessary.

 

From what I am gathering, the lenses are much more important

than the bodies. Currently on the Rebel, I use the 28-80

standard lens that came with the camera and also a 75-300

Canon lens. With that in mind, which lens manufacturers (that

are compatible with the Rebel) are the best ones to look at?

 

The pictures I am getting are of good quality, I just wasn't sure if

a better 35mm would give me photos of excellent quality (but

once again, it could be the lenses). Also, some of the features I

find lacking are:

 

- direct flash sync

- bracketing in 1/3 increments instead of 1/2 increments

- sturdier and more robust construction

 

But if I can save some of that money and maybe buy another

Canon body and nicer lenses, that would be great.

 

Thanks again for your help.

[kodus]

If you're buying new equipment, you'll need to get to the high end Canon (EOS 3, EOS 1) or Nikon (F-100, N90?)to get 1/3 increments in autobracketing.