willy_wilson Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>I'm looking to spend under 700 for a really good digital camera. I typically shoot in BW on a nikon fm and am looking to upgrade to something similar. I shoot fashion and also landscape. Any recommendations? </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sunley Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>Lens too? <br> Hate to tell you, $700 and really good DSLR are mutually exclusive at the moment. Have you priced a D3, it's a really good Nikon DSLR. :)</p> <p>Yes, I'd recommend you stick with film and save a couple of k$ until you can afford a really good DSLR and some really expensive/good glass to do justice to it.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy_wilson Posted December 21, 2009 Author Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>Are you serious? I'm not trying to sound like a dick, but you pick a 2,000.00 + DSLR to recommend? There has to be something cheaper.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrivyscriv Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>Check out the Nikon D60, or a Canon 20/30D. You can get either with a kit lens and buy a 50mm f/1.8 for about $700 or so. Kit lens is decent and the 50s are well regarded for cost v IQ.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_sunley Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>No I didn't pick a 2k$ plus DSLR to recommend, I asked if you had priced one, and they are about $5k, body only.</p> <p>Yes, you can get an entry level Nikon DSLR and a kit lens in your budget, but I wouldn't consider that a "really good digital camera" in todays market. $700 is a decent budget for a good point and shoot or an entry level DSLR. It's not even close for a "really good digital camera"/DSLR to replace film for landscape and fashion work.</p> <p>You also stated you shoot black and white. Entry level DSLRs are not the best choice to replace black and white film, you just don't have the dynamic range available with film.</p> <p>As you already own Nikon film gear, I assume you also have glass for it. Just watch the details on the Nikon bodies, some are much more manual focus lens friendly than others.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcooper Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <blockquote> <p>"I'm looking to spend under 700 for a really good digital camera."</p> </blockquote> <p>Good luck doing that with a DSLR. Unless you're savvy, you won't get there. The body is just one part of it, and you can get great pics from any entry-level DSLR body. What makes the body perform as a "really good" camera are the lenses, and a lot of the current "really good" ones will easily exceed that budget all by themselves. There are ways to work around this, like buying a used DSLR body and the right lenses, like some more recent used ones or older lenses that are compatible. There are good values to be had if you know what to look for.</p> <p>Some of your current lenses might work with the right body, and that could be within your budget, like with a used D200 or D50, but you won't get full functionality of autofocus and internal metering. See the lens/body compatibility chart <a href="http://www.nikonians.org/nikon/slr-lens.html">here</a> .</p> <p>You should also understand that to get the best from a digital camera, most folks do at least some form of post-processing (equivalent of darkroom wirk, and where you'll want to convert to B&W as opposed to doing it in-camera). The good news here is that there are free progs available online, like Picasa, and inexpensive ones like GIMP (dontionware). Sagelight is good, too, if you're using a Windows computer.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Pentax K-x with 18-55/3.5-5-6 lens is $550 right now. Look fairly high quality to me! Presumably you are using a manual focus system that is not lens-compatible with current systems, otherwise it would influence your decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajrobertson Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>craigslist. everyone just <em>HAS</em> to have 15 mps. lots of good bodies dumped after low actuations. save some $$ and get some nice glass. do a lot of research and find a body that you think will fit your needs and then go check it out new at a shop. then go on craigslist.<br> not that my camera is considered a "great"camera by everyone (still more than I can handle at the moment) , but i got a nearly brand new canon 40D with 18-85 kit lens for $500 canadian. WITH reciept and warranty card. 3 months old-350 actuations (verified). Now I am slowly purchasing lenses ( 50mm f1.8II, sigma 10-22mm f4.0-5.6, and a canon 70-200mm L F4 in my stocking in 4 days!) for different things.. and still all under my orig budget.</p> <p>happy hunting!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbon_dragon Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>What about a used D80 or D90 (or even D200) and use your existing Nikon lenses with less automation. Wouldn't that work? I'm not a Nikon shooter. Or a new D60. The key is your words "really good". The posters are right, a "really good" camera -- admittedly this is vague -- is likely to be a bit more expensive than this.</p> <p>Sony has some starter models for pretty good pricing, like the A380 or the A350 used along with the stock kit lens that isn't too bad. The Zeiss 16-80 is much better but also more expensive.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon_bygdell Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>As a Canon 5D MK-II and a few Canon L lens owner, my vote goes to the Pentax K-x :) Packs a lot of punch for the money in that small body. Of course, if you are already invested in a lens system or have a strong preference then you should look for a body to suit the lenses.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgpinc Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>Willy, Take a look at the Nikon D5000. Similar sensor and processor as higher priced cameras, under $799 and one you can make excellent images with. Don't get your ego caught up in internet pi$$ing matches. Just get a good camera like the D5000 and get started learning digital photography. Read some reviews like dpreview etc. Since you know Nikon it should have a shorter learning curve. Good luck!