Which camera to choose ? please help

[ned_stevanovski]

<p>Hi<br>

I know that this question has been posted a lot of times....but I NEED your advise what system to choose.<br>

So far I've been using Nikon D60 , but today I sold my D60 and all Nikon lenses I had and now I have the budget to choose a system that I want. Lets say that I can stretch my budget to £2700 or $3900<br>

Purpose: landscape photography and portrait photography.....no studio work<br>

Wants: Great Bokeh, low light shooting, indoor shooting<br>

Not important to me: frames per sec / video/ weather sealing / dual cards<br>

<strong>I'm after the best image quality...sharpness is number one on the list</strong><br>

Systems and equipment I'm so far conisdering:</p>

<p><strong>Full Frame:</strong><br>

Nikon D700 + 24-70mm<br>

or<br>

Canon 5D + 24-70mm or 24-105mm.....not sure yet which one is more sharper<br>

<strong>APC sensor:</strong><br>

Canon 7D + 24-70mm + 50 f1.4<br>

or<br>

Nikon D300s + 24-70mm + 50mm f1.4G</p>

<p>I want to hear your opinion....what do you think? I'm not a PRO and have no experience with PRO cameras so would like to hear from you.....<br>

Some say that systems like Nikon D90 with pro lenses can give excellent results....Can you please share your experience.....</p>

<p>Many Thanks</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I wouldn't get a 24-70 with the APC sensor cameras. I'd get a 17-55 f2.8. Pretty sure both Nikon and Canon have them.</p>

<p>You're not a pro? How big do you print? If not bigger than 8 x 10 or the occasional 11 x 14, any of those cameras is capable of great photos... IF... you have them on a sturdy tripod. How you are using the photos is maybe the most important thing to know before we give you a recommendation. (for instance, if you're just viewing on-screen, it totally doesn't matter...)</p>

<p>If you are printing big AND know what you are doing, the D700 will probably be best in lower light, and the 5D has probably the best overall sharpness with the right GREAT glass in front of it.</p>

<p>If you don't have good technique and a sturdy tripod, they will all be exactly the same. And a D90 with a decent lens will take wonderful photos if you are careful and know what you're doing.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Let me first eliminate the D300 + 24-70mm option. The 24-70mm is not the optimal range for DX format.<br>

The really first question to ask as you will see from the hundreds of similar threads if you really want to go for FX or if DX is the better choice for you.<br>

For example a D300 plus a 17-55mm Nikkor f2.8 might be a good alternative. Add a 70-200mm VRI used and you got a nice set to start with. This would cover almost all your "purpose" except extreme wide angle.<br>

In case you really want FX and D700 for example for the larger viewfinder you might consider the 24-70mm f2.8 plus a few used MF primes such as the Nikkor 105mm AI f2.5 or the 50-135mm zoom f3.5.<br>

For your applications you would probably not need the better low noise performance of FX at high ISO. Of course this depends on the conflict of "Purpose" versus "Wants" above.</p>

<p>There are millions of possibilities and almost as many threads .-)<br>

BTW- you already own an excellent tripod? If sharpness is #1 on your list your tripod should be as good or better than your lens and camera ^^.</p>

<p> </p>

[ned_stevanovski]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I'm not a PRO and I dont print large images. My problems is that I started learning a lot about photography and after 2 years of amateur photography I soon realised that I've outgrown my small Nikon D60 and that I need a better one...<br>

99% of the time the images are viewed on the screen.<br>

Now since I'm investing a lot of money ..I want to make sure I'm making the right choice as I will not have the oportunity to change again in the next 5 years thats for sure.<br>

Soon I will go exploring America and Mexico and I want to make sure I have the right kit with me ( this probably rules out the D700 as it is a very heavy camera)<br>

1.Are you saying that the 17-55 gives better quality images than 24-70mm...?<br>

2. Can a crop sensor camera produce same or better quality pictures than full frame ? I know it hanldes light better, more pixel density etc etc....but overall are we saying that crop sensor is more or less equally capable of producing decent quality images?<br>

Many Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>99% viewed on screen? I have tested, and for on-screen viewing, there is no difference between a D90 at ISO 1600 and a 4-year-old D50 at ISO 200 if shot well. So you are fine with DX. FX will make no difference and is a complete waste of money for you imho. Read this article for more info on that perspective. http://www.bythom.com/d3ord300.htm</p>

<p>The 24-70 is wrong for most people for DX because it doesn't go wide enough. It's just not right for DX. Plus, you want to travel light. You say the D700 is too heavy for your trip.</p>

<p>the answer is clear. Rememter... No camera is capable of taking good images. A good photographer, however, is capable of taking good images with any decent camera and support and technique.</p>

<p>If it were me and I was shooting Nikon, the answer would be clear. For travel, I'd get a Nikon D90/16-85VR/70-300VR and maybe a 35mm f1.8 (for really low light) and be done with it. It'll all fit in a small airplane-friendly bag. If my trip wasn't photo only, I'd take the smallest decent tripod I could. If my trip was photo only, I'd take the biggest sturdiest tripod I could.</p>

<p>If you REALLY want to keep it light, you should also look into micro 4/3, unless you're shooting a lot of sport and action. The ergonomics of those little cameras is AWESOME...</p>

[drjoder]

<p>I like Peter's suggestion about the D90, as well as his lens ideas. That would be a great set-up. You can see my lens selection at the end of my bio, all of which I researched pretty carefully (the 18-200 zoom was my "learner" lens and I no longer use it much). I am VERY happy with my D90 and don't figure I'll outgrow it for quite awhile...I'd call it a "semi-pro" camera--most of the bells and whistles for a LOT less money which you could put into a tripod and lenses. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Hell with a DSLR, For 99% for screen viewing...I'd get a P&S.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<blockquote>

<p>I've outgrown my small Nikon D60 and that I need a better one...<br />99% of the time the images are viewed on the screen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this is really the case, a Nikon D90 would suit your needs just fine, in my opinion. </p>

<p>100% of my images are only displayed on computer screens these days and, image wise, I really had no reason to upgrade from my D70 for my photography. I have a D90 now because of the better high ISO performance, larger LCD, and increased in-camera editing features, but in reality, the images from my Nikon D70 were fine. Like me, I don't think you need anything more than a Nikon D90 for your photographic needs. The Nikon D90 is more than I need.</p>

<p>As far as lenses go. There is all ready enough information archived on this forum to answer your questions. With your experience, you know at this point, what lenses you need or want for your style of shooting.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I second everything Peter has said above. My travel kit would look just a tad different: Tokina 11-16/2.8, Sigma 17-70/2.8-4, Nikon 70-300 VR, 35/1.8. Add a Nikon 85/1.8 or 105/2.8 for portraits. D90 - or its upcoming successor should do fine.<br>

Which lenses did you have before? What made them unsuitable for the task?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Leslie, Would you really want to shoot with a P&S that has such a delay before you hit the shutter? That's actually my only big issue with them for a lot of what I shoot. I want to hit the shutter and BAM have the photo, and with a P&S, I don't have that. Plus, they're so tiny, they fit in my hand awful.</p>

<p>Dieter, I'd for sure carry my 11-16, too. But that lens is VERY wide, and not for everyone. Just wide-angle junkies like you and me.</p>

<p>btw, the 18-200 is a GREAT travel lens and for 99% on-screen viewing, should probably be considered. I get surprisingly good images from mine. I've printed really big stuff from the wide end especially and gotten really good results.</p>

<p>Also, I recently started some careful testing because I got a new lens and wanted to make sure it functioned well. I compared 18-200, 18-70 (my new lens), 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8. For on-screen viewing (not the primary purpose of my testing actually), there is absolutely NO difference between any of them at all. I suspect that is true of every current lens in that range, at least from Nikon.</p>

<p>But even so, if I'm viewing on-screen, I still want a DSLR. I have a P&S. It hasn't gotten any real use in years (except in the wet, as it's water-resistant and my DSLRs are not).</p>

[ned_stevanovski]

<p>Guys,<br>

I understand that the more expensive "professional" models won't make me a better photographer. The better lens will allow me a greater range of flexibility in certain situations where the kit lens will fall a tad short.<br>