<br> http://www.adorama.com/INKD5000K.html</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>If you generaly shoot at lower ISOs a used D200 could work well with some of your lens. As a 35mm film user you may well find images from DSLRs to be very clean in comparison to 35mm film scans, which can appear quite grainy when viewed at 100%. You may find you like the look of digital or you may not like it at all. For me my D1h and D80 pretty much replace 35mm film for color photography most of the time. I was never a slow slide film user as I tend to shoot handheld most of the time even if I should know better. For B&W I still like to make traditional darkroom prints from time to time but I often still use digital because it is pretty convienient and I don't have a permanent darkroom anymore.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kendall helmstetter gelner Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>If you shoot studio fashion and landscape, a really good starter is the Sigma SD-14.<br> You can get them fairly cheap right now because the SD-15 is supposed to be coming out soon, Amazon has them for $700 but I think you can find bodies even cheaper in different places. </p> <p>The image quality for both your subject matters is outstanding... check out Olga Vasilkova's galleries at PBase:</p> <p>http://www.pbase.com/ovasilkova</p> <p>She shoots other cameras too but many shots there are from the SD-14.</p> <p>It's not going to be quite as easy a camera to use as some others and the lower ISO results will not be as good (which is why I mentioned studio fashion), but since you are used to an SLR already you will find the operation of the camera pretty easy. Also, the B&W conversion from the camera is outstanding as it has a lot of dynamic range and very good tonal gradation.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_pierlot Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 <p>Get a Panasonic Lumix G1 body with a Lumix G 20/1.7 prime, which should be within your budget. And you'll be able to use your Nikon (and almost any other) glass on it with an adapter. While it may not technically be an SLR, it'll give you the best bang for your meager buck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r.t. dowling Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 <p>My vote would be a used D200. That's the minimum body you would need if you want to use your current Nikon lenses <strong><em>and</em> </strong> want the camera's light meter to function with them. It's a very well built camera, and I think you can probably find one for $700 or less.</p> <p>On the other hand, if you don't mind using an external light meter, you could certainly get one of the less expensive Nikon bodies. But if you want to use the camera's meter, you'll need at least a D200.</p> <p>If you don't mind starting over with a new system, give Pentax a look. Their new K-<em>x</em> is priced very affordably and has about 90% of the features found in other cameras costing twice or three times as much.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin_schaffer Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 <p>Willy, everyone is going to have a different opinion of what really good is, so you will get some that say $5000 is the starting point and while I don't want to speak for Bob, I don't think he was saying you should buy a D3, only that the D3 is what he considers a really good camera and that your $700 was a little unrealistic. You won't even smell the really good for $700, that said there are many pretty decent ones in that range that are capable of producing great images with the correct person behind the camera. The D200 is a nice camera (I bought one new for $599) and really have no complaints, although I have heard you really don't want to go above iso 800 as it gets noisy, which may be limiting with your fashion work. I have heard good things about the fuji S5 even though it is fairly old technology, it is suppose to have great dynamic range, it may be just what you are looking for and you should be able to find a used one in your budget. Other than that, do some research, find out what features are really important to you and come back, or type in best DSLR under $700, you should have pages of info to go through. Cheers and Happy Holidays.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny_low Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 <p>Since you are shooting a Nikon FM, you should be looking at Nikon DSLRs only as you can keep all your existing lenses, flashes and most other accessories. You might be able to get a nice D5000 body for under $600 street.There is really nothing like the FM in digital. They all have a full range of automatic and manual modes and more bells and whistles than the top of the line old film SLRs. You get a better camera for more money but as a starter, your $700 limit is quite reasonable for just the body.</p> <p>One thing to keep in mind is digital photos are basically free. You shoot your pictures, download them to your computer, clear the memory and you are ready to shoot again without having to pay a single cent for replacement film and film processing. When I got my first DSLR I recovered the cost of the camera in the first year from not having to pay any film costs. So you might want to re-think the $700 limit if you have not factor in the lower cost of shooting digital.</p> <p>OTOH you may have to buy a better computer and editing software as well as a new camera. You process your images yourself with your computer with digital. That may require a computer upgrade. That may require buying software. A lot depends on how much you want to do. Your DSLR will come with basic editing software. You can buy better for $100 or less. Or you can go whole hog and get Photoshop CS4 for $700. As a B&W film shooter you are probably doing some wet darkroom work already. Digital darkroom is so much better. It is faster, easier and you can do far more than you could in a traditional darkroom. And you are not doing it in the dark.</p> <p>Since all DSLRs shoot color, you need to convert the image to B&W in software afterward. To get good B&W results, you cannot just turn the color off. There are a variety of techniques and books have been written about making B&W images from digital color images. However all assume you are using Photoshop or one of its competitors. So just beware that converting to digital involves a bit more than getting a DSLR body.</p> <p>Danny</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan_schurman1 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 <p>Try the Nikon D5000. It's roughly in your price range and shares much with the more expensive D90. Forget the price snobs that try to tell you that you can't get a really good camera for under several thousand dollars. Just because someone owns one of the D3 line and paid $5,000 -$7,000 for it, doesn't make them a good photographer anymore than owning a $800.00 driver makes someone a scratch golfer. Plenty of excellent photgraphers carry around a D40 or D60 and produce shots that many couldn't duplicate with a D3 model at ten times the price. The affordable D5000 is a significant step up from either the D40 or D60.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin_schaffer Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 <p>Stan, not sure if that was aimed at me or not but I can assure you I am the furthest thing from a price snob. I buy all of my equipment off of the auction site and most of it used. A simple this is what features are important to me so what is the best I can get for $700 would have been a better question. I want a really good sports car for $15000, can I get one that will drive fast, take corners nicely and that I would more or less be happy with, probably, would I consider it really good for what I paid, probably, would it be considered really good when compared to what is out in the market place, probably not. For the record, I have a D200 that I paid $599 for, for that I think it is great, compared to a D3 I would say it is a good solid camera that I can still take excellent images with.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan_schurman1 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 <p>Sorry Darin,<br> It wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. There is something to be said for the bells and whistles on the higher end models, but that doesn't mean you wont get results close to, or equal to, what is produced on those models with, say, a D80 or D5000, or a D40 for that matter, if you have a half decent lense and some talent and knowledge and luck. Even in the days of the professional Nikon F models many pros also carried around FMs and FEs that maybe didn't have all of the interchangeable screens and backs and high speed motor drives of their bigger cousins, but took photos that were every bit as good given the same lense, film etc. I'm certainly no expert, but if you took the same photographer photographing the same scene with the same lighting using the same lense on a D80, D5000, D90, D200 and D3, most, if not all would be hard pressed to match camera body to photo.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan_schurman1 Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 <p>Incidentally, Merry Chrsistmas to everyone.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin_schaffer Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 <p>Merry Christmas to you as well Stan, I hope that didn't come across as argumentative. In fact the goal was the exact opposite. I was trying to diffuse something and probably just added fuel to the fire. Sometimes things sound better in your head than they do in type. Anyway, Santa brought me two $70 ais primes tonight that I can't wait to use. Merry Christmas again and happy shooting.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stan_schurman1 Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 <p>I hope you get a chance to get out and try them out today Darin. If not, there's always the turkey waiting to have its portrait taken :-). Enjoy your day.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin_schaffer Posted December 25, 2009 Share Posted December 25, 2009 <p>Maybe not today but for sure this week, thanks Stan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rdm Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 <p>What the hell is going on here? Too much negative<br> First off Mr. Willy Wilson, Great question and it can be easily answered. <strong>Your budget is more than enough</strong> .<br> You can get many of the Olympus 4/3 cameras with lenses for that much. and can you can even get ones with in body image stabilization.<br> Lets not forget the New Ultra compact micro four thirds system line of cameras just out. <br> <strong>Also</strong> the EP-1 has received excellent reviews for its performance in landscape photography. You being a landscape photographer know well what its like to carry a 1D with a 24-70L up a mountain or into the wilderness, not too much fun. The EP-1 will lend itself to this situation wonderfully and will feel like it weights nothing compared to the former.<br> <strong>And </strong> since you already have lenses, you will be glad to now that your Nikon lenses can be used on the 4/3 and m4/3 bodies with the use of an inexpensive adapter. Also you must remember that when using them on cameras with a 4/3 sensor the the field of view of this lenses will be cropped 50% compared to the 35mm film equivalent. So your 50mm f/1.8 lens will now be a fast portrait lens (100mm equivalent). So now you'll be set on your range of telephoto lenses. Also the Micro 4/3 cameras will take practically every lens ever made with the use of an adapter.</p> <p>So unless continuous shooting mode is crucial to your photography style, there is no reason to choose 4/3 over m4/3. I recently learned All of the m4/3 bodies have a continuous capture mode, with frame rates around 2-3 fps, up to the limit of the buffer. For a subject like a model shoot where the subjects are moving in a predictable direction, the sequence capture of the m4/3 bodies seems adequate.<br> .</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now