Every lens in the right hands can produce "professional" results, but the better ones will make the professionals life just a little easier.<br>

Since Peter suggested 17-55mm I've read a lot of reviews and so far sounds like a excellent choise....<br>

How is the 17-55mm compared to the 16-80mm ? Obvisouly different focal range...what about image quality ? The 17-55mm is twice as much...is the price difference justifed.<br>

What I want is to end up with a kit that I'm proud of and images that stun me..instead of ending up with regrets over lens and body choice.<br>

So far you advise has been very useful...I appriciate your comments</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Ned, your question is easy to answer: the 16-85 and 17-55 on screen will be indistinguishable at f/5.6 and smaller apertures; the 17-55 larger aperture will come in handy when the 16-85 will have to call it quits already. You are obsessed with one quality of a lens - sharpness when others like versatility might be equally important. The price difference between the 17-55 and 16-85 is justified if you need the large aperture; it isn't if you don't.<br /> As was said above, images that stun are created by the photographer, not the equipment; if they aren't forthcoming, don't blame the equipment. But equipment needs to be used within its limits. Hauling a camper behind a Porsche isn't such a good idea and a pickup truck or SUV might be a better choice - notwithstanding the fact, that the Porsche has the better performance figures.<br /> What I am saying is: the fact that a lens performs slightly better or worse under lab testing conditions doesn't mean that (a) those differences are field relevant and (b) that the lens is the right one for your purposes.<br>

For traveling, I'd likely be happy with a 10-24, a 35/1.8 and a 50-150/2.8 on a D90.<br>

As to P&S instead of DSLR - matter of choice. I shoot with a Canon G7 on occasion. When the light is good, everything is fine, but differences become obvious under a variety of circumstances.</p>

[ned_stevanovski]

<p>Images like this one for example:<br>

<a href="

Do you really think that D90 with the right lens can achieve such quality ?<br>

I'm passionate about photography and hopefully one day I will say that I'm a PRO but till that time at least I need the right kit to play with.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ned,</p>

<p>The lens has nothing to do with the "image that stuns you". The technique, lighting, hard work, and support make that happen. Google Galen Rowell and look at some images. He used cheap cameras and lenses for a lot of his images. Although he used more expensive and better lenses for a lot of stuff, some of his great images were made with an old 80-200 f4.5 - 5.6 zoom that you can buy used for a hundred bucks today. Check it out here. http://www.bythom.com/80200ens.htm</p>

<p>Again, for your purposes any lens will do it. The reason the 17-55 costs what it does (and I think it's totally the wrong lens for your purposes on many levels) is that it's built like a tank, fast at all focal lengths, and fast-focusing in nearly any light. A lens that handles well and makes you want to shoot more and enjoy shooting is worth investing in however. For instance, I now own both the 18-200 (which I leave at home for my wife to use usually) and an 18-70. In my particular case, I find the 18-200 takes slightly better images in the 18-70 range than my particular 18-70 at most focal lengths and most apertures, but I like to carry the 18-70 more because it handles way better and the difference is so slight you can't see it in the actual printed photos.</p>

<p>So... buy what makes you happy and feels good in your hands and you will take great images. Buy something that you don't enjoy using and it will probably stay at home unused.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ned, You posted that link while I was typing.</p>

<p>No, A D90 can't take that shot, a Canon 5D can't take that shot, an 8000-dollar D3X can't either, but a good photographer with a D90 could. (Sorry, I couldn't resist... you know what I'm saying, though). I don't mean to be smarmy, but not seeing what you are capable of now won't tell me if you could take that shot.</p>

<p>Put it this way, if you are a hack photographer (as I often am), you will take "hack photos" and occasionally get lucky... even if you have 20,000 bucks worth of high-end photo gear.</p>

<p>If you are a really good photographer with a sturdy tripod and a well-developed eye, you will take great photos with a D90 and a kit lens.</p>

<p>That's assuming you get yourself near cool stuff to photograph.</p>

<p>I don't know if you want to buy a magic camera that will take magic photos (not having seen your photography, I can't know this), but such a device does not, I assure you, exist.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you really think that D90 with the right lens can achieve such quality ?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, absolutely, Ned.</p>

[ned_stevanovski]

<p>Hi Peter,<br>

The reason why I'm asking all these questions is because I never owned any of these cameras...and you are right is not about the camera its all about the guy behind the camera :)<br>

Somehow...thanks to your advise..I'm now thinking that D90 will do great with 16-80mm to keep it light as it is wide enough for my landscape shots and it will be a perfect walk about lens.<br>

For my low light portraits I can get the 50mm f1.4G and job done....no need to spend all that money:))<br>

Thanks again....much appriciated,<br>

N</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>What Peter said right above - saves me having to type something very similar. Cameras don't take a shot, the photographer does. And if he is good, he doesn't take a picture but he makes or creates one. Just like the brush doesn't paint the image; the painter does. Haven't heard: nice painting, you must have a good brush. Heard: nice photograph, you must have a good camera way too often though.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Ned, Thanks for being so receptive. You'll do great.</p>

<p>That sounds like an AWESOME plan! I took my 18-200 to Alaska four years ago and it made me very happy. today, I'd buy the 16-85 VR instead (the one I think you're referring to) and crop when necessary, but I'd probably also get a 70-300 to "almost" pull in some of the wildlife we saw (at a ridiculous distance unfortunately). I had a 50 f1.8 with me and that was really great, too. You might want to consider a 35mm f1.8 as well. They're only a couple hundred bucks, and the focal length is more useful for more photography than the 50 (which I also have and love, in f1.8).</p>

<p>Consider an SB600 flash to stick in the bag, and you're still well in your price range. Then get out there and REALLY learn all the new gear WELL before you travel!</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>if you want small and versatile, ie hiking for landscapes......leica m3, 2/35mm summicron, 2/50mm summicron, 2.8/90mm elmarit</p>

<p>if you want ultimate in iq.......something like a hasselblad 500cm, cz 50mm, cz 120mm</p>

<p>if you don't want fps for shooting wildlife or sport, then you don't really want/need a small format slr.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ned,<br>

Another thing to consider, since from the topic start you seem to be open to a change of system as well. Do please first go to a store, and try and feel some cameras. Even if you massively liked your D60, it does not mean you must stick with Nikon now. While I fully agree on the D90, the Canon EOS50D could be very interesting too, and personally I would certainly try have a look at the Pentax K-x too. Just check how they feel to you, and whether the body makes sense to you (in operation / ergonomics etc.).</p>

<p>If you go Nikon, the choice you made in your last post makes a lot of sense, though for head-shot portraits, I'd recommend the 85 f/1.8 above the 50 f/1.4; but maybe you could even make one more extra step there and find out with the 16-85VR which of those 2 focal lengths will work better for you.<br>

And do not forget the SB600, a good bag and a tripod :-)</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Hmmm, maybe not something you would consider, but I'd suggest a Pentax 6II Medium Format camera. Perfect for landscapes, and portraits. Bokeh, due to larger format/sensor size, is dreamy smooth and much better than an FX sensor. Lenses are razor sharp, and relatively inexpensive. The resolution and sharpness are stellar, only FX sensors can come close to competing. Cant be beat for landscapes, and killer for portraits. The downsides would be 1. iso 800 limit for low light shooting. 2.weight, this is a heavy camera 3. cost of film and scanning. But if you can focus on fewer, better shots and dont need to be shooting every day, this may not be an issue. With lots of shooting though, it can get expensive.<br>

Check out Flickr.com and do a search for pentax 67.</p>

[randall_pukalo]

<p>Check out Zebs work, all done on an older Pentax 67I</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebandrews/sets/72157607561758005/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebandrews/sets/72157607561758005/</a></p>

[dave_b15]

<p>Landscape? Go directly to Full Frame: DO NOT PASS GO.</p>

<p>Canon 5D - better value than the D700. I would try to wait or get a refurb. Canon may be holding back the 5D III in order to blow Nikon's D700 successor out of the water like the 5D II did to the D700. Obviously, it didn't affect the folks who married Nikon, but you know, sometimes you grow apart and there's no reconciling.....</p>